Who Moved The Stone?

by Frank Morison

'I owe Morison a great debt of gratitude. Who Moved the Stone? was an important early link in a long chain of evidence that God used to bring me into his kingdom. Morison's stirring intellectual exploration of the historical record proved to be an excellent starting point for my spiritual investigation.' --From the foreword by Lee Strobel English journalist Frank Morison had a tremendous drive to learn of Christ. The strangeness of the Resurrection story had captured his attention, and, influenced by skeptic thinkers at the turn of the century, he set out to prove that the story of Christ's Resurrection was only a myth. His probings, however, led him to discover the validity of the biblical record in a moving, personal way. Who Moved the Stone? is considered by many to be a classic apologetic on the subject of the Resurrection. Morison includes a vivid and poignant account of Christ's betrayal, trial, and death as a backdrop to his retelling of the climactic Resurrection itself. Among the chapter titles are: * The Book That Refused to Be Written * The Real Case Against the Prisoner * What Happened Before Midnight on Thursday * Between Sunset and Dawn * The Witness of the Great Stone * Some Realities of That Far-off Morning Who Moved the Stone? is a well-researched book that is as fascinating in its appeal to reason as it is accurate to the truthfulness of the Resurrection.

Genres: Christian, Religion, Christianity, Theology, Nonfiction, Faith, History

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1930

About the author

Frank Morison was the literary pseudonym for Albert Henry Ross (1881-1950), a journalist and novelist who grew up in Stratford-on-Avon, England.

Reviews

[Werner · Rating 5 out of 5]

While the Bible records many instances of miracles, in most cases Christian faith doesn't depend for its existence on belief in, or literal interpretation of any one of them, and they don't play a significant role in Christian consciousness; for instance, whether or not Jonah endured three days in the belly of a whale makes no difference in how I live my life. Christianity stands or falls, however, on the claim of one central miracle: that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead by the act of God, attesting to the truth of his message and the meaning of his death as a sacrifice for human sin, and inaugurating an ultimate redemption of the world from sin and death. If that can be successfully dismissed as a fraud or a mistake on the part of the disciples, then we're free to dismiss Jesus as a lunatic (as one of my college teachers maintained) or a charlatan in the mold of Jim Jones. But if it can't successfully be dismissed....?

British journalist Morison, convinced that supernatural religion was a myth, but respectful of the "historical Jesus" of turn-of-century (and modern) liberalism, set out to write a book about the real human drama of this "great teacher's" last days, stripped of the superstitious legends. In the course of his research, he ran squarely into the reality of which another of my college teachers, an atheist who taught the Heritage of the Bible class (not an unusual situation, in a state university!) spoke to a surprised class: while the idea of a miraculous resurrection appears to be a scientific impossibility --at least, if you define miracles as impossible-- all the purported natural explanations for the historical data also appear to be psychological, physical or historical impossibilities; yet something happened. Morison's intellectually honest research --not starting from the assumption that the Gospel accounts are inerrant Divine revelation, but rather treating them as human documents subject to historical analysis and verification-- forced him to the conclusion that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a fact, which the Gospel writers correctly report and interpret. That fact does not, in itself, validate the theology or lifestyles of any particular Christian group; it does not in fact validate any teaching except Jesus' own. But --if it be admitted-- then it does mean that his life and teaching has to become the central starting point for our understanding of ourselves and our world.

This book is clearly written, lucidly argued, and would be a fairly quick read for most people. But the relatively short time invested in it might well pay great rewards spiritually and intellectually. It's a good resource for Christians who want to know more about the evidence for our faith; but I think it would be an even better read for any atheist or skeptic who values critical thinking and honest inquiry into the questions of ultimate meaning that concern all of us.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite Christian books. Since discovering it five decades ago, I have read it through several times. It is non-fiction and is the personal story of newsman who sets out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead of achiving his goal, he finds the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting the historicity of the resurrection. Eventually, he becomes a follower of Christ.

This is good reading and a great story. Christ's resurrection is the key to Christianity. If it did not happen, our faith is meaningless. If it did happen, it validates everything else about Christianity.

[KamRun · Rating 4 out of 5]

قیام مسیح از مردگان،رکن اصلی ایمان کلیسا محسوب می شود، به طوری که پولس در رساله اول خود به قرنتیان می گوید:"و اگر مسیح زنده نشده است،پس تمام پیغام ها و موعظه های ما دروغ است و ایمان و اعتقاد شما نیز به خدا بی اساس و بیهوده می باشد. " اول قرنتیان باب 15 آیه 14

کتاب "چه کسی سنگ را جابجا کرده است؟"در سال 1953 توسط انتشارات نور جهان برای اولین (و آخرین) بار به زبان فارسی ترجمه و منتشر شده است.نویسنده در این کتاب به صورت کاملا تاریخی و به دور از هرگونه تحلیل و نگاه اگزیستانسیال به بررسی وقایع چند روز پایانی زندگی مسیح،دستگیری،محاکمه،مرگ و قیام مسیح می پردازد. موضوع و محور اصلی این کتاب، خالی بودن قبر مسیح به عنوان یک واقعیت تاریخی ست.
در فصل نخست،به چرایی نوشته شدن کتاب و چگونگی تغییر هدف نویسنده در طول نگارش و همینطور تغییر نام کتاب پرداخته می شود.در فصل دوم نویسنده به نحوه دستگیری و محاکمه مسیح می پردازد و ضمن بازگو نمودن تاریخی وقایع، نکاتی را در باب قوانین دادرسی یهود در آن زمان بیان می کند: نحوه شهادت شاهدان،اختیارات قاضی و بازپرس و نقش قیافا،کاهن اعظم در دادگاه. در فضل سوم فلش بکی به چند ساعت قبل زده می شود و نحوه دستگیری مسیح،زد و بند قیافا و پیلاتوس بیان می گردد. همچنین علت خیانت یهودا و کیفیت آن مورد بررسی دقیق و موشکافانه قرار می گیرد.در فصل چهارم کتاب،مسائل روانشناختی در مورد سه شخص مسیح،قیافا و پیلاتوس بیان می شود.در فصل پنجم مطالبی در باب وقایع عصر جمعه و چگونگی مصلوب شدن و نهایتا مرگ مسیح بیان می گردد.در فصل ششم به وقایه صبح یکشنبه، یعنی 36 ساعت پس از مرگ مسیح پرداخته می شود. نویسنده از فصل 7 تا فصل 14 به بیان نقدهای وارد بر قیام مسیح پرداخته و نقدهای مغرضانه و بی اساس را کاملا رد نموده و باقی نقدها را به خوبی با مدارک تاریخی و استدلال منطقی پاسخ می دهد

[Marsha Stokes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was really impressed with this book. The author is a former journalist who really knows how to do his homework. As the story goes, originally this man was a skeptic about the divinity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He started out his research attempting to disprove the theory. However, after trying to unbiasedly look at all the evidence, he eventually changed his beliefs.

Starting with the night Christ was arrested, this book mainly looks at those events surrounding the arrest and the events following the resurrection. I not only appreciated how slowly this man tried to uncover the facts, but how he also incorporated the historical and cultural settings of the time, and the psychology of the people involved. Those two things shed much light on the events surrounding the resurrection, giving me access to an insight I would never be able to have on my own without several history and cultural lessons!

The only reason I gave the book one star short from a perfect score, is that it could be a little difficult to read at times (the author lived almost 100 years ago and uses some pretty BIG words) and I never could figure out conclusively who the author thought "moved the stone." I could be wrong, but I gathered from the concluding chapter that the author insinuates that Christ opened the tomb himself, but he never directly affirms that insinuation. Of course, it probably is something that can never be conclusively proved anyway, but I was at least hoping to come away knowing what the author assumed happened.

[David Sarkies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Discovering the evidence supporting the resurrection
8 October 2010

The original idea behind this book was to demonstrate that the stories of Jesus Christ in the Bible (and in fact the whole Bible) were unreliable and that Christ's resurrection never happened. However the agnostic author, Frank Morison, discovered that it was not possible to actually write that book because he discovered, after a lot of pain staking research, that his original premise simply wasn't true. So, into the draw went his original concept and instead he wrote the book that has since become a world wide best seller.

Who Moved The Stone is not a theological text, and does not pretend to answer the question of who Jesus is and what his death and resurrection represent. It seems that these questions have been left for the reader to consider themselves. Instead, Morison digs through the material that we have to paint a very clear picture on what happened on that weekend over two thousand years ago, and his research and methodology is very impressive. Unfortunately, having a biased view towards these events I cannot honestly say that I have been convinced, but rather I can say that his argument and his exploration of the evidence that we have is excellent.

Many people have gone out to write a book that Morison has attempted to write and some of these books have also been published, however the difference is that Morison went into his project with an open mind. Many of the other writers (who will not be named) have not done this. They already have a direction they wish to head, and will simply make point of fact statements (such as the gospels being unreliable) without actually digging much deeper to provide supporting evidence as to why they believe that the gospels are unreliable.

Even though Morison focuses mostly on the gospels as the source, he applies logic and background information to clearly paint the picture that has been painted in this book. Further, he raises some interesting points that tradition has determined otherwise. The first is the man that was at the tomb when the women arrived that Sunday morning. Tradition says that the man was an angel, however Morison believes that this man was the writer of the gospel, Mark. Secondly tradition has it that the guards at the tomb were Roman soldiers, however Morison, from the text, demonstrates that they could not have been Roman soldiers, but rather the Temple Guards (no Roman soldier would ever have admitted to falling asleep on his post, that was punishable by death). However, there are other events that seem to slip his mind, such as Peter and John (as outlined in the Gospel of John) being told by the women that the tomb was empty, and then going to the tomb themselves to see that what the woman had said was true.

The main point that Morison seems to focus on, though, is the unprecedented rise of Christianity over the first fifty years of its life. He indicates that a group of scared fisherman become powerful speakers of an unbelievable message, and further people heard and flocked to the message. This, he suggests, could not have happened if Christ had not risen from the dead (and that the body was produced). In the end, though, his main question (which is not answered in the book) is, who moved the stone?

[Jonathan Turner · Rating 3 out of 5]

I originally bought this book after reading several of Lee Strobel's books. He stated that Frank Morison's book was one that he really found useful and had a hand in his own journey of coming to believe the Gospel claims of Jesus' resurrection. I did not enjoy it as much as Strobel did evidently. I found Morison's arguments to be too lengthy. I guess that is a strength when trying to prove something, but to read about it...makes it difficult at times...at least for me. I felt like at times I wanted to scream..."just say it already!". I also have an issue with Morison's reliance at times on so-called "apocryphal gospels" like the gospel of Hebrews. I also have an issue with Morison's questioning, it seems, of the reliance of the gospel accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John. However, I do love the fact that Morison, like many others, set out to disprove the resurrection and and instead came believe that the tomb of Jesus was empty because Jesus, after being killed, really did rise from the grave.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok. Morison does not believe in the historicity of all the gospels, nor in the preservation of scripture. His attempt to explain the resurrection therefore treats the texts as historical documents and not God's Word (as they claim to be). In fact, Morison ends up sounding a little like "The Moon Pool," by attempting to explain everything materialistically, barring of course the actual resurrection. Needless to say, such a take is not particularly convincing to Christians, although it might be a useful introduction to a casual skeptic.

[Drikus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Page 129: "Personally, I am convinced that no body of men or women could persistently and successfully have preached in Jerusalem a doctrine involving the vacancy of that tomb, without the grave itself being physically vacant. The facts were too recent; the tomb too close to that seething center of oriental life. Not all the make-believe in the world. could have purchased the utter silence of antiquity or given to the records their impressive unanimity. Only the truth itself, in all its unavoidable simplicity,
could have achieved that."

[David N. Moore · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is more of a long essay than a book. Written nearly 100 years ago, sentence structure and verbiage is quite different than what one might read if written in the more current literary style. The author considers various theories about the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, breaks these theories down into the rudimentary concepts and considers them in much the way a debater would. This was not an easy book to get through. On some considerations, he goes on and on, while on others, he assumes the reader would have no option but to agree. In the end, all theories presented, and, in the author's mind disproved, the question asked in the title is left to the reader to answer.

[Laura Bazalgette Freeman · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have mixed views on this book. There are some interesting ideas presented and I like how the book takes you through events chronologically. It’s great that Morison started off as an atheist and through his research for writing this book became a Christian. However, there is a lot of presenting opinion as fact. A big flaw is the only source used is the New Testament! The book is 95 years old and it’s of its time, including some misogynistic language. It’s ok but I can’t honestly recommend it.

[Julie Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

In attempting to unravel the tangled skein of passions, prejudices, and political intrigues with which the last days of Jesus are interwoven, it has always seemed to me a sound principle to go straight to the heart of the mystery by studying closely the nature of the charge brought against Him.

I remember this aspect of the question coming home to me one morning with new and unexpected force. I tried to picture to myself what would happen if some two thousand years hence a great controversy should arise about one who was the center of a criminal trial, say in 1922. By that time most of the essential documents would have passed into oblivion. An old faded cutting of The Times or Telegraph, or perhaps some tattered fragment of a legal book describing the case, might have survived to reach the collection of an antiquary. From these and other fragments the necessary conclusions would have to be drawn. Is it not certain that people living in that far-off day, and desiring to get at the real truth about the man concerned, would go first to the crucial question of the charge on which arraigned? They would say: "What was all the trouble about? What did his accusers say and bring against him?" If, as in the present instance, several charges appear to have been preferred, they would ask what was the real case against the prisoner.

Strongly influenced by late 19th century skeptics, Frank Morison decided to discover Jesus' true nature by looking critically at the facts surrounding his death and resurrection. He wound up being convinced of Jesus' divinity but it is a fascinating read even if you had no doubt of that fact. I have never read anything quite like this book which still holds up even though it is over 70 years old. Morison evaluates things that I never thought to question such as why Judas chose that particular night to turn Jesus over to the Pharisees, whether the Pharisees and Pontius Pilate worked hand in hand in Jesus' case, and where the apostles hid out (and why) during the trial and subsequent events. In some ways this reads like a "true life" murder mystery as the author reconstructs events and traces people's actions.

I didn't agree with every conclusion Morison made such as the identity of the young man at the tomb. Nor did I approve of every reference that was used, such as the Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Hebrews, although he did use many reliable sources such as the works of Josephus, the Jewish Historian and the few historical writings on the character of Pontius Pilate. However, those quibbles aside, this is a classic apologetics work and one well worth seeking out. You definitely will examine the facts surrounding Jesus' death with a more analytical eye.

[Marsali Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This isn't a new book, so I'd love to read something on the same topic which takes account of the latest Biblical scholarship. However it's a beautifully lucid introduction to Biblical criticism. I'll try to reduce the argument - but you need to read the book for the subtle reasoning. Basically 1: Jesus was a historical figure who died as told in the Gospels. (I think there's nobody who seriously argues with that one). 2: something changed His disciples from 'scattered sheep' to men who preached His conquering of death, from the earliest period (again, generally agreed) and were willing to die for that belief (historical record) 3: that preaching began in Jerusalem, where Jesus' tomb was, within weeks of his death (generally agreed) - therefore 4: that tomb must have been known to be empty to everyone in Jerusalem, backing up the belief in Jesus risen in the body.
Too simplistic - I recommend reading this one for yourselves. Try not to get too annoyed at the sentences beginning 'Personally ..' or any generalisations about 'women' eg prone to delays on joint excursions. When he was writing we hadn't got the vote yet.
A really worthwhile pre-Easter reading, especially if you missed out on church as a child, and aren't sure what the fuss is about.

[Ron Westrup · Rating 2 out of 5]

The information contained within this book is potentially exciting and revealing, however, sadly the author's style of writing does little to help the reader and has served to make the facts unclear and confused. I found the book hard work and was conscious throughout that it need not have been so if the style of writing had been less of a disquisition.

[Paul Creasy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book

Highly readable and very compelling. A good book to add to any person interested in apologetics' library. Highly recommended without reservation.

[Stephen Gallup · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Usually, when one is trying to reconstruct a scene, after an interval of centuries, and, as in this case, with records which are admittedly brief, one has to rely upon the cumulative effect of small details to discover the key facts of the situation."

The author's observation above points to what may be the greatest challenge for modern readers of the Bible. It's entirely possible for us to absorb the basic thrust of a story without feeling particularly moved, because of a sense of skating on the surface. The accounts are "admittedly brief." (For that reason, the sermons that mean most to me are those that dig into a passage, bring it to life, and expand on its significance.)

Who Moved the Stone is a classic attempt to get behind the scenes of the Crucifixion story, beginning with evidence of what must have been happening among the people who decided late Thursday evening that Jesus would have to be arrested and executed before sundown the next day, and continuing in the same manner through all the subsequent events, with special emphasis on the arrival at the tomb of the women on Sunday morning. Did all of it occur as reported, especially the Resurrection? Morison says his original purpose in scrutinizing the details was to show that part at least did not occur, but the cumulative effect of all those details convinced him otherwise.

The presentation is somewhat dry in its step-by-step logic as applied to the implications of every bit of information provided. I was reminded of the way a courtroom attorney constructs an argument, sometimes at the risk of getting deeper into the weeds than his jury can bear to go, emerging from time to time with a conclusion that refutes the opposing point of view. Patience is required to stay with him, but that is the path to understanding and, hopefully, accepting his point of view.

One example of the methodology at work here is the examination of all conceivable alternative explanations for the women's discovery that the tomb was open:

Had someone gotten there ahead of them and removed the body? Conceivably, that could have been done by the disciples, or by the Jewish or Roman authorities, or even by the tomb's owner, Joseph of Arimathea (who might have intended it only as a temporary holding place). Morison carefully assembles what is known and can be inferred about the disciples' whereabouts and state of mind, about Pilate's expressed attitude toward all this, and the window of time in which such a deed could have occurred, and then asks, even if it did, whether it could have remained a secret in view of what followed.

Is it at all possible that Jesus had not died? Did he simply regain consciousness and leave under his own power? This explanation is included and examined "for the sake of completeness," but it's the least likely in view of the injuries he had sustained.

Alternatively, did the women mistakenly go to the wrong tomb? If so, perhaps the person who told them "He is not here" was simply trying to correct their error. Yes, that much is plausible, but surely any such confusion would have been resolved in short order when people started saying he had risen.

Finally, could it be that the women never even went to the tomb that day? Maybe this part of the story was invented much later. No mention is made of the women's early-morning visit in subsequent proclamations, e.g., in Acts, but Morison suggests that could be due to the fact that by then the empty tomb, just 2000 yards away, was common knowledge. "The condition of the grave itself would become the final arbiter in the matter." Another reason to avoid saying they'd been there would be to avoid feeding the suspicion that Jesus' followers had stolen the body.

Ultimately, two facts narrow down the options. First, there was no body and no occupied grave that anyone could point to in rebutting the claim that he had risen. Surely, a lot of people would have had motivation to do so if they could. "Think of the highly placed Sadducees who were prepared to go to almost any length to discredit and overthrow the cause." Secondly, there is no likely scenario in which anyone removed the body and kept quiet about having done so. Finally, there is the utter transformation in the behavior of the disciples. At the time of the Crucifixion they were scattered, frightened, disillusioned. Shortly thereafter they were loudly and fearlessly proclaiming the Resurrection.

Morison dispenses with arguments that it was a mistake or a hoax. Despite a somewhat plodding delivery, he plausibly discusses motivations and fills in gaps in the story, and brings it to life in a way more compelling than any film rendition I've ever seen. (Indeed, I'm tempted to try my own hand at writing a screenplay based on this.)

Several readers have complained that this book does not answer the question of its title. And yet it does put forth an interesting hypothesis. Matthew 27:64-65 states that on Saturday the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to set a guard at the tomb to prevent anyone from taking the body, and that Pilate (being thoroughly disgusted with the whole affair) told them to post their own guards. Presumably they did. If so, while the Temple Guards were there, perhaps before dawn Sunday morning, something unexpected happened. Perhaps it was they who moved the stone, upon hearing a sound within. Their story is not recorded in Scripture, but they could have made an abrupt and perhaps noisy departure. In Mark's version of the story, when the women arrived shortly thereafter, they found a young man, who told them, "He goeth before you into Galilee." Morison reminds us that Jesus had used the same words Thursday night when leading the eleven disciples to Gethsemane, and says there was also an unnamed young man present (Mark 14:51-52). "If St. Mark withheld his name it must have been for very good and sufficient reason," but maybe this person had been attracted by the guards' departure.

Well, it warrants some thought.

[Garrett Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent in depth study of the period of time between Christ’s betrayal and resurrection. Coming from the perspective of a journalist, every angle of historical significance is analyzed to give a most likely hypothesis to many difficult questions raised during a cursory reading of the gospels. Frank Morrison does an excellent job taking you into the context of first century Jerusalem and teasing out what different possibilities of truth would have meant to people in that time and place. While I don’t necessarily fully agree with every conclusion in this book it is welll worth a read for any question who cares about the historicity of the gospels.

[Helen the Bassist · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5*
I feel slightly mean about deducting half a star for the author's sexism because he probably knew no better in the 1920s / 30s, but only slightly!

I think the arguments developed around why the key Easter period as described in the Gospels can be considered trustworthy were very well developed. An occasional archaic turn of phrase did not detract from the readability and I can see why this book impacted so much on Mike Peters (of The Alarm) when he read it on a train.

[John Carnegie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant - Good for Christians and non-believers to read a cleverly written story of the events two thousand years ago. The author does not answer the question but puts across a good open opinion, with facts from the NT Bible involving the last few days of Jesus Christ and following "events" for the local population. He writes everything in an uplifting unbiased way with no particular leaning using evidence from many angles written in the four Gospels.

[val]

The conclusion was an angel moved the stone btw

[Scott Petty · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book provides much for thoughtful consideration I found it frustrating. A book that is an apologetic for the physical resurrection of our Lord should surely contain more thought of the working of God. The author's logic and argument are helpful and interesting. His lack of belief in the preservation and authority of scripture, references to scriptural corruption, and human error and manipulation in their transmission are not. He also dismisses much of the supernatural in the resurrection accounts and fixates on the women at the tomb and the man they encountered.

[kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was an excelent read for the most part. The author used logic to prove that something out of the ordanary happened between Christ's arrest and the discovery of the empty tomb. Using the gospels and other sources from the 1st century to destroy the theory's that ranged from Christ's body being stolen, to passing out on the cross only to revive later. Also dismantling the idea that there was no trial and exicution. This book points to the only possible explanination that Christ was reserctied and appeared to His followers. Dispite how extrodanary this claim is, it is the only one that can account for the change of the apostles from cowards who ran away and denighed Christ; to boldly proclaiming the Word even when it lead to their own grizzly deaths. Special consideration is made for Saul/Paul who went from bitter advisary to greatest spokesman for the new faith.

[William · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am deeply indebted to this author. I cannot recall, in recent memory, the last time I experienced as much joy and peace as I did when I finally came to the end of this miserable reading experience. The authors ability to extrapolate objective truths from the most innocuous of subjective details is the hallmark of this book. Morrison magnum opus stands as a testimony to one man’s ability to wield logical fallacies like a hammer. He believes the edifice he has constructed to be permanent having placed on a solid foundation of logic. In reality he has constructed a sand castle that even now is being carried from my mind by the gentle waves of time.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was written by a man who setout to prove the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax. In the end, he convinced himself that it had to be true. This book details the few days of events following the death and burial of Jesus.

[Dayo Adewoye · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book has deservedly been known as a classic apologetics text. It probes the last few hours of Jesus, alongside his death and resurrection. And it makes a convincing case for the truth of Christ's rising from the dead.

[David]

It was the guards.

[Michael Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

An attorney investigates the gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. This is a 1930 precursor to such modern-day authors as attorney and investigative journalist Lee Strobel.

[Colleen Cercone · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting arguments but the writing was really hard to stay engaged with. And the common references to women being weak made me question him.

[Robert Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author poses the important question about the empty tomb of the crucified Christ which is well worth meditating about. He draws the reader into a fascinating exploration of the historical facts which surround the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been brutally tortured and killed on Friday, the eve of the Jewish Sabbath, and whose corpse was laid, wrapped in a burial shroud in the Jewish custom, and then sealed in the newly hewn out tomb which Joseph of Aramithea had commissioned for his own use (when the time came). The brutalized, beaten and bloodied corpse, pierced through both hands and both feet by the large iron nails the Romans to nail, support and fix the weight of the victim vertically on a crucifix and, furthermore which had also suffered a Roman lance thrust into it through the side of the ribcage and into the heart as a powerful and final confirmation that Christ really was dead (confirmation as requested by Pontius Pilate), this disfigured corpse was never found by the authorities after the tomb was discovered to have been un-sealed when Mary of Magdala visited it in the very early hours of Sunday morning. Jesus' body was never ever found by the Roman or Jewish authorities, even though the Jewish High Priest had requested and been granted permission by the Roman Procurator, Pilate, to post a round the clock guard on the tomb to insure that this badly wounded crucified corpse could not be stolen away and it's absence used by Jesus's followers as propaganda in support of Jesus' claim that if they, the Jewish religious hierarchy, would destroy this temple (meaning Jesus's body) he would raise it in three days. The fact the Jewish authorities posted a guard on the tomb of the dead Christ is evidence that they knew exactly what Jesus had meant about destroying of 'this temple' and that he would raise it in three days. I personally think that the most likely explanation of the stone being rolled back is that the guards did it themselves; possibly to make sure the corpse was still dead, or perhaps they wrongly surmised there must be money or valuables buried with the corpse or why else would they be guarding it(?), and that the reason Mary of Magdala found them lying 'like dead men' themselves is precisely because they were in a catatonic state of shock and terror when the glorified Christ risen from the dead emerged from the in-sealed entrance in the semi-darkness of those very early dawn hours of Sunday morning. We know that Jesus himself did not need the stone rolled away in order to exit the tomb after he had risen from the dead because his body was now glorified and he appeared and disappeared at will without the need for the unlocking of doors e.g. when he appeared in the midst of the ten disciples and 'doubting' Thomas was not present. A week later when Thomas was with them Jesus appeared to them all again and showed Thomas his pierced hands and his side. So walls and locked rooms were no barrier at all to Jesus after he had resurrected from the dead. We know Jesus was not a phantom or ghost because the Gospels recount that he ate with his disciples, he was a real physically present human person (but now glorified).
In summary, Jesus didn't need to move the stone, Mary of Magdala physically couldn't have moved the stone, the disciples had all run away like the weak cowards that they were at the time of Christ's Passion, arrest, kangaroo court trials and Crucifixion so psychologically there is no way to rationally conclude that they had the stomache or resolve commit a sacrilegious theft of Jesus's mortal remains from the tomb, therefore I personally believe it was the guards curiosity that brought it about. They, and the world, got more than they bargained for!

[Pastor Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is another (older) work that was the conclusion of an attorney who set out to disprove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but ended up concluding that the Gospel accounts are true. Others include Simon Greenleaf, Josh McDowell, and then there is the journalist Lee Strobel, etc. However, the author reaches his positive conclusion in spite of some very wrong premises accepted by the author about the information and the Bible itself.

I am glad that Frank came to believe in the resurrected Jesus. But I found this book hard to enjoy much of the time. For starters, he would concede things like the idea that the last twelve verse of Mark were not written by Mark (debunked by Dean John W. Burgon in the 1880's and even confirmed as authentic text by textual critics like the late Bruce Metzger). He also concedes that verse 8 was not the final word from Mark. So, what does Frank believe? That the ending of Mark was LOST!

The idea that God LOST whole portions of His Book is something only a modern Laodicean would be spiritually dumbed-down enough to believe. And don't even attempt to correct me by saying He simply "allowed" it to be lost. It's His word. God PROMISED to keep it. See Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35, etc.

This is just one of several examples of this sort of short-sighted and very wrong thinking in this book. It bears repeating that we are thrilled when someone comes to believe that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ were true, historical events. Now, they should REPENT and BELIEVE on that Gospel for eternal salvation.

If this book helps anyone to do that, we thank God for it. But I wouldn't recommend this book be used for that end.

The answer to "Who moved the stone?" is found in Matthew 28:2 (KJV) "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it."

[Wilbur Omae · Rating 3 out of 5]

'There may be, and, as the writer thinks, there certainly is, a deep and profoundly historical basis for that much disputed sentence in the Apostles' Creed "The third day he rose again from the dead."'

So ends the book. Frank Morrison takes a look at the last few days of Jesus, and -- using commonly accepted accounts (even among the students of historical criticism) devoid of the supernatural -- weaves the case for the certainty of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Essentially, he says this: it is either we throw out the entirety of the gospels and other early writings, or -- if we accept even part of them -- agree that a historical Jesus died and rose again. To him, there can be no other explanation for the empty tomb.

One of the things that stood out for me was the effect that Jesus (in life and death) had on individuals. How He affected Pilate, the disciples, the women, the Sanhedrin. Plenty for anyone to chew on. Or the passage that first drew me to the book: 'In his haste, or perhaps out of a coarse wish to turn the tables on his tormentors, he had written in three languages the immortal inscription: "This is the King of the Jews." They wanted him to alter it. He refused. "What I have written I have written" -- the real Pilate came out at last, when the supreme moment of his own personal and individual crisis had passed.'

There are, of course, things that Christians would find controversial (the association of the young man in the tomb with John Mark rather than an angel quickly comes to mind). There are some holes in arguments here and there. But in the main, the book will reward your reading it.