Making an Assumption
From His Honour Judge Morrell
Sir: May I beg to differ from Christopher Howse's assertion that 'an empty tomb proves nothing' CA reasonable assumption', 16 August)? On the contrary, it proves everything. Circumstantially, there is no credible explanation for it other than that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. That fact supports his claim to be the Son of God in the divine sense. Unless he were so, then he was but a mortal, like Isaiah, Elijah, Mohammed, et al., persuasive but not conclusive, and Christianity would be a nonsense. The difference between the Resurrection and the supposed Assumption of Mary is that the death and interment of Jesus and his subsequent Resurrection were recorded in Scripture within a few years of their occurrence. Indeed, his death is mentioned by Tacitus. Whatever view is taken of the truth of the Resurrection, Jesus' death and interment were verified events. Although it was in the interests of both the Jewish establishment and the Roman authorities to disprove the Resurrection, they did not do so. It is a reasonable inference that this was because they were unable to do so. There is no contemporary record of the death and interment of Mary, but this does not establish that they did not happen. It may well have been that, in the very early life of the Church, she was not regarded as a sufficiently significant figure for her death and its manner to be worthy of record. After all, she is only mentioned by name once in Acts and then only peripheral
ly (Acts i 14). She may have been assumed into Heaven, but there is no objective evidence that she was. On the other hand, the empty tomb and the subsequent conduct of the Apostles are evidence that the Resurrection did really happen.
Judge Morrell
Nassineton
Previous page
