Resurrection rooted in fact

MALACHI O’doherty (Comment, April 6) outlines his retrospective view of religious practice during his early years.

Apparently, he follows no religion, yet feels the drawing power of John’s Gospel.

Sceptics suggest that this account was written as many as 200 years after the events described — plenty of time for legends to form.

However, the Rylands papyrus (a fragment of John’s Gospel), dating from AD 130, shows that the original was written within the first century.

On the central issue of whether Jesus rose physically to life, Malachi offers no opinion.

But this is vital: if he is alive, then all he said and did are vindicated. It means that whoever trusts their all to him will be saved.

Believers and doubters alike agree that the body of Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. It is also accepted that the tomb was empty by the first day of the week.

There are good reasons for believing that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.

That women were the first to encounter him is telling, since society then gave them such a low status that their testimony would be disregarded in court.

If the gospel authors fabricated the story, they would not have chosen women as principal witnesses.

And would demoralised followers who saw their leader die be suddenly transformed into dynamic proclaimers of the gospel they were willing to die for if they hadn’t actually seen him?

There is much more that can be said. Anyone who is keen to follow the converging lines of evidence can find it in books such as Who Moved the Stone? by Frank Morrison.

The Christian faith is reasonable and evidence-based. I believe that an honest doubter, such as Thomas, who works through the arguments will, like him, say, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:26).

DONALD GALE By email