|
|
Can the Resurrection be validated using the standards of accuracy, reliability, and authenticity? That is the ultimate question underlying The Resurrection Report by well-known journalist and author William Proctor. Proctor's answer is yes. He points out that "the Christian faith is a useless, meaningless exercise if Jesus did not indeed rise from the dead," but he acknowledges in the first few pages that he does not intend to offer "proof of the Resurrection events, because ultimately, that must be a matter of faith and basic assumptions." We understand that he is applying the tests of good journalism to the reports of the event rather than trying to prove or disprove it.
In his analysis, he first carefully explains the basic rules and modus operandi for good investigative reporting. There's no doubt by any standards that this event is newsworthy. Proctor reminds us that reporters are to check the facts, include conflicting sources, name sources of quotations and facts, keep personal prejudices out of the story (although he acknowledges that bias and editorializing will always be present in stories to some extent), ask tough questions, analyze, interpret and draw conclusions, write clearly and logically, etc.
He then turns his scrutiny to the six Resurrection reporters: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul. Here his analysis is engrossing as he makes and supports assertions like the following: Peter was a ghost collaborator for Mark; Luke relied heavily on the eyewitness interview for his material; John's Gospel was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Proctor bases these insights on both careful combinations of past records and events as well as his own extensive reporting experience.
He also raises the root question about what it means to be "literal" before giving his own "Resurrection Report" based on all six reports. Divided by subheads ("Spices at Sundown," "Cover-Up Consummated," "A Meeting with a Ghost," etc.), this journalistic-style account gives readers a fresh look at the crux of the Christian faith. But Proctor is no sensationalist. He gives the sources and explanations for each portion of his account and applies the six classic questions that determine the authenticity of any reporting: Who? What? When? Where? How? and Why?
The book has special value for people with questions and skeptics. Scholars also will find it interesting, although it is not written for them. Proctor is writing for the general reader who is perhaps a little jaded after reading the gospel accounts time after time for devotions. He makes you think, and that's a good thing as Easter approaches.
Roger Fanslow is a reviewer in Portland, OR.
Copyright ©1998 ProMotion, inc.
www@acloserlook.com
Support your