Sir, - I have always been a bit uneasy about the use of the secular press to argue matters of religious belief. So I was particularly concerned to see a major article in your Weekend section of March 30th which purported to argue for and against a physical Easter resurrection: "So did he really rise?"
Specifically, your religious affairs correspondent sets out what he believes to be the case for and against - or does he? He seems to rely substantially on the story of "doubting Thomas". If Thomas did, as he suggests, put his finger into the hole in "my hands", then that would suggest a physical resurrection. Never mind that the figure appeared in a room that had the doors bolted. Never mind that we now know that the nails in Roman crucifixion were not put in the hands.
Anybody who has read John 21 knows that Thomas did not touch the wounds. Indeed, Jesus said elsewhere to Mary Magdalene: "Touch me not. . ." - and we recall that in the story of the two disciples at Emmaus, when they tried to embrace Jesus, "he vanished". Almost at the same time he was seen in Galilee. Does all this suggest a physical resurrection?
Mr McGarry makes much of the removal of the large stone blocking the entrance to the tomb, but ignores the explanation for this in Matthew 28: a "great earthquake". Altogether I am not impressed by the scholarship of this article.
Why not just accept what we were told in school that these are mysteries that will be revealed to us when we depart this mortal state? Who now believes literally that Noah managed to get two of every living creature into the Ark to survive the flood, or that God made the world in seven days about 4000 BC? These are wonderful parables that help us with difficult spiritual concepts. Why discuss their merits in The Irish Times unless we can bring some expertise into the debate? Can we? - Yours, etc.,
W.J. MURPHY,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.