Arguments against the empty tomb

[YahWhat]

1. Paul indicates no knowledge of it. He does not reference a Joseph of Arimathea, angel, the women, - nothing. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention in 1 Cor 15. The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He goes through all that "spiritual body" stuff but not mentioning the empty tomb is quite suspicious.

=====================================

2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark and John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced
by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel.

=====================================

3. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions" were quite common in this time period. A Jewish example is found in the Testament of Job 39:8-13; 40:3-4. The disappearance/assumption motif is used to explain what happened to the bones of Job's dead children. They were taken up to heaven by God and glorified.

A more interesting Greek example is found in the 1st century novel by Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven.

Sound familiar?

This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives. I'm not arguing for direct dependency or copying but it does show that the empty tomb story in Mark was nothing new.

Furthermore, the gospels also depict people believing that John the Baptist rose from the dead after his execution and even that Jesus was the risen John (see Mark 6:14 and Mark 8:27-28). The idea that John had risen from the dead came from the belief in the coming general resurrection. Obviously, the concept of a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air when Jesus was executed.
http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus

=====================================

4. It conflicts with archaeology. In regards to Mark's "rolling stone" door (Mark 16:3-4) the use of the Greek word (to roll away) indicates that the stone closing the tomb was round. A survey of First Century Jewish rock cut and cave tombs by Amos Kloner found that 98% of them were closed by square stones prior to 70 AD, with only 4 (out of over 900) closed by a rolling round stone. After 70 AD, however, round stones became far more common. So this detail seems to be indicating the kind of tomb in the later First Century (when Mark was writing), or it could be that the tomb itself, an element conspicuous by its absence in Paul's version, was an addition to the story.

Kloner says that the word can also mean "to move" but he is incorrect. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0617.html

The word was only used in regards to round objects.

Source: Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?

=====================================

5. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the narrator of Mark had a strong motivation to present his hero Jesus as receiving a noble rather than a shameful burial, consistent with tendencies in ancient hero biography.

Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Matthew and John turn Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus. Mark has the body wrapped in a newly purchased linen cloth and laid in "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock." Matthew 27:60 has the variant "in the tomb, which HE HAD hewn in the rock" - that means Joseph himself or workers commissioned by him hewed out the tomb which is not the case in Mark. Luke 23:53 has "rock-hewn tomb." Matthew says that he laid him in his own tomb and Luke 23:53/John 19:41 notes that it was a tomb "Where no one had ever been laid." All of these are later additions to the oldest Gospel Mark and they are all apologetic attempts to show that Jesus had an honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one.

It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin, which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews. But even if we grant the possibility, it is more likely that a "rich distinguished councillor" would not climb up the cross himself to get a dead body down but rather have his servants do it. Most crucified criminals were left on the cross to rot then later thrown into a common criminals grave. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Din), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

Therefore, we should infer this is most likely what happened to Jesus' body. According to Paul (Acts 13:29) it was "the Jews" who buried Jesus. Acts 13:29 also fits perfectly well with him being thrown in a common criminal's tomb.

"When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb."

The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."

The earliest Christians and the author of Mark could have seen in Jesus' body being placed in such a burial site the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death." So the composer of the narrative just "fulfilled" prophecy by creating the story of the empty tomb.

In addition to Acts 13:27-29 which records that it was "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", there are other traditions that indicate things were not as straightforward as the canonical gospels might indicate. For example, the Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. An early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1.

"If the corpse of Jesus had really been removed by his enemies, the tradition would have grown like this. Jesus was laid in a common grave, like anyone who had been executed. Soon people found this intolerable, but knew that none of his followers had shown him, or could have shown him, the least service of love. A stranger did, and preserved his body from the ultimate shame. Now this could not have been an insignificant stranger, but had to be someone who could dare to go to the court authorities; he had to be a counsellor. The name was to be found in the Gospel tradition, like any other name, and gradually - this last phase is reflected in the Gospels themselves - the pious stranger became a secret...or even an open...disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57), someone who did not approve of the counsel and action of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51)...someone who was a friend not only of Jesus but also of Pilate (Gospel of Peter 3). So the story of Joseph of Arimathea is not completely impossible to invent." Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, pg. 180.

=====================================

6. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains.

[Inigo Montoya]

The bad news is that this post has no question for debate.

The good news is that you bring forth statements worth responding to by theists on here; some that will take some creative maneuvering, as well.

I suggest you edit the title and conclude with a debate question. It at least deserves to be argued.

[YahWhat]

The bad news is that this post has no question for debate.

The good news is that you bring forth statements worth responding to by theists on here; some that will take some creative maneuvering, as well.

I suggest you edit the title and conclude with a debate question. It at least deserves to be argued.

All points are up for debate. I'm surprised no one has tried yet.

[Goose]

This thread looks a little lonely.

All points are up for debate. I'm surprised no one has tried yet.

I didn't initially respond because I didn't really see anything here that falsified the empty tomb story. The irony is that one of your points even provided evidence that supported the empty tomb. But just so you don't get the mistaken impression that a lack of response is evidence that the arguments can't be responded to...

-----

1. Paul indicates no knowledge of it.

Argument from Silence. Paul was writing letters to churches who had been falling away from the Christian path. He was not writing a biography so we shouldnt necessarily expect the details of Jesus life. But Paul does imply an empty tomb in 1 Corth 15 when he says Jesus was ...buried, that he was raised... If Jesus was buried and raised to life it logically follows the tomb was empty. Additionally, Paul is quoted in Acts (13:29) as speaking of the tomb directly.

2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse.

Its generally agreed that John is not dependent on the synoptic gospels. So even if we eliminate Matthew and Luke due to literary dependency on Mark we still have literary independency between Mark and John. Thus we have multiple attestation. Multiple attestation from an eyewitness account (John) and an account written by someone who knew the eyewitness Peter (Mark) no-less. Historically speaking thats about as solid evidential support as well find even if we dont grant traditional authorship.

If you want to argue John is not independent because it was written later and therefore was likely influenced by the other Gospels thats no problem either so long as we apply this methodology to other history. For instance it would mean the assassination of Caesar is not multiply attested to either since Suetonius was later than Plutarch and Plutarch was later then Nicolas of Damascus. Cicero doesnt give any more details of the assassination than Paul does about the empty tomb so he doesnt count either. In short, very little from ancient history would be multiply attested to using this methodology so it cant really be viewed as a knock against the empty tomb.

3. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions" were quite common in this time period...I'm not arguing for direct dependency or copying but it does show that the empty tomb story in Mark was nothing new.

So what if it was nothing new? If you arent arguing for a copy-cat thesis whats your point?

4. It conflicts with archaeology.

No it doesnt. In fact ironically youve provided evidence that validates the empty tomb narrative as there have been tombs closed by a rolling stone discovered. Thereby supporting the empty tomb story. You can argue it was statistically unlikely based on what weve so far discovered but you cant argue the narrative conflicts with archaeology since archaeology directly supports it.

5. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the narrator of Mark had a strong motivation to present his hero Jesus as receiving a noble rather than a shameful burial, consistent with tendencies in ancient hero biography.

The charge of bias alone isnt an argument against the tomb. Virtually everything in the ancient world was written by a biased source with an agenda. Wed have to throw away piles of history under this criterion. For example wed know almost nothing about the exploits of one of Romes greatest generals " Agricola " since his only surviving biography was written by a biased source " Tacitus.

The remainder of your arguments here are based primarily upon Jewish literature that wasnt complied until much later and may not accurately reflect customs and provisions of the early first century. In fact, it could even be argued these later provisions youve quoted from the Rabbinic literature were a reaction to the empty tomb of Jesus.

6. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains.

A lot of speculation here. We dont know where Gamaliels tomb is either so I dont see why this is an issue.

[Inigo Montoya]

... so long as we apply this methodology to other history. For instance it would mean the assassination of Caesar is not multiply attested to either since Suetonius was later than Plutarch and Plutarch was later then Nicolas of Damascus. Cicero doesnt give any more details of the assassination than Paul does about the empty tomb so he doesnt count either...

Goose. Honest question.

If Seutonius, Plutarch and 7 of Caesar's closest friends and family also wrote that Caesar had come back to life a week later and visited with some folk before ascending into the clouds, would you accept it as having happened?

This is the hypothetical application of historical methodology and multiple attestation people like you and WinePusher insist should apply equally to religious narratives (or is just Christian?) if all of history isn't to be thrown out.

Would you believe this story of Caesar's resurrection?

[Zzyzx]

.

If Seutonius, Plutarch and 7 of Caesar's closest friends and family also wrote that Caesar had come back to life a week later and visited with some folk before ascending into the clouds, would you accept it as having happened?

This is an excellent and telling question for any Bible Believer who says "You accept historical accounts so you should accept Bible stories as true" or "If you discount Bible stories to be consistent you must discount much or all of ancient history."

Many Non-Believers accept that a wandering rabbi, perhaps named something like Jesus, preached for a few years and was executed.

What is NOT believed is that he performed "miracles" and came back from the dead.

Similar supernatural claims made about other historical or religious figures are not accepted (even by most Theists).

[YahWhat]

This thread looks a little lonely.

1. Paul indicates no knowledge of it.

Argument from Silence. Paul was writing letters to churches who had been falling away from the Christian path. He was not writing a biography so we shouldnt necessarily expect the details of Jesus life. But Paul does imply an empty tomb in 1 Corth 15 when he says Jesus was ...buried, that he was raised... If Jesus was buried and raised to life it logically follows the tomb was empty. Additionally, Paul is quoted in Acts (13:29) as speaking of the tomb directly.

I acknowledged "that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity..."

Since Paul only mentions "he was buried" and no other details from the empty tomb narrative, you can't infer that he was "implying" an empty tomb. You're looking at the primary sources in the light of the later empty tomb story, and you're seeing it as "implied" when it is clearly not there. Acts never mentions an "empty tomb" and it may be the case, since Paul never mentions a "tomb" in his primary material, that the reference to a "tomb" in Acts is Lukan redaction.

That "he was buried" showed that he was dead. This makes the absence of any mention of the empty tomb more significant, not less. That "he was raised" only means he was "raised from the dead" in some sense.

In regards, to the word "raised" (eg"gertai), it has a wide range of meaning which you're trying to restrict to only pertaining to a physical body - again, because you're letting the later gospel accounts color your investigation of the primary sources.

Eg"gertai -

1) to arouse, cause to rise
1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

"Some scholars have argued that the empty tomb is implied by the information he was buried (1 Cor. 15.4). For example, Craig comments that in saying that Jesus died " was buried " was raised " appeared, one automatically implies that an empty grave has been left behind. This reflects Craigs own beliefs rather than those of Paul and other Second Temple Jews, and his supporting arguments are extraordinarily weak. For example, he tries to use the literal meaning of Pauls Greek word egegertai (1 Cor. 15.4), which is usually translated into English with a past tense, was raised, and which is a perfect tense which effectively means that Jesus was raised " a single event on the third day " and that he is still raised, so a present state, not a mere past event. Craig argues that, like the other major New Testament word for rising from the dead (anistanai), egeirein means awaken from sleep....All this involves taking language very literally at a time when beliefs were not sufficiently fixed for us to do so. Like Jesus own Aramaic term qum, these words could be used analogically to the degree that any author found fruitful to describe an incomprehensible act of God. Craigs arguments illustrate the extent to which he thinks logically only within his ideological convictions, and their function is to remove one of the most important pieces of evidence in the primary sources: neither the earliest kerygmatic formulation, nor Paul himself, mentions the empty tomb." - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458-459
https://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0a ... &q&f=false

Its generally agreed that John is not dependent on the synoptic gospels. So even if we eliminate Matthew and Luke due to literary dependency on Mark we still have literary independency between Mark and John. Thus we have multiple attestation.

I never said that John was dependent on the synoptic gospels. I said that the Markan empty tomb narrative was probably well known in the Christian communities and influenced the author of John before he wrote his gospel. Can you demonstrate that the bare bones "empty tomb" motif didn't somehow make it's way from Mark to John considering it was in circulation well before and copied by the other evangelists? In any case, even if John were independent of Mark, they could have still derived the story of Joseph of Arimathea from a common source shared between Mark and the other canonical Gospels. In order to demonstrate your claim of multiple attestation you would have to show that John was truly independent of the Markan empty tomb narrative instead of just asserting it.

Multiple attestation from an eyewitness account (John) and an account written by someone who knew the eyewitness Peter (Mark) no-less. Historically speaking thats about as solid evidential support as well find even if we dont grant traditional authorship.

The consensus of modern scholarship maintains the anonymity of the gospels. This, however, is a red herring and a topic for another debate. Moreover, in How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research, SBL 129(1), pp. 177-197, Judith Redman notes on pg. 190:

Regardless of how convincing [Bauckhams] arguments are about the control that the eyewitnesses may have had over the gospel accounts, as we can see from the psychological research, eyewitness control is no guarantee of accuracy. It is probably not even reasonable to assume that the eyewitnesses aimed for complete historicity."

And summarizing on p. 193:
In other words, it seems likely that the answer to the question How much can we reliably know about the Jesus of history from the gospels in the light of Bauckhams work? is still Not much. Even if, as Bauckham suggests, at least parts of the Gospels as accounts were controlled by eyewitnesses until very close to the time at which they were recorded, this does not give them a greater probability of accuracy than does the notion that they are the highly redacted documents that are argued by the form critics. It simply reduces the potential role of the redactors in producing variations."
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27821012?se ... b_contents

If you want to argue John is not independent because it was written later and therefore was likely influenced by the other Gospels thats no problem either so long as we apply this methodology to other history. For instance it would mean the assassination of Caesar is not multiply attested to either since Suetonius was later than Plutarch and Plutarch was later then Nicolas of Damascus. Cicero doesnt give any more details of the assassination than Paul does about the empty tomb so he doesnt count either. In short, very little from ancient history would be multiply attested to using this methodology so it cant really be viewed as a knock against the empty tomb.

Irrelevant and shifting of the burden of proof. Demonstrate that the empty tomb story in John is completely independent of Mark's gospel and/or sources. Otherwise, we have no reason to accept your assertion of multiple attestation.

So what if it was nothing new? If you arent arguing for a copy-cat thesis whats your point?

My point was this:
"This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives."

The gospels were nothing different in this regard. Just using Romulus alone, we can demonstrate that the number of parallels shared between the gospels and Greco-Roman literature are quite striking indeed!



Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25765965?se ... b_contents

So again, direct copying is impossible to prove but it's quite clear that the gospels were using a set of established literary ideas from other myths.

Justin Martyr even admits that they applied myths from other deities to Jesus:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 21.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. - Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 22

4. It conflicts with archaeology.

No it doesnt. In fact ironically youve provided evidence that validates the empty tomb narrative as there have been tombs closed by a rolling stone discovered. Thereby supporting the empty tomb story. You can argue it was statistically unlikely based on what weve so far discovered but you cant argue the narrative conflicts with archaeology since archaeology directly supports it.

4 tombs, out of over 900, had a rolling stone door. Ok I'll go with the odds that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb with a rolling stone door since that type of tomb was basically non-existent in Jesus' time. The tombs with a rolling stone door prior to 70 CE were reserved for the richest of the rich, kings queens and such. So yes, I accept your argument that it was "statistically unlikely" that Jesus, the Jewish peasant convicted and executed for sedition, was buried in a tomb with a rolling stone door.

5. The charge of bias alone isnt an argument against the tomb. Virtually everything in the ancient world was written by a biased source with an agenda.

And what do you make of the additional details accumulating in regards to the burial narrative? The addition of details that go out of the way to describe a proper and honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one? What of the later Christianizing of Joseph?

Wed have to throw away piles of history under this criterion. For example wed know almost nothing about the exploits of one of Romes greatest generals " Agricola " since his only surviving biography was written by a biased source " Tacitus.

Did other authors tack on details to Tacitus' account? Can legendary accretion be spotted as in the case with the gospels? Does Tacitus report that Agricola rose from the dead inciting a religious following? If not, then I fail to see the relevance here.

The remainder of your arguments here are based primarily upon Jewish literature that wasnt complied until much later and may not accurately reflect customs and provisions of the early first century. In fact, it could even be argued these later provisions youve quoted from the Rabbinic literature were a reaction to the empty tomb of Jesus.

We have no reason to doubt that the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition. You've surely given no reason here to doubt it. Moreover, the Romans usually left the bodies of crucified people on the cross to rot and be eaten by dogs and vultures so we have reason to doubt that they would hand a convicted criminal over to those who requested his body. Considering it was out of character for Pilate and the Romans to do so as they did not care about appeasing Jewish sensitivities, we have reason to doubt that Jesus was buried in any "tomb" at all let alone an empty or "new" one without any other bodies in it.

Finally, you did not respond to my main argument. Luke has Paul say (Acts 13:29) it was "the Jews" who buried Jesus "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb". This conflicts with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone. An early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 "then they (the Jews) drew the nails..." and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DFsJC ... &q&f=false

All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition.

A lot of speculation here. We dont know where Gamaliels tomb is either so I dont see why this is an issue.

That's interesting. Was Gamaliel resurrected by God too? You'd think the site of where Jesus' actual resurrection happened would have been remembered and mentioned in early Christian literature instead of falling into obscurity for 300 years. That is, if the story were true.

[YahWhat]

.

If Seutonius, Plutarch and 7 of Caesar's closest friends and family also wrote that Caesar had come back to life a week later and visited with some folk before ascending into the clouds, would you accept it as having happened?

This is an excellent and telling question for any Bible Believer who says "You accept historical accounts so you should accept Bible stories as true" or "If you discount Bible stories to be consistent you must discount much or all of ancient history."

Many Non-Believers accept that a wandering rabbi, perhaps named something like Jesus, preached for a few years and was executed.

What is NOT believed is that he performed "miracles" and came back from the dead.

Similar supernatural claims made about other historical or religious figures are not accepted (even by most Theists).

Tacitus records that Vespasian miraculously healed a blind man.

"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood." (Histories, IV, 81)

This was also reported independently by Suetonius and Cassius Dio. Why don't Christians accept this multiply attested miracle claim? It seems because it's not found in the Bible...
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... -miracles/

[Student]

2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse.

Its generally agreed that John is not dependent on the synoptic gospels. So even if we eliminate Matthew and Luke due to literary dependency on Mark we still have literary independency between Mark and John. Thus we have multiple attestation.

This is a gross oversimplification / misrepresentation.
According to Kmmel, some scholars summarily affirm John's knowledge of the Synoptics (Hpfl-Gut, McNeile-Williams, Lightfoot, Maurer, Goodwin, Hirsch). Others maintain that John was dependent upon Mark and Luke (Sparks, Howard Barrett, Streeter, Teeple), or only upon Mark (Meinertz, R.M. Grant, Lee).

Kmmel also suggests that as several scenes and shorter historical notices in John are encountered in the same sequence in Mark, and that in these places are found numerous clear linguistic reminiscences, this stands in favour of John's knowledge of Mark.

Another consideration, which makes a negative judgement about John's possible use of the Synoptics, even more hazardous, is John's use, and acknowledged use, of the Old Testament. Such an analysis was presented by Charles Goodwin (How did John Treat His Sources; J.B.L, LXXIII, 1954, pp. 61ff)

Goodwin's evidence is clear and unmistakable: "John's use of his only explicitly acknowledged source show that he quoted it rarely, loosely and confusedly, often conflating two or more passages, distorting their meaning, and hiding their context. We may suspect him of incorporating alien elements into them. He appears to have quoted from memory, and the attentive reader has seen how elusive are the tricks his memory could play. And whatever was the original intent of the source material use, John has forcibly accommodated everything to his own purposes".

Goodwin continues: "Whatever materials he [John] used, his own powerful mind has remoulded everything into a living whole which is all his own"

In the light of Goodwin's analysis of John's use of the OT, if we consider how John might have used (or abused) the Synoptic Gospels, it is difficult to believe the product would be very different from the present gospel of John.

[Goose]

Since Paul only mentions "he was buried" and no other details from the empty tomb narrative, you can't infer that he was "implying" an empty tomb. You're looking at the primary sources in the light of the later empty tomb story, and you're seeing it as "implied" when it is clearly not there.

Of course its implied. Just like when I say I went to bed last night, got up this morning, and walked around. You wouldnt think I meant I was still in my bed would you? No, of course you wouldnt. You know my bed is now empty because its implied. I dont need to explicitly state it. Then again, I suppose if I were speaking to a person of abnormally low intelligence I might need to.

Acts never mentions an "empty tomb" and it may be the case, since Paul never mentions a "tomb" in his primary material, that the reference to a "tomb" in Acts is Lukan redaction.

Ah yes. When the text causes problems just assert it was a redaction (or interpolation).

That "he was buried" showed that he was dead. This makes the absence of any mention of the empty tomb more significant, not less. That "he was raised" only means he was "raised from the dead" in some sense.

This is a creedal passage (1Cor15) that Paul was recounting. So theres no need to expect him to add details to it especially when we consider he was writing a letter to a struggling church not a bio of Jesus life. On top of that, the Corinthians were already aware of the Gospel which Paul had already given them previously (1Cor 15:1) and no doubt included the details of Jesus. Which some people were now questioning. Obviously simply repeating what Paul had told them before wouldnt be sufficient.

In regards, to the word "raised" (eg"gertai), it has a wide range of meaning which you're trying to restrict to only pertaining to a physical body - again, because you're letting the later gospel accounts color your investigation of the primary sources.

Im letting Pauls Pharisaical background colour Pauls understanding. This is why Paul speaks of the Jesus being the firstfruit of the general resurrection (1Cor15). In light of that, when Paul says Jesus was raised from the dead he means Jesus rose bodily implying an empty tomb.

I never said that John was dependent on the synoptic gospels.

Then you cant argue literary dependency. If John isnt literarily dependant on Mark it is literarily independent thus providing multiple attestation to the empty tomb.

I said that the Markan empty tomb narrative was probably well known in the Christian communities and influenced the author of John before he wrote his gospel. Can you demonstrate that the bare bones "empty tomb" motif didn't somehow make it's way from Mark to John considering it was in circulation well before and copied by the other evangelists? In any case, even if John were independent of Mark, they could have still derived the story of Joseph of Arimathea from a common source shared between Mark and the other canonical Gospels. In order to demonstrate your claim of multiple attestation you would have to show that John was truly independent of the Markan empty tomb narrative instead of just asserting it.

On the contrary the simple fact John and Mark show no obvious signs of literary dependency (at least in the way we see between the synoptic Gospels) is prima facie evidence they are independent works. In light of this, it would be your burden to show there is dependency.

Again, if you simply want to argue John was dependant on Mark on the assumption John was probably aware of Marks Gospel (or Matthew or Lukes) we can do that too. But of course this methodology makes almost nothing from the ancient world truly independent.

The consensus of modern scholarship maintains the anonymity of the gospels.

Like I argued I dont need it to be eyewitness testimony for it be independent and therefore multiple attestation. But since you are appealing to the majority view of modern scholarship the consensus among modern scholarship is that John is not dependent on Mark.

Irrelevant and shifting of the burden of proof. Demonstrate that the empty tomb story in John is completely independent of Mark's gospel and/or sources. Otherwise, we have no reason to accept your assertion of multiple attestation.

Its not irrelevant. It speaks to your methodology since historians do not generally argue for dependency based upon the later writer possibly being aware of an earlier writer. Your methodology argues against multiple attestation for virtually every event from antiquity. Thus I conclude your methodology is flawed.

So again, direct copying is impossible to prove but it's quite clear that the gospels were using a set of established literary ideas from other myths.

Its been my experience these borrowing arguments often overstate the similarities and virtually ignore the starch differences. Perhaps this is why modern scholarship has largely abandoned the copy-cat thesis.

Let me demonstrate with the first point (a missing body) from your source comparing Romulus with Jesus. Lets look at the primary sources cited by Miller.

But those who write the more plausible accounts say that [Romulus] was killed by his own people...For these reasons, they say, the patricians formed a conspiracy against him and resolved to slay him; and having carried out the deed in the senate-house, they divided his body into several pieces, that it might not be seen, and then came out, each one hiding his part of the body under his robes, and afterwards burying it in secret. Others say that while haranguing the people he was slain by the new citizens of Rome, and that they undertook the murder at the time when the rain and the darkness occurred, the assembly of the people being then dispersed and their chief left without his guard. And for this reason, they say, the day on which this event happened got its name from the flight of the people and is called Populifugia down to our times.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/2B*.html

...whereas Romulus disappeared suddenly, and no portion of his body or fragment of his clothing remained to be seen. But some conjectured that the senators, convened in the temple of Vulcan, fell upon him and slew him, then cut his body in pieces, put each a portion into the folds of his robe, and so carried him away. Others think that it was neither in the temple of Vulcan nor when the senators alone were present that he disappeared, but that he was holding an assembly of the people outside the city near the so called Goat's Marsh.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/2B*.html

Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, You are to say, His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep. And if this should come to the governors ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble. And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

This is supposed to be evidence of borrowing? They are more different in material ways than they are similar. The difference is so self evident it barely needs to be expounded upon. In regards to Romulus theres no mention of a tomb or a resurrection. Romulus is reported to have been cut in pieces and the pieces smuggled out under robes. Which is why there was no body.

Justin Martyr even admits that they applied myths from other deities to Jesus:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." - Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 21.

Thats no surprise. Martyr is petitioning his persecutors to stop by making Christians sound similar to them.

To the Emperor Titus lius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Csar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Csar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them. " Apology 1:1

4 tombs, out of over 900, had a rolling stone door.

Right. Therefore archeology supports the empty tomb narrative by showing there were tombs with a rolling door.

Ok I'll go with the odds that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb with a rolling stone door since that type of tomb was basically non-existent in Jesus' time.

But the evidence you gave proves it wasnt non-existent. Thats the whole point. Rare perhaps. But non-existent.

And what do you make of the additional details accumulating in regards to the burial narrative? The addition of details that go out of the way to describe a proper and honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one? What of the later Christianizing of Joseph?

Theres no discernible evidence of linear accumulation. It was simply a difference in reportage. It was common. Indeed it still is.

Did other authors tack on details to Tacitus' account? Can legendary accretion be spotted as in the case with the gospels? Does Tacitus report that Agricola rose from the dead inciting a religious following? If not, then I fail to see the relevance here.

The relevance has to do with the charge of bias.

We have no reason to doubt that the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition. You've surely given no reason here to doubt it.

It was oral tradition compiled much later. Surely thats enough to doubt it if its enough to doubt the Gospels.

Moreover, the Romans usually left the bodies of crucified people on the cross to rot and be eaten by dogs and vultures so we have reason to doubt that they would hand a convicted criminal over to those who requested his body. Considering it was out of character for Pilate and the Romans to do so as they did not care about appeasing Jewish sensitivities, we have reason to doubt that Jesus was buried in any "tomb" at all let alone an empty or "new" one without any other bodies in it.

Pilate seemed interested in keeping the peace with the Jews. The last thing hed want is a large scale insurrection. The Jews would have wanted Jesus taken down and buried.

"the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." " Josephus, Wars 44.5.2

Finally, you did not respond to my main argument. Luke has Paul say (Acts 13:29) it was "the Jews" who buried Jesus "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb". This conflicts with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone. An early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 "then they (the Jews) drew the nails..." and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DFsJC ... &q&f=false

This is a minor quibble. Paul could very well have been speaking metaphorically of Joseph of Arimathea when he spoke of the Jews. Surely Justin Martyr was aware of the Gospel narratives inclusion of Joseph of Arimathea but he likewise says they rather than point to Joseph of Arimathea.

It seems if Luke was willing to alter Pauls words to fit his own agenda Luke would have fixed this problem if Paul meant something that would have been understood as a contradiction to the Joseph of Arimathea narrative. Even if Paul wasnt aware of the secondary detail of Joseph of Arimathea and wrongly thought it was literarly the Jews who buried Jesus it does nothing to undermine the empty tomb itself.

That's interesting. Was Gamaliel resurrected by God too? You'd think the site of where Jesus' actual resurrection happened would have been remembered and mentioned in early Christian literature instead of falling into obscurity for 300 years. That is, if the story were true.

Gameliel was certainly very highly regarded by Jews of the era holding a high position in the Sanhedrin. And yet we dont know where his tomb is either.