The Empty Tomb story wasn't generally known until c.150 AD

[Iasion]

Greetings,

I haven't been around here much for years, thought I'd pop in and re-connect.
(I am bible sceptic who especially likes to debate the history of early Christianity.)

So I'd like to talk about the Christian story of the Empty Tomb.
In particular - when the Empty Tomb story became widely known to Christians.


The first century or so (after the traditional date of the crucifixion)
Here is a chronological list by decade of the early Christian writings :

<50s> No empty tomb
Paul

<60s> No empty tomb
Hebrews

<80s> No empty tomb
Colossians; 1 John; James

<90s> No empty tomb
Ephesians; 2 Thess.; 1 Peter; 1 Clement; Revelation

<100s> No empty tomb
The Didakhe; Jude

<110s> No empty tomb
Barnabas

<120s> No empty tomb
2 John; 3 John; G.Thomas

<130s> No empty tomb
Papias; 2 Peter; The Pastorals

<140s> No empty tomb
to Diognetus; Ep.Apostles; 2 Clement; Aristides

There is no mention of the Empty Tomb story before about 150 AD.


What about Paul ?
Yes, Paul refers to Christ being 'buried' and then 'raised'.
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"
No mention of a tomb. Certainly no mention of an Empty Tomb story.

What about the Gospels ?
Yes, the gospels mention the Empty Tomb story and were probably written between about 70-110 - but they did not become widely known until much later.
If we look at the Christian writings chronologically - we see exactly the same pattern : the gospels, and their contents, were not widely known to Christians until the same period - mid 2nd century.


Justin Martyr around 150 AD was the first
The first mention of the Empty Tomb story is by Justin Martyr around 150 AD.
Justin is also the first to clearly quote from anything like gospels - which he also calls 'memoirs of the apostles'. But Justin does not say how many gospels, nor does he give any author's names, nor are his quotes exactly the same as modern gospels.
All his stories come FROM these un-named and un-numbered gospels.


Conclusion
Even though the Empty Tomb story is an important element of Christian beliefs, there is no evidence that the earliest Christians in general even knew of the story.
The earliest evidence for the Empty Tomb story, outside the gospels, is no earlier than c.150 AD - a century and more after the alleged event.
The gospels were probably written earlier, but they also did not become widely available to Christians until c.150 AD.


Iasion

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213]

No, Christians weren't persecuted until Nero.
The apostles were hounded, but they were criminals.
Most respectable leaders had a disdain for the religion, as unlike the enlightened Christians of today, Christians then got together and had "shame-fests."

It was where people would get together and try to out do each other with their ill deeds, because, the greater the sin, the greater the forgiveness. Kind of a competition. (Tacitus)

Leaders didn't really like "Christians" of the time, because they would get a little rowdy and destroy other peoples temples, and their celebrations would get a little drunkin and cause public discord.

But regardless, why is it that the truth recorded everywhere else so diligently as it occurs in history, but the greatest story ever told, with the most significant events in human history, was recorded 70-150 years after the fact?
Not even gossip about a resurrection when the J-man dies.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

...
Even though the Empty Tomb story is an important element of Christian beliefs, there is no evidence that the earliest Christians in general even knew of the story.
The earliest evidence for the Empty Tomb story, outside the gospels, is no earlier than c.150 AD - a century and more after the alleged event.
The gospels were probably written earlier, but they also did not become widely available to Christians until c.150 AD.


Iasion

I would like to know, do you believe Christians were persecuted 0-300 AD?

What do you think happens to people and their scriptures when they are persecuted?

Christians first began to experience persecution from the Romans after the great fire in Rome in 64 AD. By the beginning of the second century that persecution had begun to be systematic. Prior to 64 however Christianity was not illegal under Roman law and there was no generalized persecution of Christians by Romans. During the period prior to 64 there was friction between Christians and non Christian Jews who accused them of blasphemy. Christians mainly aroused the ire of the more conservative Jews such as the Sadducces who did not subscribe to the concept of bodily resurrection from the dead and considered the story a blasphemous lie. During the first dozen years or more after the execution of Jesus the early disciples of Jesus taught the story of the risen Jesus quite openly. By the second century however Christians were practicing their beliefs in secrecy.

[Ancient of Years]

Also, on what evidence do you base your statement that the Gospels were not widely known until after 150 AD?

It is a sensible question to ask as the scholarly consensus on dating the gospels is just that – a proposed date range built upon a series of assumptions and inferences. What is being posited here is one stake in a relative dating method – the terminus ante quem. Briefly, the first reliably dated reference to an event marks the latest point at which that thing could be said to be in existence. The tricky part is establishing the other pole – the terminus post quem (i.e. the earliest a given thing/event could be said to have transpired/existed). As for many features of the gospels (i.e. the nativity, the empty tomb, etc.) many of them are not mentioned by our earliest sources. I freely concede that to say they weren’t known prior to their first explicit reference would be an argument based upon silence and thus shaky. The point remains that in several cases one terminus in relative dating is surprisingly late. To me, this should give some pause when we assess the dating of features of the gospels and, to some extent, the gospels themselves.

Take care,
TFV

The Gospels refer to the empty tomb of course. To say that Justin Martyr is the first reference to it is to say that the Gospels were either written after 150 CE or not widely known before that. You refer to the latter but there are those who claim the former. Therefor I will address that first.

The Gospels describe an environment that existed in Jerusalem and its vicinity somewhere around 30 CE. Pilate is prefect of Judaea. The Second Temple still stands and the Sadducees are in charge. Many Jews make the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The House of Shammai, with its emphasis on strict observance of rules, is the dominant Pharisee sect.

The portrayal of Jesus sounds very much like someone who was raised in the era when the House of Hillel was predominant, before 10 CE. Hillel was much less obsessive about the myriad of man-made rules not found in the Torah. The arguments between Jesus and the Shammai Pharisees are usually about that.

Mark has Jesus prophesy the destruction of the Temple, which took place in 70 CE. Mark ties this event to the imminent return of Jesus that Paul promised. Mark has Jesus say that the Son of Man (Jesus) will return when some of his hearers will still be alive and that it will happen before the current generation passes away. Since Mark has Jesus alive around 30 CE, the destruction of the Temple is near the tail end of credibility for those statements. But of course Jesus did not return. For Mark to have been written much after 70 CE does not make sense.

Luke and Matthew carry over Mark’s story about the destruction of the Temple being the sign of the return of Jesus. Luke even refers to the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans during which the Temple was destroyed. But Matthew and Luke throw in some disclaimers about how there might be a little more delay than Mark suggests. Again these Gospels being written very much after 70 CE does not make sense.


Matthew’s Gospel is all about Jesus being the Jewish Messiah to the point of obsession, often with very strained scriptural references. Matthew also attacks the Pharisees much more than the other Gospels. He is the only one to associate the label ‘rabbi’ with the Pharisees, which he does in a pejorative manner. Based on the above time frame considerations, Matthew would have been writing at the time that the Pharisees who left Jerusalem before the end were rebuilding Judaism on the rabbinic model. It is easy to see Matthew as trying to portray Christianity (Jewish flavor) as the proper heir of historic Judaism in a post-Temple era as opposed to the rabbinic competition. For someone to portray the Jesus movement as so strongly Jewish and still be that widely accepted in Christianity at some time well into the 2nd century sounds extremely unlikely.

By contrast with Mark, Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of John completely gives up the idea that Jesus is coming back any time soon, omitting any reference to the themes used by previous Gospels. The only hint if the imminent return of Jesus is to say that the expectation was a misunderstanding. Similarly Acts also written by Luke, gives up on that idea, redirecting the focus to the ongoing church.

We can see the evolution of beliefs due to the passage of time all anchored to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and referring to what appear to be very early traditions about Jesus. Sounds like late 1st century is a good terminus ante quem.

Since Matthew and Luke both quote Mark, and Luke quotes Matthew it is obvious that Matthew and Luke knew about Mark and Luke knew about Matthew. Moreover it is clear from Luke that he expected his readers to be familiar with Matthew. Sounds like they were well known long before 150 CE, empty tomb story and all.

A good reason for no one referencing the Empty Tomb very much except the Gospels was that it is an embarrassment if you think about it. No one sees the resurrection itself. No one sees a risen Jesus come out of the tomb. The only thing the Gospels agree on is that the tomb is found to be empty and some stranger says that Jesus rose from the dead and went someplace. Substantive agreement on what happened next is simply lacking. But no one wanted to change that core story despite numerous other changes. The Empty Tomb story sounds like a genuine early tradition, like others I cited above.


Justin Martyr reference to the empty tomb is to Jews criticizing the story. Apparently the story was widely known before that or Jews would not be mounting criticisms against it. Matthew, clearly written in the late 1st century as argued above, also refers to Jews telling a stolen body story. Obviously they were familiar with the empty tomb tale before Matthew was even written.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 13 by Ancient of Years]

Briefly stated, part of the problem may be in the assumption that the gospels and their various scenes and pericopae are homogenous in that they were the work of a single author rather than a redaction of traditions, sources, and literary craftsmanship. Thus, to posit one part of the gospel to date the entire gospel is an approach, but I think we should think about the gospels that we do have as final redactions rather than pristine ‘first draft’ documents. Thus, Justin Martyr is interesting in another way. In Dialogue with Trypho he asserts that Jesus was born in a cave contra the Nativity stories we do have. Similarly, we have early testimony (Epiphanius in Panrion 29) that points to the widespread belief that Jesus lived at a time other than Pilate’s reign (i.e. under Alexander Jannaeus). This idea is further attested in the Talmud and though I concede that the final redaction of the Talmud is late for our purposes, I would contend that the source material is earlier.

In the end, I would not place the final redaction of the gospels closer to the late terminus. However, I do think the balance of early writing of the Church Fathers and Paul cloud the date for the final redaction of the gospels to the extent that they could be decades later than the consensus. If we are arguing about what I would estimate is about two decades (you earlier, me later) I still think looking at early extra-biblical sources bears at least as much relevance as a theory based on internal evidence and how the same might have been perceived by the audience.

Take care,
TFV

[polonius]

JLB post 9
________________________________________

>>Paul mentions Jesus’ Resurrection over and over w/o specifically saying it was physical and/or spiritual – this is correct;

...however, Paul admits that he was a Pharisee and the Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection. Paul also said, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit who dwells in you.� The mortal body is the physical body; furthermore, he mentions this just after speaking about Jesus being raised from the dead. I suppose one can argue that the mortal body is only taking about us but it seems highly unlikely (and I’m being charitable) that Paul would talk about Jesus being raised from the dead spiritually but then apply that belief to how our physical bodies will be quickened. Since that is the case, it is only reasonable to conclude that being raised from the dead is used the same way – a corpse being miraculously reanimated and if that is the case for Paul to mention the empty tomb would be superfluous since bodies have tombs and they’re empty if their contents get up and leave them.<<

polonius.advice wrote:

Not at all reasonable or in keeping with Pauline or Pharisaic teachings. Actually, Paul doesn’t. What is your evidence that the appearances of Christ in 1 Cor 15 are not spiritual appearances rather than bodily, and that Paul taught a bodily resurrection?

>>Paul also said, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit who dwells in you.�

RESPONSE: Note that the writer is speaking about mortal bodies, not spiritual ones.

>>The mortal body is the physical body; furthermore, he mentions this just after speaking about Jesus being raised from the dead. I suppose one can argue that the mortal body is only taking about us but it seems highly unlikely (and I’m being charitable) that Paul would talk about Jesus being raised from the dead spiritually but then apply that belief to how our physical bodies will be quickened. Since that is the case, it is only reasonable to conclude that being raised from the dead is used the same way – a corpse being miraculously reanimated and if that is the case for Paul to mention the empty tomb would be superfluous since bodies have tombs and they’re empty if their contents get up and leave them.<<<

RESPONSE: “Suppose� what you like! Likewise your opinion that:

>>>it is only reasonable to conclude that being raised from the dead is used the same way.<<

RESPONSE: Not when Paul had already made it clear in 1 Cor 15 that we are raised spiritually, not physically.

And did the Pharasees believe in a bodily resurrection? What is you evidence for this assertion?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... surrection

Resurrection is asserted in all the Apocryphal writings of Pharisaic origin (comp. II Macc. vii. 9-36,xii. 43-44), where arguments against Sadducean Israel are prescented (Book of Jubilees, xxiii. 30; Test. Patr., Judah, 25; Zebulun, 10; Benjamin, 10; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xiii.; Sibyllines, ii. 85; Enoch, li. 1-2; Apoc. Baruch, xxx. 1-5, l.-li.: II Esd. vii. 32; Psalms of Solomon, iii. 16, xiv. 13), and in the Hellenistic writings (see Wisdom iii. 1-9, iv. 7, v. 16, vi. 20; IV Macc. ix. 8; xiii. 16; xv. 2; xvii. 5, 18; xviii. 23). Immortality of the soul takes the place of bodily resurrection.

[JLB32168]

Not at all reasonable or in keeping with Pauline or Pharisaic teachings.

We’re debating Pauline and Pharisaic teachings. You don’t get to unilaterally proclaim what they are via verbal fiat.

What is your evidence that the appearances of Christ in 1 Cor 15 are not spiritual appearances rather than bodily, and that Paul taught a bodily resurrection?

What is your evidence that the appearances of Christ in 1 Cor. 15 aren’t physical appearances rather than spiritual? You seem to forget that you bear an equal burden of proof.
Here’s the problem with your argument. You assert as fact that Paul meant spiritual as in “no corpse� resurrection when in the same statement Paul speaks of our physical resurrection. Your argument would have us believe that Paul’s usage of the term was completely different in both cases w/in the same thought and that makes no sense. You’d also have us believe that “spiritual� cannot entail physicality but we’d have to accept that “Walk in the spirit and not in the flesh to fulfill its desires�, which is a description of how we should comport ourselves here on earth, doesn’t involve our physical bodies.
Your argument has no merit.

And did the Pharisees believe in a bodily resurrection? What is you evidence for this assertion?

The Gospels themselves. Your own source contrasts Pharisaic beliefs with Sadducee beliefs saying that “immortality of the soul takes the place of bodily resurrection.� Even if your source says that they Pharisaic beliefs were spiritual resurrection those beliefs are contrasted against Sadducee beliefs, which would have to have been of bodily resurrection or there wouldn’t be a contrast/difference to draw between the two. The only difference between your source and the Bible is that it switches the two parties.

[1213]

No, Christians weren't persecuted until Nero.
...was recorded 70-150 years after the fact?
Not even gossip about a resurrection when the J-man dies.

Ok, now that you agree that Christians were persecuted, what do you think it means, that they are put in high position to declare their message and that their scriptures are put for everyone to see? OR would it rather mean that all possible Christian’s scriptures from earlier and current time would be destroyed? If it is true that they were persecuted, I think it would mean that all scriptures that are found will be destroyed. And that is why, if Christian had scriptures, he most likely tried to hide it. That obviously means, it should be difficult to find any scriptures from the earliest Christian time, else the story would not be as convincing. Or would you believe they were persecuted, if there are no signs of it and all their scriptures would have lasted till this day?

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 13 by Ancient of Years]

Briefly stated, part of the problem may be in the assumption that the gospels and their various scenes and pericopae are homogenous in that they were the work of a single author rather than a redaction of traditions, sources, and literary craftsmanship. Thus, to posit one part of the gospel to date the entire gospel is an approach, but I think we should think about the gospels that we do have as final redactions rather than pristine ‘first draft’ documents. Thus, Justin Martyr is interesting in another way. In Dialogue with Trypho he asserts that Jesus was born in a cave contra the Nativity stories we do have. Similarly, we have early testimony (Epiphanius in Panrion 29) that points to the widespread belief that Jesus lived at a time other than Pilate’s reign (i.e. under Alexander Jannaeus). This idea is further attested in the Talmud and though I concede that the final redaction of the Talmud is late for our purposes, I would contend that the source material is earlier.

In the end, I would not place the final redaction of the gospels closer to the late terminus. However, I do think the balance of early writing of the Church Fathers and Paul cloud the date for the final redaction of the gospels to the extent that they could be decades later than the consensus. If we are arguing about what I would estimate is about two decades (you earlier, me later) I still think looking at early extra-biblical sources bears at least as much relevance as a theory based on internal evidence and how the same might have been perceived by the audience.

Take care,
TFV

For all of the Gospels to be redacted at a later date to include such an embarrassing detail as the empty tomb is not a credible notion. If a story were to be invented, it would have witnesses to Jesus emerging from the tomb. On the other hand, taking the core story – empty tomb, somebody says Jesus rose from the dead – that is present in all the Gospels as an early tradition and very possibly a real event could be the origin of the resurrection meme.

For the three Synoptic Gospels to be redacted at a later date to include such an embarrassing detail as the (unfulfilled) promise of Jesus returning shortly after the destruction of the Temple is not a credible notion. Likewise the “not taste death� and “this generation� references.

These passages put the writing of the Synoptic Gospels in a rather narrow timeframe. It had to be after 70 CE since they refer very explicitly to the destruction of the Temple but no more than a couple of decades later or the expectation loses credibility. Saying that Mark wrote his Gospel for the purpose of using the Temple catastrophe to revivify fading faith in a quick return of Jesus by turning it into a sign even provides a reason for the Gospel to have been written at all.

Mark is definitely episodic in its structure, although the pericopae often have the flavor of very early traditions. But Matthew and Luke are very clearly well planned coherent works and also very clearly dependent on Mark existing first. In addition I also gave reason to date Matthew to the late first century – the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism at that time – and the existence of Matthew as the reason for Luke to be written. Again all three of these Gospels must have been written not too long after 70 CE.

Luke in Acts starts out by reversing his position on a quick return of Jesus. Unless the idea of a quick return became untenable due to the passage of time between writing the two works this would make no sense.

John, who ignores the Olivet Discourse and almost every reference to Jesus returning, nonetheless has references to the early expectation passages in the Synoptics. “Not taste death� becomes “never taste death� in the sense of eternal life. (John 8:52) And in John 21 the idea of some disciples still being alive when Jesus returns is called a misunderstanding. This chapter appears to be a later addition, following what sounds like an ending in John 20 and referring to the author of the gospel in the third person. Since the supposed misunderstanding is about when that person would die, one might infer that this person, allegedly the last link to the living Jesus, has now died and Jesus still has not returned. This suggests that the Gospel of John was originally authored no later than the end of the 1st century. Since John omits any reference to an early eschaton, but the Synoptics all include it (with increasing hedges to be sure) authorship of those Gospels in the late 1st century is strongly supported.

[polonius]

[Replying to JLB32168]

RESPONSE

In 1 Cor 15 Paul says that resurrection is in a spiritual body. That should be sufficient.

What evidence do you have that he was in error?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by Ancient of Years]

Redaction:
True, except you are making a fatal assumption.
The Old Testament was written and re-written according to the beliefs and politics of the day, Psalms and a few others were actually used as rebellious code.
So your assumption that, when the ROMANS "translated" "scribed" or "wrote" the NT, they weren't just writing down what they wanted it to say, is somewhat in arrears. Any validity of the previous story is redacted by the single authority who wrote the books down and distributed them.

The proto-Jewish of the time have an account of someone very like Jesus, except in holiness, Joshua the Magician, for example. He is a documented "wonder," and his legend could easily have been re-purposed for Roman desires.

Amazing there is documentation of a magician of the same time, at the time of his deed, but you have to wait for Jesus' 70+ years later.
It almost like they needed time to develop something, and other things forgotten.