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

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 18 by Ancient of Years]

I hope to get back to this, but the empty tomb being present in all the gospels isn’t that strong of a data point as you are conceding that they are dependent documents (i.e. it was in Mark and the other are contingent). Moreover, ‘embarrassment’ isn’t that tenable in that if Mark is the earliest version of the empty tomb, then we can see further redaction to that story with no hint of embarrassment regarding the original episode. Additionally, the ‘empty tomb’ if the empty tomb is a motif, it needn’t be analyzed from a historical standpoint, but rather as a device. As to eschatology and pinning the synoptic apocalypse as a sure sign of the dating of the same within a few years of the fall of the Temple, I don’t think that’s rock solid in that prophetic utterances were set-up with varying interpretations that allows for a longer fuse. Daniel 9:27 upon which the apocalypse was predicated indicates a period of 70 to 71 years in some readings. Moreover, I think many of the elements described in the synoptic apocalypse (e.g. false messiahs, multiple wars, and universal persecution of Christians) fit better in a later context. Indeed, in the case of widespread persecution of Christians to place it at an circa 70 date is either an anachronism or inexplicable (i.e. an element out of place with the rest in chronology) prescience.

take care,
TFV

[Ancient of Years]

[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.

Your theory about the Gospels being written or rewritten by Romans centuries after the fact does not explain why the Gospels contradict each other in obviously agenda driven ways that were very relevant in the 1st century but essentially meaningless much later on. You never answered that question in the other times you raised your argument. Have you possibly come up with new arguments in the interim? Please keep on topic in responding, i.e. relevant to the issue of whether the empty tomb story was or was not generally known until 150 AD. Much of your present post appears to be irrelevant to that.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by Ancient of Years]

What ARE you talking about? my last post does not require any theory, or rely on anything I said previously. I'd suggest you stop licking any wounds you have from previous discussions, stop making unfounded claims about my alleged unfounded claims, and finally realize YOU are not an authority to decry any, for example, published authorities-you, like me, are just a username on a forum.
(Oh and while you are it: If you could NOT quote and re-quote topics and reply's so that your two sentence reply aren't a mile long, that'd be great-we can all read, remerci.)

To summarize, my previous statement is free standing; the Bible was re-written as well by a group under Titus/Constantine, and to assume it wasn't re-purposed like the OT, is really the stretch. Why wouldn't they use religion as a political tool? It was Roman policy of state, borrowed from Egypt. Why is this, one religion, the exception?

What is your rationale for postulating the Romans' suddenly had a change of heart?

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 18 by Ancient of Years]

I hope to get back to this, but the empty tomb being present in all the gospels isn’t that strong of a data point as you are conceding that they are dependent documents (i.e. it was in Mark and the other are contingent). Moreover, ‘embarrassment’ isn’t that tenable in that if Mark is the earliest version of the empty tomb, then we can see further redaction to that story with no hint of embarrassment regarding the original episode. Additionally, the ‘empty tomb’ if the empty tomb is a motif, it needn’t be analyzed from a historical standpoint, but rather as a device. As to eschatology and pinning the synoptic apocalypse as a sure sign of the dating of the same within a few years of the fall of the Temple, I don’t think that’s rock solid in that prophetic utterances were set-up with varying interpretations that allows for a longer fuse. Daniel 9:27 upon which the apocalypse was predicated indicates a period of 70 to 71 years in some readings. Moreover, I think many of the elements described in the synoptic apocalypse (e.g. false messiahs, multiple wars, and universal persecution of Christians) fit better in a latter context. Indeed, in the case of widespread persecution of Christians to place it at an circa 70 date is either an anachronism or inexplicable (i.e. an element out of place with the rest in chronology) prescience.

take care,
TFV

I am stating that the Synoptic Gospels are dependent documents. No need to concede anything. Matthew and Luke start off with Mark’s story and make many enormous and exotic changes and additions.

Mark presents a very bare bones and very suspicious story of the tomb being empty and some stranger saying Jesus got up and walked away.

Matthew embellishes the empty tomb story with an earthquake, a dramatic entrance by an angel and other dead people walking around. But he still sticks with the tomb being empty. Not only that but it is already empty when the angel rolls the stone back. Why not have Jesus walk out as the climax with the guards as witnesses? That way bribing the guards (another Matthew invention) to say the body was stolen would make more sense. But what are they being bribed to not say? That they saw an angel? Like that would be believed anyway? The fact that the tomb was found to be already empty still suggests the body having already been stolen. Discount the angel story as an attempt to cover dereliction of duty, as anyone would, and it is still just a suspiciously empty tomb.

Luke omits Matthew’s excesses, although as he often does he leaves a sly clue that he is writing in opposition to Matthew. Both use the word ‘lightning’ to describe the appearance of the angel. Luke does not explicitly say ‘angel’ although it is obvious that they (two not one) are, appearing suddenly and looking the way they do. Luke then tells an elaborate story about the doings of the resurrected Jesus, compared to Matthew’s rather minimalist one. (Interestingly it begins with Jesus first appearing to some disciples we never heard of before rather than the women near the tomb as Matthew has it.) All of this focuses on an actually risen Jesus and leads the reader away from the barely mentioned detail common to all the Gospels, that the tomb was empty.

John’s story sounds like a collection of details from the Synoptic accounts with some interesting elaborations. (Was the beloved disciple maybe a rabbi who feared ritual contamination from a dead body? ) Another interesting elaboration that seems to emphasize a physical and actual resurrection as would be appropriate for an empty tomb is that the burial windings are still in place. (Hey, if Matthew can have Jesus teleport out of the tomb, he could surely teleport out of the burial shroud.) That is, not a stolen body problem. Like the others John includes the empty tomb but confronts it rather than trying to get away from it.

So why does everybody include the empty tomb but nobody has any witnesses to Jesus coming out of it? It is clearly a well-established tradition that no one wants to tamper with despite taking great liberties here and elsewhere. Mark’s successors each have their own way of dealing with the potential embarrassment of a stolen body.

***
Mark very obviously refers to Daniel. This allows him to associate Jesus with the Son of Man (the first to do so) and make the return of Jesus that Paul stresses into a dramatic imagination catching event that readers would want to believe in. Mark starts the description of the end of days with a reference to the destruction of the Temple. But that is not the earliest sign chronologically speaking. It is the ‘abomination’ – another Daniel reference – Caligula’s attempt to get a statue of himself into the Temple some decades earlier. (“Let the reader understand�) This was the start of deteriorating relations with the Romans that ultimately led to the Revolt, whose culmination was the destruction of the Temple. Mark had previously associated the Temple with the fig tree image. He finishes up the description of the signs with a reference to the fig tree, aka Temple.

Mark’s ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ references emphasize the immediacy of the eschaton with respect to the timing of the destruction of the Temple. These prophecies placed in the mouth of Jesus about 40 years earlier would be expiring soon to an audience for whom the Revolt was very recent history. For Mark to have envisioned a ‘longer fuse’ would have contradicted that and lost the dramatic impact of a final sign being a truly catastrophic event like the utter destruction of the Temple.

Matthew and Luke retain Mark’s basic thrust of an imminent end of days, with increasing hedges, since this is the existing story. But they really have other goals in mind. Matthew is warding off encroachment on his Jewish Christian community by rabbinic Judaism. Luke is warding off the negative impact of Matthew on Gentile Christians.

***
Paul already refers to there being numerous teachers of false doctrines. To call them false messiahs emphasizes that they are in opposition to ‘standard’ Pauline doctrine and that hopes of resurrection and salvation should not be pinned on them. The wars and bad times that are prophesied are easily found to be fulfilled in the increasing insurrections culminating in the Jewish Revolt. Putting these ‘prophecies’ in the mouth of Jesus 40 years earlier allows the intervening events to be recognized by Mark’s readers as having been ‘fulfilled’ thereby convincing them of Mark’s imminent end of days promise.

***
EDIT: Forgot to put this in.

The persecution under Nero in which Christians ‘blew the whistle’ on other Christians who were then executed, as Tacitus tells us, took place shortly before 70 CE and fits very nicely with Mark’s reference to people betraying other people to their deaths.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 22 by Ancient of Years]

What ARE you talking about? my last post does not require any theory, or rely on anything I said previously. I'd suggest you stop licking any wounds you have from previous discussions, stop making unfounded claims about my alleged unfounded claims, and finally realize YOU are not an authority to decry any, for example, published authorities-you, like me, are just a username on a forum.
(Oh and while you are it: If you could NOT quote and re-quote topics and reply's so that your two sentence reply aren't a mile long, that'd be great-we can all read, remerci.)

To summarize, my previous statement is free standing; the Bible was re-written as well by a group under Titus/Constantine, and to assume it wasn't re-purposed like the OT, is really the stretch. Why wouldn't they use religion as a political tool? It was Roman policy of state, borrowed from Egypt. Why is this, one religion, the exception?

What is your rationale for postulating the Romans' suddenly had a change of heart?

Please answer my challenge: Explain why the Gospels contradict each other in obviously agenda driven ways that were very relevant in the 1st century but essentially meaningless much later on and relate that to the issue of this thread of whether the empty tomb story was or was not generally known until 150 AD.

I answered all of your other claims in other threads. You ignored my counter-arguments and evidence and complained that I asked for evidence in support of your claims. No need to repeat past history here. Stay on topic please.

[JehovahsWitness]

<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.

Aren't you making the classical logical fallacy of concluding that lack of evidence is evidence of lack? Just because a bible writer did not make reference to the empty tomb this is not to say that they (or others) didn't know about it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by Ancient of Years]

Answer your challenge? again you do not seem to understand that you are a username on this forum, with no authority, indeed, you are the one with the weaker position, in need to defend it. It may be a great debating tactic to get someone to venture, then criticize, but you've played that card already.

My stance is solid and agreed to, yours requires an assumption of observation, and a further assumption of veracity.

Indeed, the last time I provided, quite excellent counters, a published Dr of Theology, I believe, you used your infinite authority to declare my reference invalid. Sorry, you with your unreasonable assumptions are on the carpet. So you first.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 22 by Ancient of Years]

What ARE you talking about? my last post does not require any theory, or rely on anything I said previously. I'd suggest you stop licking any wounds you have from previous discussions, stop making unfounded claims about my alleged unfounded claims, and finally realize YOU are not an authority to decry any, for example, published authorities-you, like me, are just a username on a forum.
(Oh and while you are it: If you could NOT quote and re-quote topics and reply's so that your two sentence reply aren't a mile long, that'd be great-we can all read, remerci.)

To summarize, my previous statement is free standing; the Bible was re-written as well by a group under Titus/Constantine, and to assume it wasn't re-purposed like the OT, is really the stretch. Why wouldn't they use religion as a political tool? It was Roman policy of state, borrowed from Egypt. Why is this, one religion, the exception?

What is your rationale for postulating the Romans' suddenly had a change of heart?

Moderator Warning


If you have something to say about a post, address the post. Do not make personal comments about the writer of it.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 25 by Ancient of Years]

Answer your challenge? again you do not seem to understand that you are a username on this forum, with no authority, indeed, you are the one with the weaker position, in need to defend it. It may be a great debating tactic to get someone to venture, then criticize, but you've played that card already.

My stance is solid and agreed to, yours requires an assumption of observation, and a further assumption of veracity.

Indeed, the last time I provided, quite excellent counters, a published Dr of Theology, I believe, you used your infinite authority to declare my reference invalid. Sorry, you with your unreasonable assumptions are on the carpet. So you first.

So you are not going to say anything about the topic of this thread?

If I am the one with the weaker position in this matter you should be able to provide detailed relevant criticisms. Can you?

[Willum]

Here you go.
Like I said, you are on the carpet, not I, nothing I have said is contentious as far as I can tell, your counters, as far as I can tell are non-sequitur, I certainly referenced nothing in previous conversations.

[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.