The Empty Tomb!

[POI]

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

[TRANSPONDER]

** Still waiting for Christians to chime in. .. I have a very hard time believing that observing Christians here do not have their opinion on the matter in this thread? We are only speaking about the 'greatest story ever told'.

It's like this; right from the start, common story with all 4 gospels deserved more credibility than contradictory ones.

Too me, all this could demonstrate is that they all derived from the same "source".

Thus I distinguish between the broad outlines of a crucifixion and the resurrections unified by nothing but the claim of resurrection. The crucifixion has the extra point (to me) that Christians would never have invented crucifixion by Rome, no less that they had to work hard to blame on someone else.

Your argument parallel's The Tanager's. (Paraphrased) "It must be taken more seriously since the story line would not need to be this hasty. It also means it's more earnest that the story tellers left in the reality of the details which are not needed. ". And as I pointed out to him, was that the Gospels were not yet a thing. The Gospel writers could write whatever they want. The Gospels were not a thing until centuries later. In this case, the Gospel writers could write 'believable' characteristics to make the story line more believable. The later Gospels are written, in part, to convert others. It's more convincing if it sounds relatable/believable. And yet, also unfalsifiable, as all the ones in question are long dead and could not later be deposed.

The evidence of Johanan seems to suggest that it is possible and I argue that the story would not exist if it was impossible.

Right, but when was Johanan taken off? I mean, did he rot for a while, to provide deterrence first, as crucifixions are intended? I would imagine so. Just like in much more recent times, when some middle eastern practices would hang their 'criminals' from cranes for a bit. They don't take them down immediately after they die from asphyxiation or spinal injury. But maybe are dropped from the crane a month later, after sufficient deterrence. A proper burial could still be had for this 'criminal'.

Now, the credibility of the arrest, trial and crucifixion is a different thread from 'The Tomb'. I do have questions about it (and Theories ) like...

Jesus protesteth too much that he is not at all like a dangerous robber.
The blasphemy charge makes no sense other than to Christians
The Passover release is not known and I think is a plot device to make the Jews choose Barabbas (the insurrectionist) and Christian Jesus (absolutely not an insurrectionist)
Jesus is charged with a sedition claim and receives the punishment for rebels.

With the credible (to me) claim of Jesus bunged in the cave, so far as i'm concerned, the body can stay there or be carried to Galilee and the discussion is about why (if Jesus stayed dead) the disciples claimed he's risen. and there's always the Shroud, too great discussions, but not the slam dunk evidence the Believers think it is.

Well, I think it still all relates/connects. When you read Mark, in regard to how Jesus was 'sentenced', 'executed', and how all the "post execution practices" go down, it all seems suspect. It all bleeds into each other. It's like when The Tanager asked me why the Gospel writers would mention 'women'? Well, there likely was no tomb, hence, to ask such a question is pointless. But the Gospel writers could still write whatever they wanted, as these writings were not considered canon until centuries later by the church. There would be no accountability or recourse to depose these claims regardless.

I agree. Common source, true (basic story,or made up, but the resurrection accounts are not a common source because they contradict. Thus I say they can't have the credibility of the crucifixion.

Now I don't know when Johanan was taken down. There might not have been the need for haste, but it does imply that the body wasn't thrown into a ditch and nobody would touch it. At some time it was given a fair burial. The speediness of the crucifixion is a different question.

The questions are good ones. The crucifixion has the point, why would (Roman) Christians invent that and have to explain it away? I think it must be true apart from Paul accepting it. The Passover release on the other hand is dubious and there is good reason to invent it - even as a common story to all four. Original story, but I think not true, because nobody knows of such a custom outside of the Bible. But the readers wouldn't know that any more than readers do today.

Now I did credit the empty tomb and the women, and it still commends to me more than the resurrections. BUT I do see some awkward plot points which makes me look for reasons why women would have been involved at all. But even if,that it ends with no message in John and the women do nothing about it suggests that IF true, Christians of the time didn't want to know what happened afterwards. Instead, contradictory stories were made up. It is arguable.

Where does this leave us, or me? Crediting the crucifixion, but not the attempt to blame the Jews or make it a Blasphemy charge; it wasn't. The resurrection accounts, no, they were independently invented afterwards. The empty tomb, and a decent burial, maybe, but it doesn't mean that Jesus got up and walked of course.

[POI]

Now I don't know when Johanan was taken down. There might not have been the need for haste, but it does imply that the body wasn't thrown into a ditch and nobody would touch it. At some time it was given a fair burial. The speediness of the crucifixion is a different question.

My point here being that The Tanager and I agree that crucifixion was for deterrence. Hence, Johanan's body most likely rotted for a while before he was later buried. This flies in the face of the Gospel claim(s). The Tanager and I also agree that the Jesus 'burial' story is a pivotal one to the Gospel narrative. Hence, if Jesus was not buried the same day he was murdered, then "Houston, we have a problem."

The questions are good ones. The crucifixion has the point, why would (Roman) Christians invent that and have to explain it away? I think it must be true apart from Paul accepting it.

The same reason when inventing any story line. Throw some stuff in there for people to question, explain it away, gain their trust, then hit 'em with the major stuff. However, there is no way to later vet out the details. Hence, they could write whatever they want.

[TRANSPONDER]

Now I don't know when Johanan was taken down. There might not have been the need for haste, but it does imply that the body wasn't thrown into a ditch and nobody would touch it. At some time it was given a fair burial. The speediness of the crucifixion is a different question.

My point here being that The Tanager and I agree that crucifixion was for deterrence. Hence, Johanan's body most likely rotted for a while before he was later buried. This flies in the face of the Gospel claim(s). The Tanager and I also agree that the Jesus 'burial' story is a pivotal one to the Gospel narrative. Hence, if Jesus was not buried the same day he was murdered, then "Houston, we have a problem."

The questions are good ones. The crucifixion has the point, why would (Roman) Christians invent that and have to explain it away? I think it must be true apart from Paul accepting it.

The same reason when inventing any story line. Throw some stuff in there for people to question, explain it away, gain their trust, then hit 'em with the major stuff. However, there is no way to later vet out the details. Hence, they could write whatever they want.

The thing is, we don't know about Johanan. The assumption that it was left to rot on the cross or perhaps thrown into a ditch and not placed in the ossuary until later is based on nothing but this fact that crucifixion was defiling and a deterrent, which is not denied. Johanan might have equally well been put in a tomb as soon as the crucifixion was over, especially if the intention was to eventually intern the bones, it seems unlikely that it would be left on the cross or in a ditch until there was just the bones left. What do you think?

Your point about why invent a Roman crucifixion is too vague. I think the question of why (if it was all made up by Christians) they would have a crucifixion done by Rome and then have to work so hard to excuse Rome and blame it on Jews. I really don't think a vague 'Oh they just wanted to confuse their readers so they could claim all sorts of stuff' (paraphrase) addresses the issue. And again, Paul apparently accepted the crucifixion as a fact and moreover, a problem to crediting Jesus as Messiah. Why would they all make it up if it was such a problem for them?

[POI]

The thing is, we don't know about Johanan. The assumption that it was left to rot on the cross or perhaps thrown into a ditch and not placed in the ossuary until later is based on nothing but this fact that crucifixion was defiling and a deterrent, which is not denied. Johanan might have equally well been put in a tomb as soon as the crucifixion was over, especially if the intention was to eventually intern the bones, it seems unlikely that it would be left on the cross or in a ditch until there was just the bones left. What do you think?

The assumption is deterrence. Deterrence is not achieved by immediately taking them off the cross. A smelly meat-stick display offers deterrence. Taking them off the cross immediately after death would not achieve deterrence, except for the ones who actually watched him die.

Your point about why invent a Roman crucifixion is too vague. I think the question of why (if it was all made up by Christians) they would have a crucifixion done by Rome and then have to work so hard to excuse Rome and blame it on Jews. I really don't think a vague 'Oh they just wanted to confuse their readers so they could claim all sorts of stuff' (paraphrase) addresses the issue. And again, Paul apparently accepted the crucifixion as a fact and moreover, a problem to crediting Jesus as Messiah. Why would they all make it up if it was such a problem for them?

I do not think the crucifixion part was made up, but I'm open to argument here as well as I have little trust for anything the Gospels say quite frankly. I do think Pilate was a ruthless ruler, according to historical reports, and likely did order Jesus to be executed in this manor for crimes of treason/sedition/blasphemy, to offer deterrence. One part which appears made up or invented however, is where Jewish leaders influence Pilate's decision to crucify him and then also later tell Pilate not to spare Jesus --> (Mark 15:9-15). I think the later Gospel writers put this scenario in place to blame the Jews, and to absolve the Romans.

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing is, we don't know about Johanan. The assumption that it was left to rot on the cross or perhaps thrown into a ditch and not placed in the ossuary until later is based on nothing but this fact that crucifixion was defiling and a deterrent, which is not denied. Johanan might have equally well been put in a tomb as soon as the crucifixion was over, especially if the intention was to eventually intern the bones, it seems unlikely that it would be left on the cross or in a ditch until there was just the bones left. What do you think?

The assumption is deterrence. Deterrence is not achieved by immediately taking them off the cross. A smelly meat-stick display offers deterrence. Taking them off the cross immediately after death would not achieve deterrence, except for the ones who actually watched him die.

Your point about why invent a Roman crucifixion is too vague. I think the question of why (if it was all made up by Christians) they would have a crucifixion done by Rome and then have to work so hard to excuse Rome and blame it on Jews. I really don't think a vague 'Oh they just wanted to confuse their readers so they could claim all sorts of stuff' (paraphrase) addresses the issue. And again, Paul apparently accepted the crucifixion as a fact and moreover, a problem to crediting Jesus as Messiah. Why would they all make it up if it was such a problem for them?

I do not think the crucifixion part was made up, but I'm open to argument here as well as I have little trust for anything the Gospels say quite frankly. I do think Pilate was a ruthless ruler, according to historical reports, and likely did order Jesus to be executed in this manor for crimes of treason/sedition/blasphemy, to offer deterrence. One part which appears made up or invented however, is where Jewish leaders influence Pilate's decision to crucify him and then also later tell Pilate not to spare Jesus --> (Mark 15:9-15). I think the later Gospel writers put this scenario in place to blame the Jews, and to absolve the Romans.

I get the idea of deterrence. It's the same as pirates or traitors being left to dangle until the bones fell. At which time burial might take place. But you will probably be aware of Josephus' tale of taking down a crucified victim (1). So,while in principle you may be right, there could be exceptions, for Josephus and for Arimathea.

I totally concur that the crucifixion was real, because if they wanted the Jews to get Jesus killed for blasphemy, that's what they would have done, without Pilate having to do more than rubber stamp the death warrant. That a sedition charge and Pilate having to be bullied into killing Jesus for sedition had to be in the story, when the Temple dust up was all he needed to condemn him, suggests a desire by Christian writers (Romans to a man) wanting to excuse Rome and blame the Jews right from the first creation of the gospel - story. Matthew i recall even has Pilate hand over conduct of the Crucifixion to the High Priests - super -strict Sadducees, no less, and during Passover week, if you please. Matthew just falls over himself trying to get Rome off the hook and blame the crucifixion of the Jews. All of 'em.

I'm a bit more open to the idea that Jesus was never buried, or not until later. BUT - if the empty tomb and swift burial is based on truth and even the women, that only leads onto 'the disciples took the body'. And that was the plan all along. Or that fits the Gospel account better than a resurrection.

(1)Josephus (b. 37 C.E.) is our best literary source for the practice of crucifixion in Palestine during the Greco-Roman period. As a general in command of the Jewish forces of Galilee in the Great Revolt against Rome (66-73 C.E.), he reports his attempts to save the lives of three crucified captives by appealing directly to the Roman general Titus. One survived the cross under a physician’s care, the other two could not be saved.

[POI]

I get the idea of deterrence. It's the same as pirates or traitors being left to dangle until the bones fell. At which time burial might take place. But you will probably be aware of Josephus' tale of taking down a crucified victim.So,while in principle you may be right, there could be exceptions, for Josephus and for Arimathea.

Why grant 'the Bible' an exception?

I totally concur that the crucifixion was real, because if they wanted the Jews to get Jesus killed for blasphemy, that's what they would have done, without Pilate having to do more than rubber stamp the death warrant. That a sedition charge and Pilate having to be bullied into killing Jesus for sedition had to be in the story, when the Temple dust up was all he needed to condemn him, suggests a desire by Christian writers (Romans to a man) wanting to excuse Rome and blame the Jews right from the first creation of the gospel - story. Matthew i recall even has Pilate hand over conduct of the Crucifixion to the High Priests - super -strict Sadducees, no less, and during Passover week, if you please. Matthew just falls over himself trying to get Rome off the hook and blame the crucifixion of the Jews. All of 'em.

I'm a bit more open to the idea that Jesus was never buried, or not until later.

BUT - if the empty tomb and swift burial is based on truth and even the women, that only leads onto 'the disciples took the body'. And that was the plan all along. Or that fits the Gospel account better than a resurrection.

This (if) is doing some very heavy lifting. If such a burial was important enough to write down and later canonize, why in the hell is the tomb location not at least identified/preserved? The Tanager argues that no one cared about the site, because Jesus did not stay there. But I beg to differ. I think preserving the place where Jesus was last seen would be a preserved location by all who cared to write about or talk about him.

[TRANSPONDER]

I get the idea of deterrence. It's the same as pirates or traitors being left to dangle until the bones fell. At which time burial might take place. But you will probably be aware of Josephus' tale of taking down a crucified victim.So,while in principle you may be right, there could be exceptions, for Josephus and for Arimathea.

Why grant 'the Bible' an exception?

I totally concur that the crucifixion was real, because if they wanted the Jews to get Jesus killed for blasphemy, that's what they would have done, without Pilate having to do more than rubber stamp the death warrant. That a sedition charge and Pilate having to be bullied into killing Jesus for sedition had to be in the story, when the Temple dust up was all he needed to condemn him, suggests a desire by Christian writers (Romans to a man) wanting to excuse Rome and blame the Jews right from the first creation of the gospel - story. Matthew i recall even has Pilate hand over conduct of the Crucifixion to the High Priests - super -strict Sadducees, no less, and during Passover week, if you please. Matthew just falls over himself trying to get Rome off the hook and blame the crucifixion of the Jews. All of 'em.

I'm a bit more open to the idea that Jesus was never buried, or not until later.

BUT - if the empty tomb and swift burial is based on truth and even the women, that only leads onto 'the disciples took the body'. And that was the plan all along. Or that fits the Gospel account better than a resurrection.

This (if) is doing some very heavy lifting. If such a burial was important enough to write down and later canonize, why in the hell is the tomb location not at least identified/preserved? The Tanager argues that no one cared about the site, because Jesus did not stay there. But I beg to differ. I think preserving the place where Jesus was last seen would be a preserved location by all who cared to write about or talk about him.

The burial of Jesus (not the Bible as such) could be an exception - just as Josephus' friends and Johanan for all we know, because someone had reason to give the victims a burial. The hundreds that had no-one to come and give them a burial probably ended up bones in a ditch, as Rome intended.

Yes. The point about a sacred burial site is a valid one. It is venerated today, in two places, both of them wrong. Why hang onto the shroud (never mind chopping down the cross and keeping bits as relics) and completely forget where the scene of resurrection was.

The tomb itself might not matter after Jesus had exited, but surely the scene of resurrection would be like Mecca or Bodh - gaya. It seems we are all in agreement - the actual location was lost. The present sepulchres cannot be right and the story of Jesus hefting his patibulum through the Jerusalem streets cannot be right. Crucifixion, yes, the description of it, no.

Which is why I no longer credit the 'swoon' (induced) theory which is what the Gospel account fit (though resurrection - fanciers will never admit it) especially since much of it seems to be recovered events by ransacking the OT. If Psalms said Jesus was given wormwood for a mid afternoon snack, then by golly that is what happened on the cross.

So I have to credit the fact of crucifixion if not the details, - many of which are there for a purpose, not just because they were a Fact they were stuck with, and the fact of resurrection -belief, but the lack of a common story now makes me think the empty tomb and someone to find it empty was all there originally was (John doesn't even have an angel explaining everything) and the different stories were added later on.

I suggest that nobody knew the location of the tomb later on because at the time nobody cared. Jesus' spirit had risen but his body was in the tomb or removed to Galilee and as Paul said, they didn't care about the fleshly Jesus, but the spirit Jesus. Later on Constantine's mum went looking for it and they palmed her off with a couple of old tombs, neither of which can be right. But in between, the church Fathers seemed to show little interest in where the site of resurrection was.

[POI]

** Still awaiting a response from interested Christians to defend the 'greatest story ever told.'

The burial of Jesus (not the Bible as such) could be an exception - just as Josephus' friends and Johanan for all we know, because someone had reason to give the victims a burial. The hundreds that had no-one to come and give them a burial probably ended up bones in a ditch, as Rome intended.

The claim to "the burial" of Jesus, or anything else about Jesus for that matter, comes from the Bible, and nowhere else. Why grant 'the Bible' an exception, especially if we both deem the Bible untrustworthy? IF there was a burial at all, I doubt it would have been done in the timeline the Bible states. I also think the claimed site would be a well-known physical location where Jesus rose. I think this is, in part, why they later needed to invent a location(s).

Yes. The point about a sacred burial site is a valid one. It is venerated today, in two places, both of them wrong. Why hang onto the shroud (never mind chopping down the cross and keeping bits as relics) and completely forget where the scene of resurrection was.

Exactly!

The tomb itself might not matter after Jesus had exited, but surely the scene of resurrection would be like Mecca or Bodh - gaya. It seems we are all in agreement - the actual location was lost. The present sepulchres cannot be right and the story of Jesus hefting his patibulum through the Jerusalem streets cannot be right. Crucifixion, yes, the description of it, no.

Which is why I no longer credit the 'swoon' (induced) theory which is what the Gospel account fit (though resurrection - fanciers will never admit it) especially since much of it seems to be recovered events by ransacking the OT. If Psalms said Jesus was given wormwood for a mid afternoon snack, then by golly that is what happened on the cross.

So I have to credit the fact of crucifixion if not the details, - many of which are there for a purpose, not just because they were a Fact they were stuck with, and the fact of resurrection -belief, but the lack of a common story now makes me think the empty tomb and someone to find it empty was all there originally was (John doesn't even have an angel explaining everything) and the different stories were added later on.

I suggest that nobody knew the location of the tomb later on because at the time nobody cared.

I instead suggest maybe there was no tomb.

[TRANSPONDER]

** Still awaiting a response from interested Christians to defend the 'greatest story ever told.'

The burial of Jesus (not the Bible as such) could be an exception - just as Josephus' friends and Johanan for all we know, because someone had reason to give the victims a burial. The hundreds that had no-one to come and give them a burial probably ended up bones in a ditch, as Rome intended.

The claim to "the burial" of Jesus, or anything else about Jesus for that matter, comes from the Bible, and nowhere else. Why grant 'the Bible' an exception, especially if we both deem the Bible untrustworthy? IF there was a burial at all, I doubt it would have been done in the timeline the Bible states. I also think the claimed site would be a well-known physical location where Jesus rose. I think this is, in part, why they later needed to invent a location(s).

Yes. The point about a sacred burial site is a valid one. It is venerated today, in two places, both of them wrong. Why hang onto the shroud (never mind chopping down the cross and keeping bits as relics) and completely forget where the scene of resurrection was.

Exactly!

The tomb itself might not matter after Jesus had exited, but surely the scene of resurrection would be like Mecca or Bodh - gaya. It seems we are all in agreement - the actual location was lost. The present sepulchres cannot be right and the story of Jesus hefting his patibulum through the Jerusalem streets cannot be right. Crucifixion, yes, the description of it, no.

Which is why I no longer credit the 'swoon' (induced) theory which is what the Gospel account fit (though resurrection - fanciers will never admit it) especially since much of it seems to be recovered events by ransacking the OT. If Psalms said Jesus was given wormwood for a mid afternoon snack, then by golly that is what happened on the cross.

So I have to credit the fact of crucifixion if not the details, - many of which are there for a purpose, not just because they were a Fact they were stuck with, and the fact of resurrection -belief, but the lack of a common story now makes me think the empty tomb and someone to find it empty was all there originally was (John doesn't even have an angel explaining everything) and the different stories were added later on.

I suggest that nobody knew the location of the tomb later on because at the time nobody cared.

I instead suggest maybe there was no tomb.

True, the whole story comes from the Bible, though not just from the gospels. Paul attests to the crucifixion and I for one have to credit that as true or I can't imagine why Christians would make it up. The basic story is, I suspect, Jewish (as were the original disciples) and the Crucifixion was real, as was the Galilean origin (they had to explain that away, too, by inventing the nativities) of Jesus and in fact fits the zealot aspect that is visible beneath the Christian overpainting. I do think that Jesus' mission was Pharisee-zealot and not not reforming proto - Christian as the gospels have it, following the 'First Christian', Paul,who invented it. That's the theory I prefer, anyway, and it explains a lot of puzzles.

So this is it - the Bible is not trustworthy, but some bits do seem to relate to actual event, both in NT and Old. Tyre, Babylon and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem are all real events, but given a religious spin, or so i argue. So I think Jesus is real, and he may even have done some of the things in the gospels, but it's all given a Pauline spin, and I credit nothing of what he supposedly said as what he actually did say - if anyone needed to ask, given that John contains virtually none of the teachings in the Synoptics and the Synoptics contain almost none of his sermons.

This is my theory Jesus as a Gailiean (as were his followers) is real. They would not invent it. The Crucifixion is real. They would not invent it. The messianic mission was pharisee - zealot, not Christian before Christianity. The charge (if not the trial) had to be wangled to make it seem like it was blasphemy which it wasn't and is nonsense anyway, but sedition (which is what the messianic - Royalist claim was) which is why Jesus was crucified. When we understand this, the whole rather clumsy Christian reworking is obvious.

Jesus' partiality to gentiles and their greater faith. The hostility to Jewish law and custom - not because it was wrong of course, but 'Something greater than the Temple is here'. Jesus has come to 'Fulfil' the law, effectively rendering it obsolete in a 'new covenant'. And what I think is It, though not mainstream, and only hinted at a couple of times in other Bible critics: Jesus is Barabbas. That's why the release custom was invented: to give the Jews a choice: Jesus the zealot (Bar - Abbas) or Jesus the proto - Christian (Son of the father - Abba). The Jews choose the zealot and reject the Christian and pay the prophes ied price - they lost the Jewish war.

I may be wrong, but it all fits and explains so many problems - not least the letter of Bar - Serapeon referring to the price the Jews paid for killing their 'wise king'. That was (I suspect) a reference to what the Christians of his day were claiming.

So what if so does that say about Jesus' burial and the tomb? Only that the location didn't matter if indeed the disciples hadn't taken the body back to Galilee, which is what the angel says has happened - Jesus has gone to Galilee. The tomb of Arimathea (which would have to be on the mount of Olives in those days, not built in the suburbs of Bethezda where the sepulchres are- those are probably Hasmonean and already empty in Jesus' day) didn't matter to the disciples, Christians or to Paul, until the spirit resurrection was turned into a solid body one, with three contradictory accounts, and by then nobody knew where the tomb was.
So I do posit some attention to Jesus after being taken off the cross, not left in a ditch for scavengers and nobody would touch him. Indeed, the women could, would and should have seen to that, and it's odd that all four have a named person forestalling the women and seeing to an evidently hurried burial himself.

Just sayin' - it could all be made up, maybe no tomb at all, like you say, but it's odd why they should make up the details about Arimathea when they didn't need to. i tend towards - it was part of the existing story and it even needed some cover up of its'own. Which Matthew did with his tomb-guard.

[POI]

Just sayin' - it could all be made up, maybe no tomb at all, like you say, but it's odd why they should make up the details about Arimathea when they didn't need to. i tend towards - it was part of the existing story and it even needed some cover up of its'own. Which Matthew did with his tomb-guard.

The Gospel writers needed a tomb location for Jesus to rise from, lickity split. The Gospels were not a thing until everyone was long dead. There is no way to verify. If Jesus was worthy of being written about, and so was 'Joseph', why is the grave site not worthy to locate/preserve? As I told The Tanager, in regard to claims from ancient antiquity, the claim becomes more credible with 'relics'. And in this case, 'relics' would be plausible. I think later believers knew this. This is likely why we have later inventions of the tomb location and also the TS. I do not think the inventions started at 'finding the tomb(s)' or the 'TS'. We have no grave site, or any other relics to substantiate the claim. All we have is the claim(s) from the Bible, which we agree are not trustworthy.

I think otseng knows 'relics' are important and should be present to investigate. Which is why he is willing to die on the hill he's fighting from to defend the TS.