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?

[POI]

Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

An empty tomb is not necessary for there to have been a resurrection.

Though I agree with your assessment, it still provides a striking blow to Christian faith. Why? If Jesus was not buried in a tomb, guarded by Romans, as the Gospel(s) states, then WHAT ELSE is suspect from the Gospel(s)? This is exactly what the Gospel(s) claims.

Jesus body could have been consumed by vultures and maggots

Seems the claim of a (Roman guarded tomb) is the least likely outcome of a deemed blasphemous fellow. It's more likely he remained on the cross, as you say, for the scavengers, and/or later chucked into an unmarked mass grave, and/or later burned, and/or other.

but still have reappeared in his exhalted form afterwards

Sure. The Christian can go with this faith-based assessment. However, it flies in the face of the Gospel narrative.

The empty tomb is embraced by apologists because it's considered evidence for a resurrection. The problem is that we don't actually know there was an empty tomb. All we have is a narrative, by "Mark", that came to be embraced by 1st century Christians. There's no multiple independent attestation

[fredonly]

I'm aware of expert consensus, but I can't help but say that Mark is not the original copied by the others. It can't be.

There's good reasons this is the scholarly consensus: the presence of identical text in the 3 synoptics means there had to be some copying taking place. Marcan priority answers the most questions. Some argue for Matthean priority, but my point would still stand: these are not independent sources, and it's invalid to claim they constitute multiple sources attesting to an empty tomb. For convenience of discussion, I'll continue to assume Marcan priority.

Marcan priority doesn't imply Mark originated all his stories. He had sources. Scholars discern his use of a prior passion narrative. He probably had unwritten sources -oral tradition, as well. But there's no evidence of a pre-existing burial/empty tomb story. Consider the poem Paul recites in 1Cor15:3-5 (often cited as the earliest evidence of a resurrection): it mentions no empty tomb.

the Original written by a Greek must I think be later than the Jewish war. Though the original Messianic and even resurrection - belief could be far earlier going back to the disciples.

It might have been written a bit prior to the war. The range of dates I've seen is AD70 +/- 5 years. I agree the disciples probably believed he was Messiah. 1COR15:3-5 suggests some disciples believed he'd appeared to them after his death.

Point is, that , take or leave the validity of the empty tomb, the gospel Mark copied had no resurrection but the angel explaining everything.

As I mentioned above, Mark copied from a written Passion narrative. Dominic Crossan argues that the portion of Mark that follows the passion and death (i.e. the honorable burial and empty tomb) are inventions of Mark. At minimum, all should agree that Mark is the earliest source for the claim, and it's pure convenient conjecture to insist Mark received it from a source that we don't have.

Matthew and Luke had to invent it all, and that is why they contradict.

I think they utilized Mark, and possibly some post-Mark embellishments (written or oral), but probably made some stuff up. Luke's silly story of Jesus literally flying up to heaven (sure: heaven is "up there") seems pure Lucan invention.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm aware of expert consensus, but I can't help but say that Mark is not the original copied by the others. It can't be.

There's good reasons this is the scholarly consensus: the presence of identical text in the 3 synoptics means there had to be some copying taking place. Marcan priority answers the most questions. Some argue for Matthean priority, but my point would still stand: these are not independent sources, and it's invalid to claim they constitute multiple sources attesting to an empty tomb. For convenience of discussion, I'll continue to assume Marcan priority.

Marcan priority doesn't imply Mark originated all his stories. He had sources. Scholars discern his use of a prior passion narrative. He probably had unwritten sources -oral tradition, as well. But there's no evidence of a pre-existing burial/empty tomb story. Consider the poem Paul recites in 1Cor15:3-5 (often cited as the earliest evidence of a resurrection): it mentions no empty tomb.

the Original written by a Greek must I think be later than the Jewish war. Though the original Messianic and even resurrection - belief could be far earlier going back to the disciples.

It might have been written a bit prior to the war. The range of dates I've seen is AD70 +/- 5 years. I agree the disciples probably believed he was Messiah. 1COR15:3-5 suggests some disciples believed he'd appeared to them after his death.

Point is, that , take or leave the validity of the empty tomb, the gospel Mark copied had no resurrection but the angel explaining everything.

As I mentioned above, Mark copied from a written Passion narrative. Dominic Crossan argues that the portion of Mark that follows the passion and death (i.e. the honorable burial and empty tomb) are inventions of Mark. At minimum, all should agree that Mark is the earliest source for the claim, and it's pure convenient conjecture to insist Mark received it from a source that we don't have.

Matthew and Luke had to invent it all, and that is why they contradict.

I think they utilized Mark, and possibly some post-Mark embellishments (written or oral), but probably made some stuff up. Luke's silly story of Jesus literally flying up to heaven (sure: heaven is "up there") seems pure Lucan invention.

There is this sticking -point about Mark being the original, and Matthew and Luke copied him. I reckon it can't be because while they use a lot of the same chunks of text, they don't have some points he has (e g, Zebedee's servants, the details about the death of John the baptist and Pilate's surprise at Jesus dying so quick) so there must be an original 'synoptic gospel', which Luke copied (also using the common material with Matthew not found in Mark) but it does not have the 2nd feeding of 4000, the syrio- phoenician woman nor cursing the fig tree, which is either a document or a version of the gospel that Luke didn't see. Otherwise the omission of these memorable stories can't be explained other than he never saw them. This means he never saw Mark as it now it but he did see a version of the Synoptic without the extra additions we now have.

I know this is maverick theory but it has to be right as it explains the problems that are frankly ignored and not just by Bible -apologists.

As to the empty tomb, this is in all four, and must be early tradition. But not in Paul, I agree. Paul (I think) took the Jewish Christian belief in a risen spirit Jesus in their heads as it appears happened to him last of all. I hypothesise that the early Christians needed something more substantial and so it was the reanimated body that had to have come back to life. Proof, well the tomb was empty. So you have to invent some people finding it empty, so we get a wonky story of the women going there for no really good reason, and not thinking about how to get in. No problem - it is open. Who by? Jesus didn't open it according to Matthew - he was already gone when the angel opened it to let the women look inside. And of course the angel is posted there to explain everything because otherwise you don't conclude that Jesus rise from the dead.

You assume that someone took the body which is just what Mary thinks in John - who has no angel explaining anything. We already have contradictory stories trying to plug the plot - holes. So while the empty tomb is early tradition (or at least claim) it is doubtful that it is actually true.

[fredonly]

There is this sticking -point about Mark being the original, and Matthew and Luke copied him. I reckon it can't be because while they use a lot of the same chunks of text, they don't have some points he has...

It's recognized that Luke & Matthew had additional sources, including Q, the source of Jesus' sayings common to them but not in Mark. Matthew and Luke omitting portions of Mark doesn't imply they didn't use Mark for the common material. Some scholars propose Matthew & Luke used an earlier version of Mark that lacked some content. That's not much different from your theory, and it avoids proposing yet another lost source.

As to the empty tomb, this is in all four, and must be early tradition. But not in Paul, I agree.

The creed of 1Cor15:3-5 is dated to a few years after Jesus' execution. That's early. There's no basis for claiming an empty tomb story existed prior to Mark. An early version of Mark isn't dated any differently than the Mark we have- because there's no text to examine and date it any earlier. Additions could have been made at any time. The same applies to your theory: how can you date it? Some vague amount of time prior to Mark?

Paul (I think) took the Jewish Christian belief in a risen spirit Jesus in their heads as it appears happened to him last of all. I hypothesise that the early Christians needed something more substantial and so it was the reanimated body that had to have come back to life. Proof, well the tomb was empty. So you have to invent some people finding it empty, so we get a wonky story of the women going there for no really good reason, and not thinking about how to get in. No problem - it is open. Who by? Jesus didn't open it according to Matthew - he was already gone when the angel opened it to let the women look inside. And of course the angel is posted there to explain everything because otherwise you don't conclude that Jesus rise from the dead.

This sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. A simpler explanation: one evangelist wrote the narrative, based on his sincere believe that Jesus was raised bodily. If Jesus was raised bodily, it follows that his body was no longer in the grave. He conveyed this with a creative narrative. IOW, the empty tomb story was the product of the evangelist's belief, not the cause of it.

But sure, the others embellished it for apologetics purposes.

[TRANSPONDER]

There is this sticking -point about Mark being the original, and Matthew and Luke copied him. I reckon it can't be because while they use a lot of the same chunks of text, they don't have some points he has...

It's recognized that Luke & Matthew had additional sources, including Q, the source of Jesus' sayings common to them but not in Mark. Matthew and Luke omitting portions of Mark doesn't imply they didn't use Mark for the common material. Some scholars propose Matthew & Luke used an earlier version of Mark that lacked some content. That's not much different from your theory, and it avoids proposing yet another lost source.

I think it does. That would have to argue that both Matthew and Luke left out Zebedee's servants, and Pilate's surprise. Both corrected Mark's confusion about Bethsaida and neither used his extended version of the death of the baptist. That both would independently do thos makes less sense than they never saw Mark's version that had all that but an original they all used, didn't. In fact I think it is inescapable, there mad to be an original that Mark added to

As to the empty tomb, this is in all four, and must be early tradition. But not in Paul, I agree.

The creed of 1Cor15:3-5 is dated to a few years after Jesus' execution. That's early. There's no basis for claiming an empty tomb story existed prior to Mark. An early version of Mark isn't dated any differently than the Mark we have- because there's no text to examine and date it any earlier. Additions could have been made at any time. The same applies to your theory: how can you date it? Some vague amount of time prior to Mark?

I think it must have originated earlier than the basic gospel story, because it is also in John and I don't see how anyone can suppose that John based his gospel on Mark. I have to accept that before the 4 gospels appeared, the element common to all four had to exist, either in written or recited form. I don't buy the 'Jewish oral tradition' apologetic as the solid body resurrection, demonising the Jews and Jesus' partiality for Gentiles is a product of the Gentile Church, not whatever the disciples were saying.

Paul (I think) took the Jewish Christian belief in a risen spirit Jesus in their heads as it appears happened to him last of all. I hypothesise that the early Christians needed something more substantial and so it was the reanimated body that had to have come back to life. Proof, well the tomb was empty. So you have to invent some people finding it empty, so we get a wonky story of the women going there for no really good reason, and not thinking about how to get in. No problem - it is open. Who by? Jesus didn't open it according to Matthew - he was already gone when the angel opened it to let the women look inside. And of course the angel is posted there to explain everything because otherwise you don't conclude that Jesus rise from the dead.

This sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. A simpler explanation: one evangelist wrote the narrative, based on his sincere believe that Jesus was raised bodily. If Jesus was raised bodily, it follows that his body was no longer in the grave. He conveyed this with a creative narrative. IOW, the empty tomb story was the product of the evangelist's belief, not the cause of it.

But sure, the others embellished it for apologetics purposes.

It is hypothetical of course, but it comes out of the problem of the contradictory resurrections. If there had been a common (and thus original) story, it would be common to all four, additions and changes aside, just as is the case with the empty tomb and angel in the synoptics. That there is not, plus Mark not having anything after the angelic message is proof, I'd say that there was no original story of Jesus' appearance, and John doesn't even have an angel explaining anything.
We have only an empty tomb -claim, which is original. But how early? It isn't in Paul as you said. So one has to put it down to the early church. If you put Paul writing his letters about the 40's - 50's and an original written gospel source for all four where the prophetic hints of the Jewish war were not there but the empty tomb was, you have to be looking at 60 AD when Paul disappears, and the Greek churches could make up what they liked.

It's debatable, but I think this is the only explanation of these problems, aside from faithbased insistence it's all true.

[fredonly]

I think it does. That would have to argue that both Matthew and Luke left out Zebedee's servants, and Pilate's surprise. Both corrected Mark's confusion about Bethsaida and neither used his extended version of the death of the baptist. That both would independently do thos makes less sense than they never saw Mark's version that had all that but an original they all used, didn't. In fact I think it is inescapable, there mad to be an original that Mark added to

I can't tell if you agree or disagree with what I said about Matthew & Luke using an earlier version of Mark.

As to the empty tomb, this is in all four, and must be early tradition. But not in Paul, I agree.

The creed of 1Cor15:3-5 is dated to a few years after Jesus' execution. That's early. There's no basis for claiming an empty tomb story existed prior to Mark. An early version of Mark isn't dated any differently than the Mark we have- because there's no text to examine and date it any earlier. Additions could have been made at any time. The same applies to your theory: how can you date it? Some vague amount of time prior to Mark?

I think it must have originated earlier than the basic gospel story, because it is also in John and I don't see how anyone can suppose that John based his gospel on Mark.

Scholars of the Gospel of John believe the Gospel of John has an underlying core that is independent of Mark, but also that it was edited multiple times before reaching its final form. They also believe the editors were influenced by the Synoptic Tradition. So, even though they didn't copy text, they would have heard oral teachings rooted in the Synoptics. John reached this final form 30-40 years after Mark's Gospel, so it's implausible to think the authors/editors were isolated from the rest of the community of Christians. In fact, there is clear evidence of direct influence from Gospel of Luke. The Resurrection was the key (presumed) event, and the various Synoptic versions of the story are pretty riveting.

I have to accept that before the 4 gospels appeared, the element common to all four had to exist, either in written or recited form.

Again, there's no evidence the honorable burial/empty tomb story existed before an original version of Mark (lacking the elements you mentioned) around year 70. Of course, anything is possible, but historical theories should be based on the best explanation of available evidence, with the fewest ad hoc assumptions. Your assumption seems ad hoc.

It is hypothetical of course, but it comes out of the problem of the contradictory resurrections. If there had been a common (and thus original) story, it would be common to all four, additions and changes aside, just as is the case with the empty tomb and angel in the synoptics. That there is not, plus Mark not having anything after the angelic message is proof, I'd say that there was no original story of Jesus' appearance, and John doesn't even have an angel explaining anything.
We have only an empty tomb -claim, which is original. But how early? It isn't in Paul as you said. So one has to put it down to the early church. If you put Paul writing his letters about the 40's - 50's and an original written gospel source for all four where the prophetic hints of the Jewish war were not there but the empty tomb was, you have to be looking at 60 AD when Paul disappears, and the Greek churches could make up what they liked.

60AD is possible, but so is 70AD. Can we just agree it was some unknowable point in time between 60 and 70AD?

It's debatable, but I think this is the only explanation of these problems, aside from faithbased insistence it's all true.

That's not true.
Christian critical scholars, like Raymond Brown (a Catholic priest), accept the fact that there's some creative embellishment of Mark's burial/empty tomb story - and that his story may itself not be historical. Belief in the Resurrection is non-negotiable for liberal Christians, but the details are subject to analysis and debate. The common explanation is that each evangelist tailored his story to meet the perceived needs of his community.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think it does. That would have to argue that both Matthew and Luke left out Zebedee's servants, and Pilate's surprise. Both corrected Mark's confusion about Bethsaida and neither used his extended version of the death of the baptist. That both would independently do thos makes less sense than they never saw

Mark's version that had all that but an original they all used, didn't. In fact I think it is inescapable, there mad to be an original that Mark added to

I can't tell if you agree or disagree with what I said about Matthew & Luke using an earlier version of Mark.

In a way, I do, but I rather prefer to call Mark a later version of the Synoptic Original. It avoids any problems of why some significant bits of Mark are missing from both Matthew and Luke.

As to the empty tomb, this is in all four, and must be early tradition. But not in Paul, I agree.

The creed of 1Cor15:3-5 is dated to a few years after Jesus' execution. That's early. There's no basis for claiming an empty tomb story existed prior to Mark. An early version of Mark isn't dated any differently than the Mark we have- because there's no text to examine and date it any earlier. Additions could have been made at any time. The same applies to your theory: how can you date it? Some vague amount of time prior to Mark?

I think it must have originated earlier than the basic gospel story, because it is also in John and I don't see how anyone can suppose that John based his gospel on Mark.

Scholars of the Gospel of John believe the Gospel of John has an underlying core that is independent of Mark, but also that it was edited multiple times before reaching its final form. They also believe the editors were influenced by the Synoptic Tradition. So, even though they didn't copy text, they would have heard oral teachings rooted in the Synoptics. John reached this final form 30-40 years after Mark's Gospel, so it's implausible to think the authors/editors were isolated from the rest of the community of Christians. In fact, there is clear evidence of direct influence from Gospel of Luke. The Resurrection was the key (presumed) event, and the various Synoptic versions of the story are pretty riveting.

I have to accept that before the 4 gospels appeared, the element common to all four had to exist, either in written or recited form.

Again, there's no evidence the honorable burial/empty tomb story existed before an original version of Mark (lacking the elements you mentioned) around year 70. Of course, anything is possible, but historical theories should be based on the best explanation of available evidence, with the fewest ad hoc assumptions. Your assumption seems ad hoc.

It is based on John also having the empty tomb when John is clearly not based on the Synoptic gospel. If you have a theory that it appeared when the original synoptic gospel was put down, and didn't exist as a claim before, you have to explain how John picked it up for his gospel while writing a gospel that look as though it was not based on any original version of the Synoptic gospel. I'd say that the obvious differences between John and the Synoptics bespeaks a story (including the empty tomb) existing before the gospels we not have which are best explained as individual adaptation or edits of a common story that exited (wither in written or oral form) before them.

It is hypothetical of course, but it comes out of the problem of the contradictory resurrections. If there had been a common (and thus original) story, it would be common to all four, additions and changes aside, just as is the case with the empty tomb and angel in the synoptics. That there is not, plus Mark not having anything after the angelic message is proof, I'd say that there was no original story of Jesus' appearance, and John doesn't even have an angel explaining anything.
We have only an empty tomb -claim, which is original. But how early? It isn't in Paul as you said. So one has to put it down to the early church. If you put Paul writing his letters about the 40's - 50's and an original written gospel source for all four where the prophetic hints of the Jewish war were not there but the empty tomb was, you have to be looking at 60 AD when Paul disappears, and the Greek churches could make up what they liked.

60AD is possible, but so is 70AD. Can we just agree it was some unknowable point in time between 60 and 70AD?

It's debatable, but I think this is the only explanation of these problems, aside from faithbased insistence it's all true.

That's not true.
Christian critical scholars, like Raymond Brown (a Catholic priest), accept the fact that there's some creative embellishment of Mark's burial/empty tomb story - and that his story may itself not be historical. Belief in the Resurrection is non-negotiable for liberal Christians, but the details are subject to analysis and debate. The common explanation is that each evangelist tailored his story to meet the perceived needs of his community.

Then it seems that Catholic priest agrees with me. Embellishment of the empty tomb - claim is clear (John has no angel explaining everything) and the original empty tomb - claim may not be true, since it isn't in Paul and - while it is a common element in all the gospels, it has some plot -holes that suggest to me, at least, concoction of a story that doesn't actually make a lot of sense. Specifically, there was no good reason to go to the tomb at all and for all they knew, they wouldn't be able to get in, anyway.

[fredonly]

Then it seems that Catholic priest agrees with me. Embellishment of the empty tomb - claim is clear (John has no angel explaining everything) and the original empty tomb - claim may not be true, since it isn't in Paul and - while it is a common element in all the gospels, it has some plot -holes that suggest to me, at least, concoction of a story that doesn't actually make a lot of sense. Specifically, there was no good reason to go to the tomb at all and for all they knew, they wouldn't be able to get in, anyway.

Yes, Brown believes an "empty tomb" tradition (which could be oral) existed prior to Gospel of Mark, because "it is difficult to conceive of a basic Christian narrative that ended without an explicit assurance of Jesus' victory over death" ["The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus", Raymond Brown (1973) p117]. Other scholars disagree, and consider this a weak basis. But Gospel of John doesn't constitute evidence, because as I've mentioned before, it's not independent . You haven't accepted that, so I'll provide additional support.

It is based on John also having the empty tomb when John is clearly not based on the Synoptic gospel.

You seem to have a false dichotomy in mind: EITHER John was derived from Mark (or “based on Mark”), or it is completely independent of Mark.

If you have a theory that it appeared when the original synoptic gospel was put down, and didn't exist as a claim before, you have to explain how John picked it up for his gospel while writing a gospel that look as though it was not based on any original version of the Synoptic gospel. I'd say that the obvious differences between John and the Synoptics bespeaks a story (including the empty tomb) existing before the gospels we not have which are best explained as individual adaptation or edits of a common story that exited (wither in written or oral form) before them.

I’m definitely presenting the theory that John was influenced by the Synoptics, but it’s not MY theory. Here’s what Raymond Brown said:
”Unless we are to presuppose that the Johannine community was isolated from other Christian communties, it is hard to believe that this community would not sooner or later have become familiar with the kind of Gospel tradition accepted by other communities.” [An Introduction to the Gospel of John, Raymond Brown (2003), page 101.]

D. Moody Smith writes: ”John’s knowledge of Mark and his use of it are two different things.” He goes on to compare Gospel of John to non-Canonical gospels, which clearly utilize elements of the synoptic tradition, without the verbatim copying we seen in Matthew and Luke. – [John Among the Gospels, D. Moody Smith (2001), p236.]

In a footnote, Smith references works by Martin Hengel and Richard Baukham, both of whom are conservative scholars, and both of whom acknowledge that John, and the community it was written for, had knowledge of the Synoptic tradition.

Smith, Brown, and many others agree Gospel of John utilizes a core of material that is independent of the Synoptics. But they do not use this presumed fact to argue that the common narrative elements represent independent testimony that serves to support the historicity of those elements. You aren’t arguing for historicity; you’re just arguing for there being some early common source – but the analysis applies equally.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not impressed. Claiming that John not using Mark does not mean he didn't know it. That is not just wretched scholarship but bad reasoning. The burden of proof is on showing that John knew the synoptics. The excuse that the 'Community' would get to see the synoptics, is self - serving ad fiddling the evidence (who are these 'scholars'? (1) because clearly they had the basics - a story all four gospels shared. But after that they all diverge into the synoptic versions which again differ each from the other, and John who adapts the basics in a way he could not have if he had known (2) the others. Just as I deny that Luke copied Matthew, as he could not have omitted Mary running into Jesus at the tomb if he had. The major contradictions must show that the final writers of the gospels we have could not have seen the others, and any Expert who ignores or denied that will one day shown to be no scholar or a shill for the Bible, and you may bet your pension on it.

P.s Referring to 'Mark' might be crafty. Because not having all the divergences of Luke and Matthew, there is less to overlook in John not having them.
P p s I did look up Raymond E Brown and cannot be over impressed as it's old problem - all the scholarship is within the confines of crediting the Bible as reliable and Christianity as true. Biblical scholars cannot and do not think outside o the box.

(1) I'm reminded of a very fine scholar on Matthew who nevertheless went into blockhead denial when faced with the two donkeys. And not one of them seem to have noticed 'Babes and sucklings'.

(2) mind, there is a point here. Eventually the John community would see the synoptics, but by then John was already written. But that could explain what another poster put to me - that the last chapters of John are later additions; the evening appearance and the trip to Galilee. Wouldn't it make sense to have John added to to try to match it up with Luke and Matthew?

[POI]

Great news all,

The Tanager has agreed to contribute to this thread in the not-so-distant future.

It might behoove The Tanager to read posts 42, 63, and 121 prior to proceeding.....