Arguments against the empty tomb

[YahWhat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

The word was only used in regards to round objects.

Source: Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[YahWhat]

By the way, anyone have any good arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb?

[Inigo Montoya]

It's in the bible.

If you don't accept there was an empty tomb you must also throw out all of history, as the methodology used to confirm a tomb is the same as establishing Caesar was assassinated.

Duh.

[Blastcat]

If Jesus was buried and raised to life it logically follows the tomb was empty.

If "raised to life" means not being dead any longer, this doesn't mean that he left the tomb. He could be alive IN the tomb.

Being alive doesn't have anything to do with location. Location only really matters in real estate.

A person can be ALIVE anywhere at all.

I can imagine that people going to the tomb to pray... find Jesus alive in the tomb, waiting for people.. WOW.. Impressive.

I can imagine a DEAD Jesus.. coming alive AS people are praying... and the rock moving by angels.. Even MORE IMPRESSIVE than his.. miraculous death... ( sun standing still..zombies walking around... )

But them finding an empty tomb ONLY really means that the tomb was emptied. Somehow.

Usually, tombs are emptied by PEOPLE...

I would say the best explanation here rather FOLLOWS everything we know about human biology, human psychology, and PHYSICS as well.

1. Humans, if they are REALLY dead, don't come back to life.

So, maybe, one perfectly reasonable explanation for an empty tomb is that Jesus wasn't dead in the first place and somehow got out.....

2. There seems to have been a bunch of believers in a death-defying god/man ... so.. yeah.. people DO strange things when they believe strange things.

Maybe some ZEALOT wanted to bump up the creds of the Christ myth by stealing the corpse of a dead Jesus. Maybe some unknown RELIGIOUS person removed the body for RELIGIOUS reasons that are unknown.

3. Maybe some unknown persons took the body for unknown but perfectly secular reasons that have nothing really to DO with any religious motivations. We just don't KNOW...

4. We have a story about an empty tomb. This is extremely small evidence that anything supernatural occurred. Even with the most advanced scientific testing.. We would NOT be able to detect any supernatural event that might have occurred in the past. We have trouble enough proving any present day miracle claims . ( Shroud of Turin )

5. We know that an incredible amount of BIAS in favor of this miracle claim. Many apologists insist that this one miracle alone has to be true or the religion is all FALSE.

High stakes are at play.

6. And we know by psychology that confirmation bias is a real human phenomenon that has to be taken into consideration when looking to prove strange claims.

That a god/man came back to life and went to heaven to forgive sins that happened due to the lies of a talking snake in a perfect garden.........which itself flies in the face of modern knowledge about physics and biology... is a very strange claim, indeed.

TO any outsider, of course. People with a huge bias in FAVOR of the stories as true ... don't think it's strange at all.

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

But the analogy doesn't really work in your favor.

1. We KNOW that a Cesar existed.. multiple Cesar, in fact. We DO have many records of Cesar.

2. We DO have multiple sources for this particular Cesar actually existed.

3. His death story might not be true. Granted. BUT.. no major religion depends so much on the manner of Cesar's actual or mythical death, and so, no huge amount of bias in FAVOR of this death should be expected.

4. Nothing MAGICAL happens in the Cesar story about his death. We don't have to raise our skepticism too much to believe the story might be true.

5. No world religion making it punishable by torture, death or shunning protected the manner of Cesar's death for thousands of years.

6. There IS no controversy over Cesar's death. Most people can retain a calm and perfectly benign agnosticism over Cesar's manner of death, or indeed, his very existence as a real historical figure.

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

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

One point is that we don't believe all the other stories of resurrections. Another point is that this kind of story was common at the time, it's the kind of story we could EXPECT for these kinds of god narratives at the time.

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

We can speculate about this for another two thousand years.
The FACT is that we really don't have very many facts at all. We DO have a story, or stories about the burial.. and what might have transpired after.. that are not completely in agreement, AND a huge religion based on all of these stories.. A religion with VASTS amounts of political, economic and moral power.

Mind control is a wonderful way to promote an ideology.

Threats of death and torture are wonderful ways to make sure people at least appear to comply. So, we have a lot of WORDS about how all true this death narrative is....

A whole lot of scholars would have been put to DEATH for implying otherwise.
That's an incentive.

[Inigo Montoya]

You're never going to get through to him on these points.

The only reason such an exhaustive apologetic session is even being done on THIS particular story is because it's found in the bible. God's hand is all over and within and underneath the bible. If this story wasn't contained within this god's particular book, he'd never accept it as having happened.

Pointing to methodological historical approaches that confirm Caesar's death or Alexander and need to be equally applied to this fantastical, magical story merely waste time and postpone the realization that without the presupposition in the existence of this god, and that this story lives inside a book inspired by/from this god, there is no way he'd defend the resurrection as having happened.

I finally see the circle for what it is, and it's embarrassing

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by YahWhat]

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

It is not in the least suspicious. Paul has done everything he could except leave out two words; I am sorry he didnt write Hey Yawha, the tomb was empty. That is your problem, not his. If Paul were preaching a disembodied resurrection, the Corinthians would never have a had a problem with it. We must posit a definition of resurrection with which they would have been uncomfortable---a bodily resurrection fits the bill. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark and John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced
by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel.

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

That is quite different from a resurrection; an event reserved in Jewish tradition for the eschaton.

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

Sound familiar?

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

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

The Greek story is not a parallel to the Jesus story.

Being raised back to a previous mode of living is not what the Jesus tradition in Paul and onward is testifying to.

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

This is as low as I have ever seen. I had to move a broken down fridge once. It was on its side. I lifted it from underneath, turning it on the other side. I rolled it the whole way. It wasnt a round fridge. Have you considered how difficult it would be to grab hold of a square stone and slide it. You are being abusively literalistic. No ancient text could hold up to such fastidious scrutiny; no ancient text is subject to such, except the Bible. Lopsided standards.

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

Assumption: it is equally plausible that Jesus did receive a more honorable burial, and that is why Mark recorded it as such.

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

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

If something like this occurred in a secular book which had no religious consequence, no one would make a big deal of it. You are holding standards over the N.T. that no scholar would hold over other ancient literature.

The Greek explicitly says that Joseph was bold. The text is aware that we have an awkward situation.

You are being abusively literalistic with the Greek. I would like to know what sources you are consulting when determining that a member of the Sanhedrin would not pay respect to a man he honored? Did servants wipe his arse after he shat?

The Mishnah was codified in 200 AD. To take from it rulings that support your case is prejudice. Again, you say that

Most crucified criminals were left on the cross to rot then later thrown into a common criminals grave. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

Do you mean ALL? Or Most? If Most, do you mean many except Jesus?

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

Unlikely given what we know about Messianic expectations. Jesus was a failed Messiah, at best. More than likely, the prophecy was found and interpreted in light of Jesus resurrection.

In summary:

You are treating ancient literature with a biased standard intentionally set to invalidate it. You have issues that the ancient writers didn't have; hence of course they are not addressing them.

This is bad history.

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

This is rich. The gospel of Peter which shows explicit ignorance of Jewish customs, corpse impurity etc. is to be taken as historical.

Bias.

So you are upset that acts does not explicitly say Joseph A. took him down? Abusively fastidious; and inconsistent. Can you please state when acts is to be trusted as historical and when it is not?

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

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

if a Christian made such a maneuver he would be laughed at. I am sorry that Paul didnt write, Hey Yahwa, the tomb was empty. These arguments are not to be taken seriously. Everything points to a literally empty tomb in the earliest tradition.

The real question is, Why is it so important for you to establish an occupied tomb? You are willing to twist everything to get there, why?

[YahWhat]

It is not in the least suspicious. Paul has done everything he could except leave out two words; I am sorry he didnt write Hey Yawha, the tomb was empty. That is your problem, not his. If Paul were preaching a disembodied resurrection, the Corinthians would never have a had a problem with it. We must posit a definition of resurrection with which they would have been uncomfortable---a bodily resurrection fits the bill.

Still anachronistically reading in Mark's empty tomb I see. Can you please show me where in the letters of Paul that he mentions the word "tomb"? I'm having trouble finding it.

That is quite different from a resurrection; an event reserved in Jewish tradition for the eschaton.

These arguments are against the historicity of the empty tomb story, not the resurrection. Please spot the difference.

The Greek story is not a parallel to the Jesus story.

Oh no? You don't consider "arriving at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright" slightly reminiscent of when the women go to the tomb?

Being raised back to a previous mode of living is not what the Jesus tradition in Paul and onward is testifying to.

Again, I'm showing that there were several literary tropes in both Jewish and Greco-Roman literature that the gospels could use to adapt their narratives. I'm not comparing resurrection stories. You're arguing against a straw man.

This is as low as I have ever seen. I had to move a broken down fridge once. It was on its side. I lifted it from underneath, turning it on the other side. I rolled it the whole way. It wasnt a round fridge. Have you considered how difficult it would be to grab hold of a square stone and slide it. You are being abusively literalistic. No ancient text could hold up to such fastidious scrutiny; no ancient text is subject to such, except the Bible. Lopsided standards.

How you describe moving a square fridge in English is completely irrelevant. The gospels are in Greek. The word is , which was used to describe the action of moving only round things - balls, wheels, discs etc. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0617.html

That tells us something important so you would need to explain why this word that is always used to describe moving round things is here being used in a completely different way. Or you need to find a 1st century Koine Greek example of it being used to describe moving a square thing. Good luck with that.

Assumption: it is equally plausible that Jesus did receive a more honorable burial, and that is why Mark recorded it as such.

It is improbable that Jesus received a proper burial at all considering he was executed by the Romans who usually left corpses on the cross to serve as a warning. Jews would have no say in when Jesus could come down since they weren't the ones that executed him.

If something like this occurred in a secular book which had no religious consequence, no one would make a big deal of it. You are holding standards over the N.T. that no scholar would hold over other ancient literature.

Whining isn't an argument. This is a debating Christianity forum. Did you expect something different?

The Greek explicitly says that Joseph was bold. The text is aware that we have an awkward situation.

It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin, which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews. Unfortunately, we don't know anything about this Joseph of Arimathea character other than he pops out of nowhere conveniently fulfilling Isaiah 53:9 only to fall into obscurity and never be heard from again. Sounds made up to me.

You are being abusively literalistic with the Greek. I would like to know what sources you are consulting when determining that a member of the Sanhedrin would not pay respect to a man he honored? Did servants wipe his arse after he shat?

Where in gMark, the earliest most reliable source, does it say that Joseph honored Jesus?

Oh yeah, that's right. It doesn't. You only get that "he was a disciple" of Jesus from the later rewrites.

The Mishnah was codified in 200 AD. To take from it rulings that support your case is prejudice.

Don't you guys argue for the reliability of oral tradition when it comes to the gospels? But all of a sudden when it comes to other Jewish documents that are inconvenient, you just employ a double standard right?

The traditions in the Mishnah didn't just pop out of nowhere. You think they were just brand new rules that magically appeared on paper? There's no reason to doubt that they do in fact reflect earlier tradition. You certainly have given us no reason to doubt this is the case.

Do you mean ALL? Or Most? If Most, do you mean many except Jesus?

We do not know what happened to Jesus' body. Most likely he was thrown in a common criminal's grave just like the rest of the people that were executed by the Romans.

Unlikely given what we know about Messianic expectations. Jesus was a failed Messiah, at best. More than likely, the prophecy was found and interpreted in light of Jesus resurrection.

Though Jesus was a "failed Messiah" by your standards the people that composed the stories didn't think so. That's why they mined the Old Testament looking for prophecies that they could make it look like Jesus "fulfilled." In addition to Isaiah 53:9, there are other literalistic interpretations of Hebrew parallelism as though they were twofold prophecies of Jesus such as Matthew 21.5 (cf. Zechariah 9: two donkeys!); John 19.23-24 (cf. Psalm 22.18: two different treatments of clothing versus garments!); and Acts 4.25-27 (cf. Psalm 1: two different rulers!).

See how Bible "prophecy" works?

Chapter 1. The cow will jump over the moon.

Chapter 2. The cow jumped over the moon as prophesied in chapter 1.

See how easy that is?

You are treating ancient literature with a biased standard intentionally set to invalidate it. You have issues that the ancient writers didn't have; hence of course they are not addressing them.

This is bad history.

The attestation invalidates itself under objective scrutiny. I care about what's true and as I've shown, the empty tomb is most likely not true.

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

This is rich. The gospel of Peter which shows explicit ignorance of Jewish customs, corpse impurity etc. is to be taken as historical.

Bias.

Regardless if the Gospel of Peter ignores Jewish customs or not, this does nothing to undermine the chance that it reflects an actual burial tradition with regards to Jesus. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect a different burial tradition than the one the synoptics depict. Are you too butthurt to notice?

So you are upset that acts does not explicitly say Joseph A. took him down? Abusively fastidious; and inconsistent. Can you please state when acts is to be trusted as historical and when it is not?

I'm not upset at all. It seems you are, considering all your incoherent babbling. The "they" in Acts is corroborated by the "they" in the four other sources I mentioned. This passes the criteria of multiple attestation. Are you taking notes yet?

Everything points to a literally empty tomb in the earliest tradition.

Except the earliest Christian sources we have (Paul's letters) don't mention it. Derp...

The real question is, Why is it so important for you to establish an occupied tomb? You are willing to twist everything to get there, why?

Come back when you've composed yourself and can actually come up with legitimate counter arguments. This was a waste of my time.

[otseng]

So you are upset that acts does not explicitly say Joseph A. took him down?

I'm not upset at all. It seems you are considering all your incoherent babbling.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid saying another is upset or babbling.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Lion IRC]

It is not in the least suspicious. Paul has done everything he could except leave out two words; I am sorry he didnt write Hey Yawha, the tomb was empty. That is your problem, not his. If Paul were preaching a disembodied resurrection, the Corinthians would never have a had a problem with it. We must posit a definition of resurrection with which they would have been uncomfortable---a bodily resurrection fits the bill.

Still anachronistically reading in Mark's empty tomb I see. Can you please show me where in the letters of Paul that he mentions the word "tomb"? I'm having trouble finding it.

How is that anachronistic?

Saul of Tarsus felt a bit stupid asking Jesus how it was that He (Jesus) could be in two places at once - simultaneously still in the tomb
and yet standing there in front of Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.

It doesnt surprise me that Saul/Paul thought it redundant to remind or officially advise everyone that Jesus no was longer sitting around in the same confined space where He was buried. Saul/Paul most likely thought it was a statement of the bleeding obvious to "tell people" that the tomb was empty and that living people dont remain in their tombs.

Can you give us a hypothetical example of how Saul/Paul might have included the words;
...."hey everybody the risen Jesus left the tomb - it's empty OK!"
without sounding like a meshuggeneh/schmuck?

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 1 by YahWhat]

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

I would like to see some evidence to support the claim that the source for Mark, Matthew, John and Luke were all one in the same person.

I had always understood it to be the case that bible skeptics themselves admit they have no idea as to the true identity of the source(s).

How does one get from;
...anonymous sources
to criticism from a position of historical certainty that there was only one single person presenting one single original original version?

In other words, you don't know the identity/identities of the Gospel writers do you? And neither do you know with any certainty that the collective works we know as the Gospels weren't a collection of accounts from various eye witness sources.

[Inigo Montoya]

Lion wrote:

In other words, you don't know the identity/identities of the Gospel writers do you? And neither do you know with any certainty that the collective works we know as the Gospels weren't a collection of accounts from various eye witness sources.

Do you know the answer to either of those?