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.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 30 by Inigo Montoya]

Well, it's not my Op.

I don't assert the claim that there was only one eye witness source for every event reported across all four of the Gospels.

In fact, the deliberate anonymity which characterises this ancient writing style could be best explained by its multiple-source origin. No one person can claim authorship in the entirety.

[liamconnor]

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.

Okay, one more time.

It is difficult to answer these points because they don't all agree: sometimes you seem to accept that Jesus was buried, but assert that the tomb was never empty; sometimes you seem to suggest he was never buried, but left to rot.

I will deal with those arguments that assume the tomb was occupied

First, Paul makes no mention of it

Arguments from silence are the weakest kind; it is from the argument from silence that many assert Hebrews was written by a woman, because no author is mentioned.

Paul says he was buried and then raised; if he and the Corinthians believed the tomb was occupied, it would not matter to mention he was buried. It would only matter if the Corinthians were aksing the questions you are asking, Was the tomb empty? There is no evidence that is the question the Corinthians were asking. You require Paul to be addressing you; you are not inquiring into the actual historical audience. Good history asks, "Who is the audience here; what matters to them. What can I get from this work that addresses MY questions".
Cf the following:
i. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

ii. ... and that He was buried BY JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, LEAVING BEHIND AN EMPTY TOMB. That is what you require. What evidence do we have that the Corinthians were asking about the tomb, one way or another?

The Spiritual body does not mean incorporeal. If the disciples believed they had seen a ghost, no Jesus movement would have followed.


Second: Attestation:

We have Paul who claims more than 500 persons. Either he is wrong or right. How do we assess that? By doing historical inquiry.

You can only discount Paul once you have established that he did not believe in an empty tomb. This is far from established. So far your only argument is from silence. And when we examine 1 Cor we find that you are expecting there to be something because you projecting your own criterion onto that of the actual Corinthians.

Third, Similar stories

Please provide stories that Predate the gospels, were presented as real events, and actually bear parallels to the Jesus movement:

Chariton's Romance: There is no agreement about its dates; it was clearly a Romance, everyone knew it was for entertainment, and no resurrection occurs in it--the heroine didn't die. (I am starting to suspect you are cutting and pasting these things from some hyper-critical blog without looking into it).

J.B.'s resurrection:
It was not based on belief in the general resurrection. Raisings predate that belief--Elijah and the Widow's son. Raisings are not Resurrections. No one thought Lazarus was going to live forever, or anyone that Jesus is claimed to have raised.

Mark's rolling:

the stones Price has in mind are cylindrical (like pancakes). He is claiming that the verb always refers to pancake like objects. All we have to do is find where the same verb is applied to non-pancake like objects.

1. the demon-possessed boy was.cylindrical?
2. 2 Kings 9.33 where the verb means throw not role
3. Amos 5.24 where water rolls. Water is not cylindrical
4. Aristotle in Politics describes people as loitering about the market place (same verb): were they pancake shaped?
5. "Other Tyrians cast fishing nets over those Macedonians who were fighting their way across the bridges and, making their hands helpless, pulled them off and tumbled them down from bridge to earth. [Diod. Sic.Library, 17.43.10; again, just a tumbling type of motionnot requiring anything circular per se]
6. "The king first thought to force his way through and advanced to the pass through narrow defiles in rough country, but without opposition. The Persians allowed him to proceed along the pass for some distance, but when he was about half-way through the hard part, they suddenly attacked him and rolled down from above huge boulders, which falling suddenly upon the massed ranks of the Macedonians killed many of them. [Diodorus Sic. 17.68.2; note: square boulders were fine for this too--it was more tumbling than a smooth roll]

The word Mark uses denotes "end over end" motion. It has nothing to do with the shape of the object. If I have to move a large sqaure object from point A to point B, I will grab the bottom, flip it over, repeat, repeat, repeat. And when I am done, I will say, "Yeah, I had tough time rolling it over there." No one is going to respond, "Wait, 'roll'? I thought you said it was square."

Tomb Veneration: the absence of veneration at best proves nothing, at worst hurts your case. If the early Christians believed the tomb was vacated, why would should they venerate it? It was empty. The fact they did not venerate a tomb shows that the tomb no longer had any significance--because it was empty.

[liamconnor]

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.

Okay, one more time.

It is difficult to answer these points because they don't all agree: sometimes you seem to accept that Jesus was buried, but assert that the tomb was never empty; sometimes you seem to suggest he was never buried, but left to rot.

I will deal with those arguments that assume the tomb was occupied

First, Paul makes no mention of it

Arguments from silence are the weakest kind; it is from the argument from silence that many assert Hebrews was written by a woman, because no author is mentioned.

Paul says he was buried and then raised; if he and the Corinthians believed the tomb was occupied, it would not matter to mention he was buried. It would only matter if the Corinthians were aksing the questions you are asking, Was the tomb empty? There is no evidence that is the question the Corinthians were asking. You require Paul to be addressing you; you are not inquiring into the actual historical audience. Good history asks, "Who is the audience here; what matters to them. What can I get from this work that addresses MY questions".
Cf the following:
i. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

ii. ... and that He was buried BY JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, LEAVING BEHIND AN EMPTY TOMB. That is what you require. What evidence do we have that the Corinthians were asking about the tomb, one way or another?

The Spiritual body does not mean incorporeal. If the disciples believed they had seen a ghost, no Jesus movement would have followed.


Second: Attestation:

We have Paul who claims more than 500 persons. Either he is wrong or right. How do we assess that? By doing historical inquiry.

You can only discount Paul once you have established that he did not believe in an empty tomb. This is far from established. So far your only argument is from silence. And when we examine 1 Cor we find that you are expecting there to be something because you projecting your own criterion onto that of the actual Corinthians.

Third, Similar stories

Please provide stories that Predate the gospels, were presented as real events, and actually bear parallels to the Jesus movement:

Chariton's Romance: There is no agreement about its dates; it was clearly a Romance, everyone knew it was for entertainment, and no resurrection occurs in it--the heroine didn't die. (I am starting to suspect you are cutting and pasting these things from some hyper-critical blog without looking into it).

J.B.'s resurrection:
It was not based on belief in the general resurrection. Raisings predate that belief--Elijah and the Widow's son. Raisings are not Resurrections. No one thought Lazarus was going to live forever, or anyone that Jesus is claimed to have raised.

Mark's rolling:

the stones Price has in mind are cylindrical (like pancakes). He is claiming that the verb always refers to pancake like objects. All we have to do is find where the same verb is applied to non-pancake like objects.

1. the demon-possessed boy was.cylindrical?
2. 2 Kings 9.33 where the verb means throw not role
3. Amos 5.24 where water rolls. Water is not cylindrical
4. Aristotle in Politics describes people as loitering about the market place (same verb): were they pancake shaped?
5. "Other Tyrians cast fishing nets over those Macedonians who were fighting their way across the bridges and, making their hands helpless, pulled them off and tumbled them down from bridge to earth. [Diod. Sic.Library, 17.43.10; again, just a tumbling type of motionnot requiring anything circular per se]
6. "The king first thought to force his way through and advanced to the pass through narrow defiles in rough country, but without opposition. The Persians allowed him to proceed along the pass for some distance, but when he was about half-way through the hard part, they suddenly attacked him and rolled down from above huge boulders, which falling suddenly upon the massed ranks of the Macedonians killed many of them. [Diodorus Sic. 17.68.2; note: square boulders were fine for this too--it was more tumbling than a smooth roll]

The word Mark uses denotes "end over end" motion. It has nothing to do with the shape of the object. If I have to move a large sqaure object from point A to point B, I will grab the bottom, flip it over, repeat, repeat, repeat. And when I am done, I will say, "Yeah, I had tough time rolling it over there." No one is going to respond, "Wait, 'roll'? I thought you said it was square."

Tomb Veneration: the absence of veneration at best proves nothing, at worst hurts your case. If the early Christians believed the tomb was vacated, why would should they venerate it? It was empty. The fact they did not venerate a tomb shows that the tomb no longer had any significance--because it was empty.

[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.

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?

"The creed in 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus was buried (-); however, this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials, such as outlined above, in addition to tomb burials, making it too vague to corroborate the later burial traditions in the Gospels. Another burial tradition, which is separate from the tradition of Joseph of Arimatheas burial in Mark, is a pre-Lukan fragment found in Acts 13:28-31. Based on lexical considerations, this passage probably belonged to the source material of the author of Acts. The passage reads:

Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb [-]. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.

This passage does not provide independent corroboration of the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, since the Greek word used to describe the burial site " - " can also be used to refer to unmarked graves in the ground. For example, the same author uses the word in Luke 11:44 to refer to ground burials:

Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves [-], which people walk over without knowing it.

Paul doesn't mention a "tomb" anywhere in his firsthand material. Paul could have thought Jesus was buried in a common grave, pit, or a tomb with other bodies in it.
Criminal graves weren't "empty" or "new" "rock hewn tombs" where "no one had ever been laid" as the gospels describe.

Archaeologist Jodi Magness (What Did Jesus Tomb Look Like?, pg. 48) argues:

There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-hewn tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have have been buried in individual trench graves or pits.
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... pologetic/

[YahWhat]

[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.

I never said they were one in the same person so I don't know what you mean by that. Matthew and Luke copied Mark. We can tell because of the Greek language being copied verbatim between the gospels. Lookup the Synoptic Problem. John was written at such a late date that he likely heard the Markan empty tomb story which would have been in wide circulation. I've already cited the scholars in this thread that show John was indirectly influenced by Mark's gospel. In any case, there's no clear independent testimony when it comes to the empty tomb.

[YahWhat]

It is difficult to answer these points because they don't all agree: sometimes you seem to accept that Jesus was buried, but assert that the tomb was never empty; sometimes you seem to suggest he was never buried, but left to rot.

It's possible that Jesus was buried but unlikely he was given a proper burial immediately after he died as it says in the gospels. The Romans put a sign over him on the cross that read "King of the Jews." You'd think they would leave someone like that up on display for a while to serve as a warning to people passing by. Romans usually left bodies up on the cross then the remains were thrown into a common grave.

First, Paul makes no mention of it

Arguments from silence are the weakest kind; it is from the argument from silence that many assert Hebrews was written by a woman, because no author is mentioned.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that arguments from silence are never valid. They can be, under certain circumstances.

The historian Gilbert Garraghan explains:

To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer/s whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; and knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.

Ok so we have evidence that Paul met with the apostles twice (Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2). If the apostles knew of a former corpse returning to life, the empty tomb, discarded grave cloths, people touching Jesus, Jesus eating and his physical form flying up into heaven, then certainly they would have made those important details to known to Paul - which fills condition 1 above. These details, conspicuous in their absence, could have really helped his argument in 1 Cor 15 when he's describing the nature of the resurrected body to Greeks who believed in no such thing. It's reasonable to assume if he knew of such details then he would have mentioned them - fulfilling condition 2 above. Therefore, I have constructed a valid argument from silence.

Paul says he was buried and then raised; if he and the Corinthians believed the tomb was occupied, it would not matter to mention he was buried. It would only matter if the Corinthians were aksing the questions you are asking, Was the tomb empty? There is no evidence that is the question the Corinthians were asking. You require Paul to be addressing you; you are not inquiring into the actual historical audience. Good history asks, "Who is the audience here; what matters to them. What can I get from this work that addresses MY questions".

Why do you keep reading in "tomb" here? Paul nowhere mentions a "tomb" in his firsthand material so he could have thought Jesus was buried in a common grave or pit as was customary for Jewish criminals and those crucified by the Romans.

"The creed in 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus was buried (-); however, this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials, such as outlined above, in addition to tomb burials, making it too vague to corroborate the later burial traditions in the Gospels. Another burial tradition, which is separate from the tradition of Joseph of Arimatheas burial in Mark, is a pre-Lukan fragment found in Acts 13:28-31. Based on lexical considerations, this passage probably belonged to the source material of the author of Acts. The passage reads:

Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb [-]. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.

This passage does not provide independent corroboration of the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, since the Greek word used to describe the burial site " - " can also be used to refer to unmarked graves in the ground. For example, the same author uses the word in Luke 11:44 to refer to ground burials:

Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves [-], which people walk over without knowing it.

As such, this separate burial tradition does not contradict the hypothesis outlined above that Jesus probably received a ground burial in an unmarked grave."
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... pologetic/

Cf the following:
i. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

Paul says that Christ died for our sins. The term Christ was applied to Jesus only after his death and Resurrection, and this use of Christ on its own with no article is typically Pauline, and not a literal translation from an Aramaic tradition. Moreover, the idea that Christ died for our sins is a product of the Gentile mission. This means that, however early Paul inherited this tradition, it has been rewritten. - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 457

ii. ... and that He was buried BY JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, LEAVING BEHIND AN EMPTY TOMB. That is what you require. What evidence do we have that the Corinthians were asking about the tomb, one way or another?

They didn't believe in bodily resurrection. Obviously, it would have really helped Paul's argument by mentioning the empty tomb here. All we can say for sure about the Greek word for "raised" (egegertai) is that it means "brought back to life in some sense".

Egegertai -

1) to arouse, cause to rise
1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

You can't restrict egegertai, which has a wide range of meaning, to just the literal "raising of a physical body".

The Spiritual body does not mean incorporeal. If the disciples believed they had seen a ghost, no Jesus movement would have followed.

Strawman. I never said it was incorporeal. It was a spiritual body seen from heaven or in "visions" without "flesh and blood" - 1 Cor 15:50.

Second: Attestation:

We have Paul who claims more than 500 persons. Either he is wrong or right. How do we assess that? By doing historical inquiry.

And this claim miserably fails historical inquiry. Why don't any of the gospel authors mention it? Obviously, they must not have found it very important.

You can only discount Paul once you have established that he did not believe in an empty tomb. This is far from established. So far your only argument is from silence. And when we examine 1 Cor we find that you are expecting there to be something because you projecting your own criterion onto that of the actual Corinthians.

And you are guilty of reading a later source into an earlier one which is an equally fallacious anachronism. I've justified my argument from silence. You have not justified reading in Mark's source c. 70 CE back into Paul c. 50 CE.

Third, Similar stories

Please provide stories that Predate the gospels, were presented as real events, and actually bear parallels to the Jesus movement:

"Roger David Aus has discovered what inspired Marks story of the enormous rolling-stone. This is the stone which was rolled from Jacobs well (Gen. 29.3, 8, 10). This stone was large already at Gen. 29.2, and the shepherds explain that they cannot water their flocks until the stone is rolled away (Gen. 29. In later Jewish tradition, there are three shepherds (corresponding to the three flocks of Gen.29.2), who could not roll the stone away, whereas Jacob did so (e.g. Neof I on Gen. 29.8, 10). In story mode, it was thus perfectly reasonable for Mark to have three women who knew they could not roll away the stone, and wondered who would remove it. Jacob was a young man when he rolled away the stone from the well, and it is a natural interpretation of Marks narrative that the stone had been removed from the tomb by the angel, who is described as a young man (Mk 16.5).

In Jewish tradition, Jacobs well was the same as Abrahams well, Isaacs well and above all Miriams well or Moses well, which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness. The well is described as like a rock which rolled along (e.g. Tan. Bemidbar 2, 21, on Num. 1.1). Jewish tradition interpreted Num. 21.18-20 to mean that the well ended its journey at the top of Pisgah, where Moses died (Deut. 34.1-5). Pisgah is interpreted as Ramatha, height (e.g. Tg. Ps-J. Num. 21.20 rmth), and Joseph coming from Arimathea is sufficient to remind a storyteller of this. Pisgah is also interpreted in some passages of the LXX with terms which mean hewn from rock (e.g. Num. 21.20), which could have caused a storyteller to say that Joseph placed Jesus in a tomb hewn from rock (Mk 15.46), or a genuine tradition that Jesus was placed in a tomb for criminals which was in fact hewn from rock could have further helped a storyteller to make up his story about the big rolling-stone and the young man." - Maurice Casey citing - Aus, Death, Burial and Resurrection, pp. 139"97.

The fact that such strong parallels exist indicates that invention of the story is a possibility.

Chariton's Romance: There is no agreement about its dates; it was clearly a Romance, everyone knew it was for entertainment, and no resurrection occurs in it--the heroine didn't die. (I am starting to suspect you are cutting and pasting these things from some hyper-critical blog without looking into it).

Regardless, approaching a tomb "finding the stones removed and being afraid" sounds quite similar to the empty tomb story in the gospels.

J.B.'s resurrection:
It was not based on belief in the general resurrection. Raisings predate that belief--Elijah and the Widow's son. Raisings are not Resurrections. No one thought Lazarus was going to live forever, or anyone that Jesus is claimed to have raised.

That's irrelevant and you cannot confidently claim John the Baptist's raising was not based on the general resurrection because we have no texts from the JB sect explaining exactly what the beliefs were. Obviously, the concept of a dying and rising prophet was in the air when Jesus was executed making it not so unique anymore when the concept is applied to Jesus. It can't be pure co-incidence that two closely connected Jewish sects that both believed in the imminent coming of the apocalyptic kingship of God and whose leaders were both executed developed precisely the same way of reacting to that death.

Mark's rolling:

the stones Price has in mind are cylindrical (like pancakes). He is claiming that the verb always refers to pancake like objects. All we have to do is find where the same verb is applied to non-pancake like objects.

1. the demon-possessed boy was.cylindrical?
2. 2 Kings 9.33 where the verb means throw not role
3. Amos 5.24 where water rolls. Water is not cylindrical
4. Aristotle in Politics describes people as loitering about the market place (same verb): were they pancake shaped?
5. "Other Tyrians cast fishing nets over those Macedonians who were fighting their way across the bridges and, making their hands helpless, pulled them off and tumbled them down from bridge to earth. [Diod. Sic.Library, 17.43.10; again, just a tumbling type of motionnot requiring anything circular per se]
6. "The king first thought to force his way through and advanced to the pass through narrow defiles in rough country, but without opposition. The Persians allowed him to proceed along the pass for some distance, but when he was about half-way through the hard part, they suddenly attacked him and rolled down from above huge boulders, which falling suddenly upon the massed ranks of the Macedonians killed many of them. [Diodorus Sic. 17.68.2; note: square boulders were fine for this too--it was more tumbling than a smooth roll]

The word Mark uses denotes "end over end" motion. It has nothing to do with the shape of the object. If I have to move a large sqaure object from point A to point B, I will grab the bottom, flip it over, repeat, repeat, repeat. And when I am done, I will say, "Yeah, I had tough time rolling it over there." No one is going to respond, "Wait, 'roll'? I thought you said it was square."

Square blocking stones were either "pushed" or "pulled" away, not "rolled". Bodies and rocks fit the idea of moving something "rounded" (unless the bodies or rocks explicitly say they're square shaped) so you still have zero evidence that the word was used in regards to a square object.

Tomb Veneration: the absence of veneration at best proves nothing, at worst hurts your case. If the early Christians believed the tomb was vacated, why would should they venerate it?

Uh....because a Resurrection by God happened there. You know, it's kind of uh rare when that happens...

It was empty. The fact they did not venerate a tomb shows that the tomb no longer had any significance--because it was empty.

Then why did the Church of the Holy Sepulchre become venerated? It was empty too. Obviously, it had some sort of "significance." How come this "significance" went unnoticed for 300 years? What changed?

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 21 by YahWhat]

Hi YaWhat,

In support of your explanation as to why you think Paul doesnt go out of his way to specifically use the term "empty tomb", you say that

...The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection.

And you then proceed to contradict your own claim repeatedly here; (Note emphasis added)

Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions" were quite common in this time period.

and here

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

and here

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.

and here

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).

Isnt it true that if a Hellenic Jew like King Herod, could think "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!" - ie. no longer in a tomb/grave, then Pauls church audience in Corinth would be at least familiar with the gist of what Paul was preaching without having to have every minor detail explained?

[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.

I never said they were one in the same person so I don't know what you mean by that. Matthew and Luke copied Mark. We can tell because of the Greek language being copied verbatim between the gospels. Lookup the Synoptic Problem. John was written at such a late date that he likely heard the Markan empty tomb story which would have been in wide circulation. I've already cited the scholars in this thread that show John was indirectly influenced by Mark's gospel. In any case, there's no clear independent testimony when it comes to the empty tomb.

Sorry. Perhaps I misunderstod you. It sounded as though you were claiming Mark as the first and only source of all Gospel anecdotes and sayings and therefore no multiple attestation.

Do you accept that the collective Gospel sources consist of multiple contributors all telling parts of the same story?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by Inigo Montoya]

That is not what Goose is arguing.


YOU brought in the question of miracle; but this OP is about a historical question. Goose was honoring the historical nature of the question--he was requiring that people who claim to be doing history, be consistent with their history.

You are merely pointing out that historically claimed events that include the supernatural don't deserve to be historically analyzed. That is a philosophical position and has nothing do with historical evidence; or this particular OP.

[YahWhat]

[Replying to post 21 by YahWhat]

Hi YaWhat,

In support of your explanation as to why you think Paul doesnt go out of his way to specifically use the term "empty tomb", you say that

...The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection.

And you then proceed to contradict your own claim repeatedly here; (Note emphasis added)

Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions" were quite common in this time period.

and here

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

and here

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.

and here

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).

Isnt it true that if a Hellenic Jew like King Herod, could think "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!" - ie. no longer in a tomb/grave, then Pauls church audience in Corinth would be at least familiar with the gist of what Paul was preaching without having to have every minor detail explained?

I don't think you understand the difference between the Jewish notion of resurrection and Greco-Roman assumption/rapture/translation fables. A "missing body" didn't necessarily imply a resurrection. There's no contradiction in what I wrote as far as I can tell. As for your last point, are you familiar with the wide range of meaning for "raised" (egegertai)?

Egegertai -

1) to arouse, cause to rise
1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

You can't restrict egegertai, which has a wide range of meaning, to just the literal "raising of a physical body". All we can say for sure is that in the context of 1 Cor 15 it means "brought back to life in some sense".

They Greek audience Paul was addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. Paul tries to explain to them and answer "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" Obviously, it would have really helped Paul's argument by mentioning the empty tomb here. Keep in mind, Mark's notion of resurrection may have been more "physical" than that of Paul's.