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.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 38 by Lion IRC]

I will piggy back of Lion.

There is plenty of evidence within the gospels that multiple persons contributed to the gospels as a whole:

1) Whenever we have a geographical descriptive attached to a name, it cries out "This person is being specified; it is not a mere Joe; it is, that particular Joe whom you know" because there would be no reason to distinguish a fictional character. In other words, why state that "Joseph of ARIMETHEA" buried Jesus. Imagine the early readers seeing this...."Joseph who??". Or Mark writing it, "Hmmm, let's give Joe something a little more definite". Details like these cry out "original eye witness telling persons his story, and continued presence among a community continuing to tell his story."

2) Whenever offspring is mentioned as designations: And they pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross. (Mar 15:21 NAS)

A rather strange detail....unless the community knew who Alexander and Rufus were, and these brothers became followers and recounted their dad's story.


As for the Empty tomb specifically....

In all gospels we have Mary Magdalene. Why? Why her?

The fact remains is that there is very good evidence for eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb, not just Mary Mag, but other women.

The resurrection accounts overlap and do not contradict each other with the names of the first witnesses. That these witnesses were in fact true and not fictional witnesses is just short of being mathematically proved because women in those days were not considered reliable sources--thus to say this is a fiction (multiple women at the empty tomb) is to say that the disciples, or whomever, deliberately fabricated a story which would HURT their case.

The common knee jerk reaction counter is: not all the gospels record the same women; that would only be a reasonable counter if the the gospel writers were under torture for exact detailed accounts................or, and more to the point, if they knew they were writing to 21st c. skeptics who were going to make a big deal that the gospel of John only mentions Magdalene, the gospel of Mark mentions Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome; the gospel of Matthew mentions only Magdalene and the other Mary; and Luke mentions both Magdalene and Mary of James and other women. But they weren't writing to 21st c. Skeptics.

It is deplorable history to ignore the important question of "historical audience" and start picking apart an ancient document looking for explicit answers to YOUR questions.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 1 by YahWhat]

Well, for starters its unlikely that Christ was buried, in a known tomb, in the first place; this simply was not the standard procedure. It was part of the process of crucifixion that the body was left on the cross to decompose and for wild animals to devour; this was part of the punishment, intended to dehumanize/humiliate the victim as much as possible (also to make a grisly example of the fate awaiting enemies of the Roman state). And this is fairly widely attested by ancient sources. So its already unlikely that Christ was buried at all. And when criminals were buried, it was also standard Roman practice to use mass, unmarked graves. So even if Christ was buried (highly unlikely), its unlikely that he was buried in a known/identifiable tomb. Its also unlikely that a special exception was made for Christ, since all the evidence we have suggests that Pilate was exceedingly vicious and cruel- not a big one for mercy or special favors to one sentenced to die as an enemy of the Roman state. These are historical reasons that, in addition to the textual considerations the OP mentions, call into question the empty tomb narraitve, by undermining the crucial premise that Christ was buried in a tomb at all.

[YahWhat]

[Replying to post 38 by Lion IRC]

I will piggy back of Lion.

There is plenty of evidence within the gospels that multiple persons contributed to the gospels as a whole:

1) Whenever we have a geographical descriptive attached to a name, it cries out "This person is being specified; it is not a mere Joe; it is, that particular Joe whom you know" because there would be no reason to distinguish a fictional character. In other words, why state that "Joseph of ARIMETHEA" buried Jesus. Imagine the early readers seeing this...."Joseph who??". Or Mark writing it, "Hmmm, let's give Joe something a little more definite". Details like these cry out "original eye witness telling persons his story, and continued presence among a community continuing to tell his story."

2) Whenever offspring is mentioned as designations: And they pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross. (Mar 15:21 NAS)

A rather strange detail....unless the community knew who Alexander and Rufus were, and these brothers became followers and recounted their dad's story.


As for the Empty tomb specifically....

In all gospels we have Mary Magdalene. Why? Why her?

The fact remains is that there is very good evidence for eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb, not just Mary Mag, but other women.

The resurrection accounts overlap and do not contradict each other with the names of the first witnesses. That these witnesses were in fact true and not fictional witnesses is just short of being mathematically proved because women in those days were not considered reliable sources--thus to say this is a fiction (multiple women at the empty tomb) is to say that the disciples, or whomever, deliberately fabricated a story which would HURT their case.

The common knee jerk reaction counter is: not all the gospels record the same women; that would only be a reasonable counter if the the gospel writers were under torture for exact detailed accounts................or, and more to the point, if they knew they were writing to 21st c. skeptics who were going to make a big deal that the gospel of John only mentions Magdalene, the gospel of Mark mentions Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome; the gospel of Matthew mentions only Magdalene and the other Mary; and Luke mentions both Magdalene and Mary of James and other women. But they weren't writing to 21st c. Skeptics.

It is deplorable history to ignore the important question of "historical audience" and start picking apart an ancient document looking for explicit answers to YOUR questions.

I don't think you understand what eyewitness testimony is. The gospels aren't eyewitness accounts and we have no idea who wrote them. They are anonymous. Paul is our only eyewitness.

[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.

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?

If the authors of Matthew, Luke, and John all used the Markan empty tomb story then you don't have independent testimony. You're left with 3 authors that used the same story and added details to it.

[Inigo Montoya]

[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.

This is what Goose is arguing, even if indirectly. You are, too, and many others. Resurrections and demigods are being presented as reasonable explanations by using this universally applied ''historical methodology.''

Historical questions are grand. The historical natures of questions are fun. For the people who claim to be doing history, I agree it should be done consistently. So how do you ''do history consistently'' when you run face first into resurrections and gods?

You don't get to separate history from the supernatural in this case. The ''history'' being argued for within these texts IS supernatural.

You mis-characterize what I'm ''merely pointing out,'' and I don't say supernatural events don't deserve to be historically analyzed. I'm saying they can't be. What are they to be compared to...and ''consistently'', no less? You keep insisting sneaking in the supernatural has nothing to do with historical evidence, but that's exactly the methodology you guys are using to establish resurrections and demigods in the first place as somehow ''historical.''

Say it's off topic if you like, but you don't get to ignore the ''supernatural'' aspects while using this ''fairly applied historical evidence'' only to make a case later for ''supernatural events'' being the best explanation of the ''fairly applied historical evidence.''

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 43 by YahWhat]

I know exactly what eyewitness accounts are.

What you mean are eyewitness authors.

When a scribe types down in a trial the words of a eyewitness account, we have an eyewitness account.

When that eyewitness person writes his/her story of the event, we have an eyewitness author.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 36 by YahWhat]

It is late, so I am sorry I will not be treating each response right now. But for now....


Can you please give me a detailed path from "Paul didn't believe in an empty tomb and didn't preach an empty tomb and certainly gave no suggestion that the corpse of Jesus was itself raised" to "the gospels" which depict an empty tomb.

Now hold on, let's look at the parameters...

Somehow we get from no empty tomb (50 AD) to empty tomb (60/70 AD). In twenty years tops (and it doesn't matter, give a late date for Mark of 80, though that is pushing it), when news travels only as fast as feet, the entire story has changed. 20 years is not that long for oral history when combined with oral transmission. Especially in the ancient world.

What was the reason for the change? Why would one person suddenly suggest, "Wait, maybe Jesus not only was raised spiritually like we were taught, but his dead body in the tomb was raised"; and why would that catch on like WILD FIRE so that all three gospel writers offer it without correction. Why have we no evidence between 50 AD and 80 AD of a tension between the two theories: we have plenty of tension about other topics (Gentile circumcision)?

Please!!!

Put 1 Cor. 15 in front of you without any preconceptions. read, and only read "He died, was buried, and after 3 days he rose".

Now, lay beside that the gospel accounts (forget the details, just look at the basic premise of an empty tomb).

Now, if you still cannot see how Paul may very well (and that is a generous concession, "may very well") be talking about a real, reanimated body only 3 days dead; then get me from the one (belief in an occupied burial site) to the other in a plausible (i.e. give me psychological motives) way that could take place in 20 or 30 years; allowing not only for an oral development that overturns previous tradition (1st Cor 15 is creedal in its rhythm) but oral travel as well, which is carrying those developments (and surely these developments are not happening over night, so that some person in, say Antioch, decides that the tomb was empty, tells person B to get the note out, and within a 3 week period of spreading this news from Jerusalem to Rome, everyone just jumps in with a "yeah, sounds good").

If you decide to withdraw and say, well, maybe others thought there was an empty tomb and that won out....

....whatever complication you decide to throw in, fine, factor that in and get me from A to Z.

Tomorrow hopefully I will be able to deal with the rest.


Is there any one else out there that agrees with Yahwah? Because I cannot for the life of me see how his arguments from silence even compete with this basic logic, let alone everything else mentioned in this thread.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 40 by YahWhat]

Well, I wouldnt want to unreasonably constrain the interpretation of words like tomb/grave or raised. But nor would I want to do the opposite - which appears to be what you are doing and claiming that Paul can only have meant one possible thing.

The interpretation I prefer - to make upright, vertical - has a clearly physical connotation, whether you are talking about erecting a building or a person getting up out of bed as in..."Talitha koum!"

What is exceptional about Jesus calling Lazarus' "spirit" out from a burial place? (Lets not use the word tomb or grave.) Surely, anyone can claim to summon the spirit of the dead (a ghost or a moving oija board) and yet it wouldnt be accounted as a miraculous physical raising of someone from the dead. What consolation is it for the grieving parents of a dead child to be told....see? shes alive now! All better. I raised her (spirit) from the dead. Never mind that her physical body is still right there dead on the floor.

Do you agree that since Paul/Saul getting around telling people he merely saw a hallucination of Jesus "spirit" doesnt get him anywhere near the sort of the attention that a dead body coming back to life would?

Thomas Didymus is right on point here in getting to the heart of the matter - am I dreaming, are you a ghost, OR are you really Him?

[YahWhat]

[Replying to post 40 by YahWhat]

Well, I wouldnt want to unreasonably constrain the interpretation of words like tomb/grave or raised. But nor would I want to do the opposite - which appears to be what you are doing and claiming that Paul can only have meant one possible thing.

The interpretation I prefer - to make upright, vertical - has a clearly physical connotation, whether you are talking about erecting a building or a person getting up out of bed as in..."Talitha koum!"

What is exceptional about Jesus calling Lazarus' "spirit" out from a burial place? (Lets not use the word tomb or grave.) Surely, anyone can claim to summon the spirit of the dead (a ghost or a moving oija board) and yet it wouldnt be accounted as a miraculous physical raising of someone from the dead. What consolation is it for the grieving parents of a dead child to be told....see? shes alive now! All better. I raised her (spirit) from the dead. Never mind that her physical body is still right there dead on the floor.

Do you agree that since Paul/Saul getting around telling people he merely saw a hallucination of Jesus "spirit" doesnt get him anywhere near the sort of the attention that a dead body coming back to life would?

Thomas Didymus is right on point here in getting to the heart of the matter - am I dreaming, are you a ghost, OR are you really Him?

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't describe the raising of Lazarus. You only get that from the later gospels, after the resurrection has become a wholly physical revivification. Moreover, Christians always tell me Lazarus wasn't "resurrected" like Jesus was so if there's a difference then why rule out the chance that the earliest Christians saw it differently than later Christians did?

And Paul never told anyone he "saw a hallucination" or "saw a spirit". He and the other apostles really thought they "saw" Jesus. But according to the earliest testimony, these "appearances" were visionary experiences as I demonstrate here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 74&start=0

[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.

I know I said I was done for the night, but I have been straining to find an established category in which to place your conception of Paul's conceived resurrection; I think I have found one. Transmigration.

Are you arguing that the early Christians believed Jesus' soul transmigrated from a recent body ( a corpse at the point of, and forever after, transmigration) into a miraculously provided body?

If so,

Can you describe what you think Paul thought Jesus' body was like. Was it touchable? Was it composed of matter? Could it be cut? Could it eat (we are talking about Paul--not the gospels)? did it age? Was there blood pumping through its veins? You place great emphasis on Paul's use of "spiritual" and I want to know how you define that.

We can apply these same questions to general resurrection:

It seems obvious Paul thought Jesus would return any day in his letters. He also was aware that Christians were dying (1 Thes); according to you, did Paul think that, if Christ returned, say, the day after sending off 1 Thes, that the bodies of Christians still decomposing in their recently "dug" "graves" would remain there, and their "souls" would be reembodied with "spiritual" (still not sure what you mean by that) bodies?

I am not setting a trap. I simply am confused about your conceptions.