Occam's Razor and the Tomb

[liamconnor]

Once again, Occam's Razor demands that the simplest theory is to be preferred over those theories which multiply hypotheses (i.e., spawn the most "well maybe x"). This principle reigns supreme behind all historical beliefs, those about events from five minutes ago to those of 500 years ago. To deny the validity of this principle when the topic is polemical is, of course, to be intellectually inconsistent

Here are the facts of the problem of the tomb. Please note what I mean by a "fact". No supernatural conclusions will be made in this OP, nor are they invited. No presuppositions about "the authority of scripture" are held.

First we have the facts of the gospels. The gospels all record that Jesus was buried in a tomb by a Jewish Aristocrat named Joseph, whose ascribed origins are Arimathea. All four gospels record that women were the first to the tomb early after Sabbath, and that they discovered the tomb was empty. All four gospels attribute doubt and confusion to the disciples, male and female, as their first reaction.

Moving outside the texts and into the historical/cultural background, we may also state that women were marginalized. They were not considered valid witnesses in court and even their popular "testimony" was scoffed at.

Names are also important for our reconstruction; the time and place in question had fewer names to differentiate people; Joseph was a very common name. To differentiate identical names, other descriptions were tacked on: parentage, origins, reputation/occupation.

The next most pertinent text is 1 Cor. 15. "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1Co 15:4 NAS)".

The Greek is καὶ ὅτι �τάφη καὶ ὅτι �γήγε�ται τῇ ἡμέ�ᾳ τῇ τ�ίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γ�αφὰς (1Co 15:4 BGT).

As it has been noted, the term �τάφη does not by itself carry the notion of a tomb. It simply means that part of the earliest kerygma about Jesus was that he was buried. I find the language here difficult to accommodate the notion that the earliest proclamation had Jesus thrown to the dogs; but a common burial, in the dirt, is not precluded by this term.

However, I should add that the the silence is not nearly as conspicuous as skeptics like to make out. 1 Cor. 15 is a creed reiterated for the converted; it is highly probable (beyond reasonable doubt) that this creed was expanded quite a bit at the original delivery. Creeds for the initiate are bound to be suppressed in details, and the location of the burial is precisely one detail we could expect would not make the cut. The creeds of the church father's do not mention the tomb, and they postdate the gospels. Every Easter Sunday I say, "he is risen" but I don't feel the need to specify "from a tomb".

I am not here arguing that because the silence is not conspicuous, therefore "tomb" is implied. I am simply saying that the silence is not conspicuous.

Those then are the facts as I see them; it is the historian's job to find a theory to account for them that multiplies the least "maybes".

If we start with a non-traditional theory (no tomb; thrown to dogs or buried in the earth) we need to account for the trajectory. How do we get from a kerygma that did not require a tomb to instill belief (the disciples, Paul, the Corinthians and presumably all the churches established before them, believed (on this theory) without the story of the tomb); to an invented story about a tomb, which also invented three very strange details: it ascribed a kindness to a member of the party responsible for the death of Jesus, giving him not only a name but specifying his identity by adding a geographical designation; it placed as first witnesses to the tomb women, and cast the disciples in disparaging colors.

Can an imaginative mind, working without the restrictions of rudimentary historical controls, and uninformed of 1st c. Palestinian culture, come up with a thousand maybes???

Of course, and that is just the problem. He will be multiplying hypotheses, spawning 'maybe's' left and right.

Occam states that the simpler explanation is to be preferred. In this case it is the traditional theory; it entails some bumps, but nothing like the torturous route required by an alternative explanation.

Of course, this says nothing about whether Jesus was raised or not. It simply means that part and parcel of the original Christian proclamation involved an empty tomb.

And Technically speaking, this does not even mean that there was an empty tomb; one who subscribes to a "conspiracy/lie" theory of Christian origins can try and make his case; but very few atheists here have defended that theory and it would be suspicious if they started to now.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to liamconnor in post #1]

Occam's razor wittles it down to penmanship. A guy wrote a story that included an empty tomb scene. That was easy.

Heres a harder one:

What would occams razor do if it had to choose only one of the three options from the Liar, Lord or Lunatic trilemma ?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #101]

None of the above. The only story we have for Jesus comes from gMark, an obvious fiction.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Greek is καὶ ὅτι �τάφη καὶ ὅτι �γήγε�ται τῇ ἡμέ�ᾳ τῇ τ�ίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γ�αφὰς (1Co 15:4 BGT).

As it has been noted, the term �τάφη does not by itself carry the notion of a tomb. It simply means that part of the earliest kerygma about Jesus was that he was buried. I find the language here difficult to accommodate the notion that the earliest proclamation had Jesus thrown to the dogs; but a common burial, in the dirt, is not precluded by this term.

I like your approach here liam. I’ll just comment on this bit.

Although θα�πτω (thaptō) meant bury we have to keep mind the context of who is using the word. It’s Paul, a former Pharisee and Jew, speaking of the burial of, Jesus, another Jew. Jews buried their dead in tombs. They didn’t just throw bodies in a common dirt pit. Unceremoniously throwing a dead body in a common pit and calling that a burial would have been a contradiction in terms to a first century Jew. In other words, to a Jew to be buried meant to be placed in a tomb.

An analogy would be something like one vegetarian saying their vegetarian friend went for dinner. We can be quite certain they meant the vegetarian friend ate a vegetarian meal. We wouldn’t think that meant the vegetarian friend went for ribs.

Secondly, as I know you are probably already aware thaptō is used elsewhere (Acts 2:29) in the context of a Jewish burial where it presupposes a tomb. And let’s not forget this is Luke, a companion of Paul, using this same word.

All in all it seems to be a very solid argument that when Paul said Jesus was buried he meant placed in a tomb. I don’t see how Paul could have meant anything else.

That's a useful post. Bible apologists don't care for negative evidence or conclusions from silence, but it is a valid point (I think) that in Paul's epistles, in explaining his views to the Romans or his churches, he often refers to the OT as backup or some thing he's said before, and you'd think in his reference to belief in the resurrection, he'd set out what happened just once. He says just about nothing about Jesus and, ok, it can be argued either way.

What I say about the resurrection accounts doesn't (I argue) admit of Interpretation (though many have tried - the 'The Marys split up' excuse has reappeared) as compared one gospel - account with another as well as with the first Corinthian (the second shows up in his next letter) the contradictions show independently fabricated stories, though with common elements, just as there are in the contradictory nativities. Of course there are; they are why they had to be invented.

However the empty tomb is, undeniably, a common and thus original element. I have already explained why I think it could be an early (pre -synoptic, even) part of the story but still an invention. Just as the Passover exchange custom, which doesn't (negative evidence, again) seem to have been a Thing. And I can even explain why it was invented.

Which relates back to the tomb again. I can explain the point of inventing the women going there. But I concede that it is just a suggestion. But to get back to Occam's razor or the principle of parsimony (the explanation that multiplies the least number of logical entities, is to be preferred), Some don't like it and it has even been dismissed as a mere human preference.

I don't think so, even though it exists simply so the discussion can get anywhere. It is based on the way things work and does establish the principle of the more probable explanation. I use the analogy of the bush and the boulder. When the bush is hidden behind the boulder it multiplies entities (literally ) to claim that it vanishes when out of sight rather than assuming it's still there but hidden. There is no good reason to suppose it vanishes every time it's out of sight.

This also answers the ancient conundrum of whether a tree is still there when nobody is there to see it; why wouldn't it be? Of course, there are all sorts of theories about reality being dependent on human consciousness, but here again, these are mere ideas or hypotheses without a shred of supportive evidence (1):. Interesting ideas but (in another analogy I use) for the pending tray until some persuasive reason to think a 'supernatural' (as we say) explanation obtains rather than assuming that bushes (and trees) don't vanish every time nobody is looking at them.

So we come to the tomb. What is the simplest explanation of the empty tomb? Jesus who was dead came alive and exited the tomb, right? Wrong. The simplest explanation is that somebody came and removed the body. After all, that's what Mary Magdalene thinks in John and what Matthew reports as the rumour in his day. "The disciples stole the body."

Well, plainly, that won't do and the apologetics start. "The disciples were scattered and fearful". But those aren't the ones we are talking about; we are talking about the ones who put Jesus there. But why would they remove a dead body? Because they hoped he wasn't dead and, having said that, the funny business of the crucifixion suggests a plot to save Jesus. I know - goes against the 2,000 year old narrative. So does the fabricated invention of the nativities, and I reckon they are undeniably ,evidently and demonstrably false and fabricated, and 2,000 years of Narrative has ignored that And the same with the resurrections. How many even noticed that Luke changes the angelic message? How many noticed that there is an appearance to Simon that nobody else has even mentioned? "There's none so blind as those who don't want to see".

So, yes, I think the simplest conclusion that best fits the evidence (assuming the narrative as fact for sake of the argument) is that the body was removed by human agency. There is even evidence for this. "Who moved the stone?"

Jesus wouldn't need to. He could walk through walls at need. Humans would need to open it. Matthew, I think recognises this, though he invents a rather daft angel to explain how the rock door was opened.

I can see a whole lot of apologetics (both ways) arising from this, but I suggest that Occam's razor is going to operate in favour of a mundane explanation, even though it isn't the one the the Bible apologists would prefer and have preferred for 2,000 years.

(1) cue the faithbased argument of "You can't disprove it".

[The Nice Centurion]

Jesus wouldn't need to. He could walk through walls at need. Humans would need to open it. Matthew, I think recognises this, though he invents a rather daft angel to explain how the rock door was opened.

Strange.
Why needs an omnipotent god need "An Errand of Angels" (also the name of a mormon movie)?
Cant he just will the tomb to open itself?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Strange.
Why needs an omnipotent god need "An Errand of Angels" (also the name of a mormon movie)?
Cant he just will the tomb to open itself?

"I will ignore Genesis 1 which attests to God willing an entire universe into existence, just so I can, for sake of being skeptical on this thread, call into question Gods ability to will a closed tomb open."

[The Nice Centurion]

Strange.
Why needs an omnipotent god need "An Errand of Angels" (also the name of a mormon movie)?
Cant he just will the tomb to open itself?

"I will ignore Genesis 1 which attests to God willing an entire universe into existence, just so I can, for sake of being skeptical on this thread, call into question Gods ability to will a closed tomb open."

Thank you for strenghtening my point!

You saw the light and became a sceptic, I assume?

Hopefully someone who remained true to the faith will tell me why a god who was primus in omnipotence school needs angelic lackeys to roll a stone.

[TRANSPONDER]

Jesus wouldn't need to. He could walk through walls at need. Humans would need to open it. Matthew, I think recognises this, though he invents a rather daft angel to explain how the rock door was opened.

Strange.
Why needs an omnipotent god need "An Errand of Angels" (also the name of a mormon movie)?
Cant he just will the tomb to open itself?

Yes. As I say, Jesus could supposedly walk through the rock door if he wished. There seems no reason to have it open but a plot -device, like the women having to go to the tomb at all, because they have to look inside and see it empty. Matthew had the angel outside to explain everything as well as opening the door for them, presumably because he saw the women approaching and knew they'd have to have the door open as it wasn't to let Jesus out; he was already gone. I can see Matthew's clumsy plot construction here, as well as diverging from Mark who had the 'angel' inside waiting to give the same message that Matthew's angel gave outside. I recall that Luke followed Mark (the original version) with the message given inside the tomb, though he edits a bit with the women being 'affrighted' but going in to see the empty tomb anyway and the angelic message being changed, of course.

So I guess that's my answer - God or Jesus doesn't need to have the tomb open; the writers do, or it isn't convenient for their story.

[The Nice Centurion]

Jesus wouldn't need to. He could walk through walls at need. Humans would need to open it. Matthew, I think recognises this, though he invents a rather daft angel to explain how the rock door was opened.

Strange.
Why needs an omnipotent god need "An Errand of Angels" (also the name of a mormon movie)?
Cant he just will the tomb to open itself?

I disagree that its obvious that Jesus could have walked through walls or stone.

Miracle time seemed to be over after crucification, old or new body dosnt matter.
(And even during miracle time before crucification it seems unsure if Christ just was able to perform any miracle he wanted.)

Yeah, one time in a house resu-Christ just "appeared" among his fans, but which occams razor would conclude that therefore he could walk through walls.
(Christians insist in a flesh and blood resu-Christ body!)
Occams razor would rather conclude a hidden entrance or better a door left open.

[TRANSPONDER]

Jesus wouldn't need to. He could walk through walls at need. Humans would need to open it. Matthew, I think recognises this, though he invents a rather daft angel to explain how the rock door was opened.

Strange.
Why needs an omnipotent god need "An Errand of Angels" (also the name of a mormon movie)?
Cant he just will the tomb to open itself?

I disagree that its obvious that Jesus could have walked through walls or stone.

Miracle time seemed to be over after crucification, old or new body dosnt matter.
(And even during miracle time before crucification it seems unsure if Christ just was able to perform any miracle he wanted.)

Yeah, one time in a house resu-Christ just "appeared" among his fans, but which occams razor would conclude that therefore he could walk through walls.
(Christians insist in a flesh and blood resu-Christ body!)
Occams razor would rather conclude a hidden entrance or better a door left open.

I think the accounts refute that. Jesus did not walk out when the door was opened (in Matthew). He was long gone. When Jesus appears in the evening (Luke and John) he suddenly appears. There is no knock on the door.

Everyone freezes. "Worry not, it's me; Jesus."
"Jesus who?"
"Jesus Christ, you'll regret it if you don't open this door right now!"

Whether he walks through the wall or manifests in front of them like a Star trek effect, the door of either house or tomb do not need to be opened.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #109]
Then why did the angel(s) roll the stone?