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.

[Goose]

Part 2

Well, according to the ARCHAEOLOGICAL FACTS only 4 out of 900 have been found to exist prior to the year 70 and we have direct evidence of those being more elaborate tombs belonging to royal families. Seems like a valid inference to me as the archaeologists who did the research seem to come to the same conclusion.

But what you can’t infer is that only royal families had round sealing stones. And that’s what you need to infer in order to make this counter argument work. What you cannot dispute is that round sealing stones existed at the time and is therefore consistent with the Gospel account. Some wealthy family tombs, such as the Caiaphas family, had rather average tombs. Apparently some people spent a lot of money on their tombs and others didn’t. Just like in our won time. Maybe Josephus was one of those people who wanted to spend a lot on a new tomb with a round sealing stone.

It says there were only 4 out of over 900 found to be round. How is that not rare?

4 out of 900 found around Jerusalem. But that’s not to mean there was only ever four round sealing stones. There were more round sealing stones found outside Jerusalem. In other words, one didn’t have to be as rich as a king to have a round sealing stone. You are trying erroneously to make it sound like there was something so inherently cost prohibitive to a round sealing stone that even a person wealthy enough to afford a rock hewn tomb couldn’t afford the additional cost of a round sealing stone. That seems absurd.

There are plenty of things wrong with the burial account. This detail just adds more to the laundry list pointing in the direction of fiction. The author was trying to depict Jesus being given a nicer burial than what he probably would have received.

A “nicer burial� by giving a round sealing stone? That doesn’t make sense.

Appealing to Gallic Wars, doesn't magically mean you get to assert that Mark was writing Peter's preaching. Your "evidence" that Mark was comes from Peter is extremely weak. A guy whose description doesn't even match the canonical account from the second century who is described by as a "man of little intelligence" by Eusebius who also tells us that Judas got so fat he exploded? That sounds like a reliable person you'd accept testimony from?

Entirely missing the point and not addressing the argument here. The evidence we have for the authorship of Mark is just as good, maybe better, than the evidence we have for other works like Caesar’s Gallic Wars for which authorship is taken for granted. The earliest attribution from Cicero simply refers to Caesar’s memoirs and doesn’t match what we know of the Gallic Wars we have either. The first clear attribution from Suetonius is about 170 later. All the same problems but I bet you don’t doubt Caesar’s authorship of the Gallic Wars. We’d be throwing out many secular texts with your reasoning.

I just did. Papias' description doesn't match canonical Mark ergo you don't get to use this dubious reference and claim it's a settled debate.

Asserted but not shown.

Where is the internal evidence that we have Peter's preaching again? Or are you relying on an already demonstrated dubious external inference from someone in the 2nd century whose description does match the canonical?

Internal evidence like what? Where Mark says hey this is all taken from Peter’s preaching? We don’t have that. We just have supporting evidence (e.g. Peter’s preaching in Acts) in as much as it doesn’t falsify the hypothesis. The salient point is we have external evidence from a relatively early and connected source that says Mark was a companion of Peter. What evidence do you have that falsifies this claim?

If the author was making a critique of the disciples or going for an "anti-Peter" motif then it makes perfect sense to depict him in a negative light.

Now why would the author of Mark be going for an “anti-Peter motif�?

What's my point!? If we actually had Peter's preaching then we'd expect him to tell us the most important part! He's the first one listed in the list of witnesses in 1 Cor 15:5-8! Did Peter forget to tell Mark about how he went back to check the tomb later as Luke and John tell us? That's not in the original Mark either.

Mark does tell us the most important part – Jesus had risen. If Mark had provided a specific appearance to a disciple then we would have expected there to be an appearance to Peter if Mark’s Gospel had Peter behind it. But Mark doesn’t provide any specific appearances to any disciples. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect there to be an appearance to Peter provided by Mark.

How did the author get accurate information of the events with none of the disciples present?

You ask this and yet you affirm the trial of Jesus.

Map for reference: http://www.bible-history.com/maps/first ... israel.jpg
"Geographical mistakes include having pigs in Gerasa jumping into the Sea of Galilee when Gerasa was 30 miles away from the lake (around H8 on the map), in 7:31 Jesus walks from Tyre to the Decapolis by way of Sidon ( "Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis"), If you look at the map, you can see that this route is impossible (Tyre and Sidon are on the upper northwest of the map, the Decapolis is southwest of the Sea of Galilee). Mark 11:1 has Jesus going from Jericho to Jerusalem by going through Bethphage then Bethany, which is the reverse order of how those towns arrived at on the road from Jericho. In 6:45, Mark has Jesus and the disciples on the northwestern part of the lake (Tabgha on this map http://www.magdalenepublishing.org/wp-c ... 2000px.jpg, has Jesus tell the disciples to go across the lake to Bethsaida, then has them get out of the bot at Genessaret (Ginosaur on the second map), which is on the same side of the lake they started. Here's a photograph of the lake http://www.sermonsfromseattle.com/images/5_02.gif with all the salient loactions marked except for Genessareth which is just south of Tabgha following the coastline. These are locations that would have been very well known to anyone from Galilee in particular. The route from Jericho would have been known to virtually everyone as well since it was a major road of travel to Jerusalem for festivals."

A quote from an anonymous internet sceptic called “brojangles� on reddit? Good grief.

These “geographical mistakes� in Mark are old news and most have been easily addressed numerous times by scholars simply by taking a more careful reading of the text. Mark 7:31 can be read as an itinerary, not a map. Mark 11:1 says nothing about Jericho nor does it say “going though Bethphage to Bethany.� That’s the sceptic attempting to manufacture a geographical error that isn’t there. On Mark 6:45 Mike Licona offers a survey of how different scholars have attempted to answer this question.

Traditional authorship is rejected in modern critical scholarship.

So critical scholars reject traditional authorship. And? I provided links to Daniel B. Wallace, a bonafide New Testament scholar, where he provides the arguments for traditional authorship.

To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings." https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scho ... e-gospels/

You provide a link to Matthew Ferguson. A doctoral candidate with an MA in Classics who in turn quotes the Oxford Annotated Bible.

But I am glad you linked to Ferguson here. In the near future I hope to use his material against him in a new thread I plan to start on Gospel authorship.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 71 by Goose]

I'll chime in here with a few points, mainly summaries of what I think Goose is arguing for:

1) A good deal seems to have been made over a "round" seal. This sounds like some R. Carrier nonsense, making a technical term out of the common Greek apokuliw. I see no reason to suppose that the tomb was sealed with a cylindrical seal, and therefore no real argument can be made for or against the burial as recounted in the gospels.

2) Archaeology tells us what has been found and not found; it does not tell us what exists; as any real archaeologist will tell us. From internet debaters, one gets the impression they think that all of Palestine is one big archaelogical site that has been thoroughly excavated!

3) There is no doubt that Rome, in general, ditched crucified corpses. There is also no doubt that Rome allowed exceptions to Jews. We have archaelogical evidence of a crucified victim given what we would call a "proper burial"; we have evidence from Josephus of crucified Jews being buried according to Jewish custom.

4) There is nothing incongruent about a wealthy aristocrat paying burial homage to a provincial religious leader, regardless of the leader's social upbringing. by providing a more dignified burial. It would be most unusual for this to be made up, since the gospels all attribute Jesus' death to the Jerusalem aristocracy: if we were to hear a story springing up from Jews about a German officer making a gracious gesture to a Jew in 1940s Germany, fabrication would be the last explanation. OF course, any one can come up with a reason for fabricating the story: that is just the point, one has to get creative and creativity can generate countless explanations.


5) This last point is especially pertinent. Yahwhat seems to think that so long as he can respond with an explanation, his explanation is therefore right. Hence

"If the author was making a critique of the disciples or going for an "anti-Peter" motif then it makes perfect sense to depict him in a negative light.

6) The OP makes it clear that there is an enormous burden on skeptics. Please read again where it states:

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.

Occam's razor in history requires the simplest and most plausible explanation to cover these peculiarities. Simplest and most plausible explanation is: Jesus was given a tomb by a more supportive member of the Jerusalem aristocracy; the tomb was discovered empty; it was discovered empty by women; the male disciples were confused and skeptical.


Quite simple, quite plausible, quite cogent.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 72 by liamconnor]

Obviously, all the thousands of empty tombs are proof that the promise of Christianity has been fulfilled. All the corpses from every empty grave were resurrected!

Glory be, praise God.

Archaeological evidence confirms this, just as Liam said. No body = eternal life.

Occams razor says every empty tomb is a confirmation of Jesus promise. What else could it be?
Lazarus' is just one other example.

Wild animals will empty no tomb. No one has any identical twins of doppelgangers, no one would ever perpetrate a fraud.

Rising from the dead is the simplest solution to an empty tomb.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 72 by liamconnor]

Obviously, all the thousands of empty tombs are proof that the promise of Christianity has been fulfilled. All the corpses from every empty grave were resurrected!

Glory be, praise God.

Archaeological evidence confirms this, just as Liam said. No body = eternal life.

Occams razor says every empty tomb is a confirmation of Jesus promise. What else could it be?
Lazarus' is just one other example.

Wild animals will empty no tomb. No one has any identical twins of doppelgangers, no one would ever perpetrate a fraud.

Rising from the dead is the simplest solution to an empty tomb.

Sarcasm is often the last resort of those who either have no argument or don't understand the conversation.

Notice the OP subject: it is about an empty tomb, not the resurrection. The kind of specification it involves is the kind historians actually deal with. Thus you have sided with a good many historians, not all Christians: there was indeed an empty tomb; though no doubt you disagree with another historical conclusion, because Jesus was raised.

Are you willing to be cited as accepting that Jesus was buried in a tomb later to be found empty?

Or are you willing to confess you misread the context of this entire OP, yet still felt you should jump in and say whatever came across your mind?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 74 by liamconnor]

It is not sarcasm.
It is argument ad absurdum.

Where one takes an argument to it logical absurd conclusion to demonstrate how preposterous the premise is.

Your premise: An empty tomb is evidence of the resurrection.
Christianity promises resurrection, therefore all empty tombs should be evidence of the resurrection.

Why not, didn't Jesus promise it would occur withing his disciples lifetimes?
By extending your logic I demonstrate exactly how preposterous the premise is - in accordance with simple logic.

Then we have further elaboration:
Animals obviously do desecrate tombs, and with uncanny cleanliness.
Man do perpetrate religious fraud.

Your Occam's razor suggests any number of possible alternatives, an infinite number in probability - long before the principle would ever suggest the reversal of the decay of three days dead flesh would occur.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 74 by liamconnor]

It is not sarcasm.
It is argument ad absurdum.

Where one takes an argument to it logical absurd conclusion to demonstrate how preposterous the premise is.

Your premise: An empty tomb is evidence of the resurrection.
Christianity promises resurrection, therefore all empty tombs should be evidence of the resurrection.

Why not, didn't Jesus promise it would occur withing his disciples lifetimes?
By extending your logic I demonstrate exactly how preposterous the premise is - in accordance with simple logic.

Then we have further elaboration:
Animals obviously do desecrate tombs, and with uncanny cleanliness.
Man do perpetrate religious fraud.

Your Occam's razor suggests any number of possible alternatives, an infinite number in probability - long before the principle would ever suggest the reversal of the decay of three days dead flesh would occur.

Willum, I know you are an astute man.

I know you will be able to see that in this OP the quesiton of the resurrection is not raised at all. Though others might not get it, surely you get it, that each OP has to be measured by its own parameters!?

Thus I am confident you see that in this OP the question is not whether or not Jesus was raised, but whether he was buried in a tomb later to be found vacant. No doubt there might be numerous explanations for the vacancy; numerous natural explanations. For many, the temptation to ignore the OP and list those explanations will be huge; but I trust you can resist it and stick to the OP. For you will see that those explanations are not at issue here, though they are important. I fully trust you, you above all, will appreciate the importance of focusing on the specifics of each OP. And in this OP, we have a very specific, non-polemical, non-religious question: Did some Jewesses a long time ago arrive at the tomb where their Rabbi was buried and find it empty.

That is all. Really, really, mundane. As you have astutely pointed out, an empty tomb proves NOTHING. I agree, of course. I guess I like mundane historical posts.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 76 by liamconnor]

Very astute, I think my presentation, though specifying it, exemplifies that a resurrection should be excluded from analysis.

There are so many explanations for an empty tomb that involve no miracles. An empty tomb, as you say proves nothing, except for some kind of tragedy. Robbery, animal mutilation, and so on.

V/R

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 77 by Willum]

So, you agree that there was an empty tomb, though this obviously does not mean there was a resurrection.

Yes?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 78 by liamconnor]

I think I have agreed there have been thousands of empty tombs.
Let's take a look at all of them and see how the one story compares.
Of those thousands, why should any be special?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed theoretical scrutiny tests and are equally well-supported by evidence. Furthermore, it may be used to prioritize empirical testing between two equally plausible but unequally testable hypotheses; thereby minimizing costs and wastes while increasing chances of falsification of the simpler-to-test hypothesis.

From wikipedia Occam's razor: Controversial aspects of the razor

We are talking about whether Jesus was buried on day one and on day three the tomb was found empty. We place this against the background of 1st. c. Palestine and all we know about it.

As I see it, the best explanation is that Jesus was buried in a tomb on day one and that that same tomb was empty on day three. (albeit, we are not talking about three 24hour periods).

This OP makes no mention of miracles. A person can agree with this without becoming a Christian or theist.

Obviously, the person who rejects this because it may require him to accept Christianity is being intellectually dishonest.