Independent sources for the empty tomb

[FarWanderer]

Question for discussion: How many independent sources do we have for the empty tomb?

[FarWanderer]

This thread was inspired by an exchange in another thread. I am posting my response here because it is an unrelated topic to the original thread.

We have at least 5 INDEPENDENT claims of an empty tomb.

Are we just going to ignore the fact that modern biblical scholars largely believe that the synoptic gospels borrowed from each other?

No, I believe we need to consider this. However, I do not think it wise to simply take their word. The question would be, what evidence do they have, that this would be the case?

I am not sure, as I am not a biblical scholar. And I am not about to devote decades of my life to analyzing the Bible as they have.

But then again, I am not making contrary claims.

[section removed because off topic]

However, have you really ever thought about their claims? On the one hand, you have those scholars who want to argue that we really do not know who the authors may have been, and it could have been those decades later after the events, who would not have even been around at the time of the alleged events, and were simply writing down what had been past down through the years, and then there are those who claim these writers must, and even had to copy each other.

Next, you have those who complain because there are discrepancies in the reports, and then on the other, there are those who want to complain that they must and had to copy each other.

I would expect differences in different eyewitness reports. I would also expect differences from translation, additions or exclusions for targeting audiences, embellishment, and imperfect preservation of a common oral tradition.

The point is, it is not as though they all agree with each other. Rather, all they can do is to give you their opinion, and it would be one thing if they all agreed, and had solid evidence to support their opinions, but all we really have is guesswork.

From my understanding, nearly all biblical scholars believe that the Synoptic Gospels copied from each other. What is disagreed upon is who copied from who, and how much.

At any rate, the copying really does not make a whole lot of sense? In other words, if they did indeed copy, then why would there be the discrepancies, as opposed to these things being word, for word?

Some significant portions are word for word.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... r-word.png

Next, if there were those who simply wanted others to read what had been written by the other, then why would they go to the trouble to attempt to write at all? Why would they have not rather, sent copies of the report they intended to copy from, since this would be much easier? Also, we do have one writer of one of what has been called the Gospels, which is a letter addressed to a friend, and this author begins in this letter by acknowledging to this friend that, "many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us."

I don't see how this supports your argument. Luke claims he "compiled an account". From what? Is there any reason to suppose his main source for this account wasn't Mark and/or Matthew?

Matthew was clearly writing for a Jewish audience and Luke a Roman one. As for our careful historian Luke, he demonstrably made up portions of his story for narrative purposes. Take Luke 1:34 for example. Mary says to Gabriel after being told she will bear a son: "How can this be? Because I am virgin". I can guarantee that even if this encounter with Gabriel really took place, Mary would not have asked that question. From Mary's perspective it makes no sense to ask, because it doesn't take a miracle for a virgin to become a mother in the future. A normal question would be about who the father is to be.

So why did she ask this question? Because it served the story-teller's purposes of signalling Jesus's virgin birth to the audience. The facts don't actually matter here, just the narrative.

So, where else might have our self-proclaimed "careful investigator" exercised artistic licence? For every embellishment we can demonstrate, there will be perhaps a dozen lurking unbeknownst to us, posing as truth. Which are they?

Now of course this author may not be recording the truth, but I do not see why, or how, we should automatically take the word of the scholars, especially when there is disagreement between them?

As I was saying above, I don't think there is much disagreement between them on the matter of whether they copied from one another, just who copied from who and how much.

My only point here is, what the scholars have to say, would not be the absolute truth, but is rather only speculation of what could have happened, but when there are those who also claim, these things could have been penned decades later, then this should be a sure sign, we are dealing with guesswork.

I don't see how the idea that things were penned decades later would contradict the idea that they copied from one another.

I am not sure, as I am not a biblical scholar. And I am not about to devote decades of my life to analyzing the Bible as they have.

Well, I am not a scholar myself, but I am not in the habit of simply taking what others have to say, simply because they may hold a title. That sounds really reckless to me.

It's not the title. It's knowledge and experience. Scholarly authorities don't count for zero just because they "might" be wrong, and they count for a heck of a lot when they have incomparably more knowledge and experience relating to the field in question than I do.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Only two as far as I'm aware: Mark and John.

Paul doesn't explicitly mention an empty tomb, and in fact his talk about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 could be considered consistent with (though doesn't necessarily require) a spiritual resurrection of Christ.

Matthew and Luke are evidently dependent on Mark, and all later Christian sources on the four gospels.

By contrast John does not show an obvious literary dependency on Mark or another gospel, and it's very plausible that his claim to be a disciple/witness of Jesus is true.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

Point of order on "Biblical Scholars:"
If you peruse not who, but when these authorities made their pronouncement, you find that they would have been killed for saying otherwise.
One must consider their authority compromised.

To topic:
This point questions who wrote the account of the empty tomb, and why the account of an empty tomb is so important.

It is essentially the argument of proof by negative, which Jews and Christians love so much when they can hide behind it.*
An empty tomb is more likely an effect of wild animals, subterfuge or any number of effects other than resurrection.

It looks to me like there are as many independent sources as there are prophets writing about it. That is concedable. Proving the existence of the prophets is a challenge, as are the other issues with claiming a miracle, rather than any better explanation, is also a challenge.


* = "You can't prove there isn't a God."

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

What do you mean by "independent sources" ...

- do you mean how many written accounts or how many individuals in reality do we know of that claimed they saw the empty tomb?

- When you say "independent " do you mean from people that didn't know each other or people that saw the tomb empty and communicated their personal testimony independent of collaboration from others that had also seen it?

[Kapyong]

Gday,

By contrast John does not show an obvious literary dependency on Mark or another gospel, and it's very plausible that his claim to be a disciple/witness of Jesus is true.

There is NO such claim.

G.John 21.24 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true."

That is someone ELSE ("we") referring to "his" writing.
(Chapter 21 is generally considered a later addition to the Gospel.)

It is NOT a first-person claim.
If YOU think it is a first-person claim, please explain why you think that ?


Kapyong

[Mithrae]

Gday,

By contrast John does not show an obvious literary dependency on Mark or another gospel, and it's very plausible that his claim to be a disciple/witness of Jesus is true.

There is NO such claim.

G.John 21.24 "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true."

That is someone ELSE ("we") referring to "his" writing.
(Chapter 21 is generally considered a later addition to the Gospel.)

It is NOT a first-person claim.
If YOU think it is a first-person claim, please explain why you think that ?

Kapyong

Howdy neighbour. The explicit eyewitness claim of John is found right at the beginning of the gospel, and even more emphatically and unequivocally in the epistle:

• John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory...
  
  1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life — and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us — what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also...

As for the verse you've quoted, it's widely supposed that the 21st chapter of John was not written by the original author: "New Testament scholars are largely agreed that it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John.[1]" One of the reasons is that verses 20 to 23 read as an apologetic story downplaying the failed expectations that Jesus would return within his disciples' lifetimes as if it were just some kind of feeble misunderstanding, a story whose addition to the gospel makes the most sense in the scenario where those expectations had been recently and finally shattered; the scenario where that 'beloved disciple' had recently died.

There's a contrast in the writing tense between the declaration about that disciple's testimony by others, and the declaration about his testimony by the gospel's author:
21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
19:35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.

This strongly suggests that the original author didn't write the appendix, but also (less strongly) supports the initial claim that the author was not merely some other person - the implied insight into the disciple's mind suggests he was writing about himself in the third person. The anonymity of the beloved disciple is most easily explained in that scenario. Ultimately it's the eyewitness claim of 1:14 and the epistle which are most important, but these other curious details help further that suggestion.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

• John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory...

That's "we" - a general claim to seeing the "glory" of the "word" - so what ?
That's NOT a claim to have personally witnessed a physical Jesus (it's just a vague religious claim.)

If YOU think it is, can you please explain why ?

1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life — and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us — what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also...[/list]

Pardon ? Seriously ?
WHAT did he hear ? WHAT did he touch ?

NO mention of a physical Jesus there at all.

If YOU think that refers to a physical Jesus, can you please explain why you think that ?

As for the verse you've quoted, it's widely supposed that the 21st chapter of John was not written by the original author:

Like I said.

Kapyong

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by FarWanderer]

What do you mean by "independent sources" ...

- do you mean how many written accounts or how many individuals in reality do we know of that claimed they saw the empty tomb?

- When you say "independent " do you mean from people that didn't know each other or people that saw the tomb empty and communicated their personal testimony independent of collaboration from others that had also seen it?

How many of these accounts didn’t use any other of these accounts as sources. For example a common theory is that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.

[Walterbl]

Had the tomb not been empty, the early jewish authorities would have unburied the body and used it to disprove christian resurrection claims.