vergari said
What you are presenting as fact is simply your argument/theory. It is absolutely NOT established fact that “the disciples thus knew nothing about any possible burial and once they returned much later all traces were gone,” and, indeed, most academics, even the most skeptical ones, would not agree with your theory on this.
It’s a fair and interesting theory you present. But, as I said above, it has some major problems, some of which I present in Posts ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Among these are that the “third day” narrative (which is part of the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15) implies a distinct point in time a body went missing, the early Jewish polemics accuse disciples of stealing the body (thus conceding an empty tomb), and the unlikeliness that First Century Palestinian Jews would interpret visions of a recently departed loved one as a resurrection.
Your responses so far have only addressed the vision/resurrection problem, but/yet in doing so don’t really tackle the issue. Arguing that “the disciples ultimately just applied what they had learnt to the circumstances” kinda misses the point — which is that the disciples had not learned about one-person resurrection, nor about a resurrected messiah. On the other hand, vision of dead loved ones was a staple of Second Temple thought. Absent an empty tomb / missing body, these visions do not make sense as a resurrection for these Second Temple Jews.
* * *
Just briefly, on your argument that:
I think it is fair to think that some time passed to digest the happenings and to reformulate the basic doctrine according to the budding hope of a resurrected Master. This is reflected both in the forty days period of Acts 1 as well as the sojourn in Galilee in John 21.
A problem I see with your points here is that the very same author, who tells us about the 40 days period, also tells us that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James were eyewitnesses to an empty tomb on the third day, but the apostles didn’t believe them. Luke 24: 1-11. To place belief in the 40 days narrative, while rejecting the third day eyewitnesses narrative, strikes me as cherry picking.
The same issue exists with your treatment of John — which has its own unique material on the empty tomb narrative. John 21: 4-9 (“the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first”). Not sure why it would be appropriate to reject this material, while accepting the sojourn to Galilee in the very next chapter of the same text.
I agree that I do not have facts, not even theories. I would say a hypothesis or two. There are only a few facts in the history of Jesus, such as the execution and the nature of Roman executions of this type. I like E.P. Sanders ranging of hypotheses from high to low probability as put forward in “Jesus and Judaism”.
It is a fairly common hypothesis among critical scholars to assume that the disciples fled. Luke’s Jerusalem-o-centric version is theologically motivated, while the others point to a retreat to Galilee. I suppose you know all the problems with Luke’s and Matthew’s versions, they are mutually excluding each other. Taking all there resurrection narratives together, there are so many problems with them that they convince only those already convinced.
The presence of women looks like later legendary developments, not present at all in Paul’s early reports. In gMark Mary brings spices for ritual purposes, while in gJohn Nicodemus & Joseph have already performed the spice thing and here Mary is just mourning. It is worth noting that there is no co-operation between the women and Joseph at no point in time. The wealthy Joseph has a family tomb close to an execution place? And so on. One can fill chapter after chapter with oddities from these stories.
The three days may simply go back to a passing of roughly three days until Peter and others started having visions.
Basically, the gospels are a mixture of some basic “facts” and later legendary developments with all shades in between. The basic facts are rough and legendary embellishments supply colourful details, typically. In particular I think that stories like the running competition between Peter and the Beloved Disciples definitely belongs to the class of the most incredible type. I’m afraid it really takes some time,place and effort to present all the the arguments for what is legendary and not, and I understand that you feel that this is cherry picking.
gavriel said
I agree that I do not have facts, not even theories. I would say a hypothesis or two. There are only a few facts in the history of Jesus, such as the execution and the nature of Roman executions of this type. I like E.P. Sanders ranging of hypotheses from high to low probability as put forward in “Jesus and Judaism”.
When it comes to historicity, I agree with using probabilities.
gavriel said
It is a fairly common hypothesis among critical scholars to assume that the disciples fled. Luke’s Jerusalem-o-centric version is theologically motivated, while the others point to a retreat to Galilee.
All the disciples immediately fleeing to Galilee is a common hypothesis, but we don’t have much evidence for this outside of inference from Matthew. And, of course, if the authorship of the Matthean Gospel is, in fact, somehow associated with the followers of Matthew, it would be reasonable that this Gospel account skips to Galilee, because Matthew did flee to Galilee.
On the other hand, Luke, John and both endings of Mark all have Mary Magdalen reporting the news of the empty tomb the disciples; in Luke, John and the shorter Mark ending, Peter is named; and in Luke and John it is clearly implied that Peter is within walking/running distance from the tomb, i.e., near Jerusalem — not in Galilee.
What’s more, when it comes to the reports from the Matthean Gospel, note what it says about the “flee” to Galilee: “Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee.” This is, of course, is our only reference to 11 disciples, rather than “the Twelve.” Were the authors here referring to Judas as the missing disciple? or to Peter?
The answer appears to be: Peter (not Judas) was the missing disciple. How do we know this? The Matthean text tells us that, after the arrest of Jesus, “all the disciples deserted him and fled.” Matthew 26:56. This is the last we hear of the disciples until they reappear in the narrative in Galilee. But it’s not the last we hear from Peter. In the immediately following verses, the Matthean text tells us that Peter snuck in to watch Jesus appear before Caiaphus; and this is where Peter denies Jesus three times. So in the Matthean narrative, Peter has separated himself from the other disciples, who all fled.
And, of course, Luke, John and the shorter ending of Mark all tell us that Peter remained nearby and returned to the tomb to verify the story of the empty tomb.
gavriel said
I suppose you know all the problems with Luke’s and Matthew’s versions, they are mutually excluding each other. Taking all there resurrection narratives together, there are so many problems with them that they convince only those already convinced. * * * In gMark Mary brings spices for ritual purposes, while in gJohn Nicodemus & Joseph have already performed the spice thing and here Mary is just mourning.
Here is the problem I have with this type of analysis. Using conflicting stories in the Gospels works well to disprove inerrancy; but it doesn’t do much on the authenticity of the gist of the story.
If you take eyewitness reports from a large group of people about pretty much any event, you are bound to find contradictions between them. There is plenty of literature about this. But a great recent example is watching videos recorded the day-of from survivors of the Mandalay Bay and Parkland shootings. There are all kinds of statements being made by survivors, in good faith, which would later turn out to be incorrect. In the Parkland case, you even had purported eyewitnesses claiming to have seen Nikolas Cruz escaping with other students, as shots were being fired.
Does this mean that the Mandalay Bay and Parkland shootings never happened??
Of course, if an event really did happened with multiple eyewitnesses, then what you will also find (in addition to conflicting stories) is a central gist of a story. And, using the Mandalay Bay and Parkland examples . . . . even with multiple conflicting stories coming out of those events, you still had a central gist that remained consistent in each case.
Indeed, pretty much every event recorded from antiquity has these kinds of conflicting or even “mutually exclusive” components to them. The accounts of Cassius Dio, Tacitus and Suetonius all contain conflicting information about the Great Fire of Rome. Does that mean it’s more probable than not that the Great Fire of Rome never happened?
So, is it fair to say that any one narrative account cannot be taken as reliable? Sure. However, the mere existence of conflicting (even “mutually exclusive”) accounts is certainly not proof the event never happened, particularly when you have a consistent central gist narrative running through all the accounts.
Is it possible that there were no eyewitnesses to the empty tomb, that it was merely a literary device created by Mark, and that Matthew’s exclusion of Peter from the fleeing disciples narrative led later writers (Luke, John and whoever wrote shorter Mark) to insert Peter into the empty tomb narrative? Sure, it’s possible. But, personally, I find it more likely than not that there was an empty tomb, and that at least some disciples (and probably Peter and perhaps the source of the Beloved Disciple) personally witnessed this empty tomb.
gavriel said
The presence of women looks like later legendary developments, not present at all in Paul’s early reports.
Again, I think you have to be VERY careful about these types of arguments from silence.
Using this logic, I am quite certain that you would be denying the historicity of the Last Supper …. if not for a historical fluke, to wit: that members of the church in Corinth were using the veneration of the Last Supper as an excuse to get drunk. This is Paul’s one and only mention of the Last Supper, and he only makes it because of this oddity.
Using the logic you interpose above, if there had been no excessive drinking in Corinth … or if we had lost Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, then you would be arguing that the Last Supper was a “legendary developments, not present at all in Paul’s early report.”
The real problem with your formulation of this argument is that Paul’s letters do not really serve as “reports” on the life, death or resurrection of Jesus. That’s not their purpose. The historical material buried in the letters is there for a different purpose; not to act as biography. So to argue that an event did not happen because it “missing from Paul’s reports” is a little bit like saying that John Lennon had never heard a Beach Boys album, because the Beatles never covered, or wrote lyrics about, songs of the Beach Boys.
gavriel said
It is worth noting that there is no co-operation between the women and Joseph at no point in time. The wealthy Joseph has a family tomb close to an execution place? And so on. One can fill chapter after chapter with oddities from these stories.
I’m not sure what point you are making here. A story may have elements which appear odd to an audience 20 centuries later, but that hardly bears on its accuracy. There is absolutely nothing about the possible locations of the family tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin, on the one hand, and an execution site, on the other, which precludes the burial of executed convict in such tomb.
Indeed, arguing that a story has “odd” elements doesn’t necessarily cut against historicity; and, if you cannot demonstrate that the odd element is serving a different purpose (such as a theological purpose), then it may be more reasonable to conclude the odd element was authentic. In the case of Joseph of Arimathea, it’s difficult to conclude why such an element would element would be created from legend.
gavriel said
The three days may simply go back to a passing of roughly three days until Peter and others started having visions.
And it’s also possible that the apostles never had any visions at all. However, it is more probable that not, in my estimation, that a cigar is just a cigar and the three days is based on the finding of an empty tomb after three days.
gavriel said
Basically, the gospels are a mixture of some basic “facts” and later legendary developments with all shades in between. The basic facts are rough and legendary embellishments supply colourful details, typically. * * * I’m afraid it really takes some time,place and effort to present all the the arguments for what is legendary and not, and I understand that you feel that this is cherry picking.
Fair enough. But I do note that your methodology seems to be (1) to reject all elements which were not mentioned in Paul’s authentic letters, and, (2) in the case of any disagreement in the Gospel accounts, to either conclude the accounts are entirely fictional or to accept the account which more more easily permits an inference to legendary/inauthentic material.
I don’t think this hyper-skepticism is the best method for determining historicity. I try to approach it using the same type of criteria academics generally apply — multiple / independent attestation, criterion of embarrassment, dissimilarity, language & environment and coherence.
When you apply these criteria, the empty tomb story does quite well as compared to other accounts of events from antiquity.
gavriel said
In particular I think that stories like the running competition between Peter and the Beloved Disciples definitely belongs to the class of the most incredible type.
Yeah, I’m not sure why a story about Peter and the Beloved Disciple hurrying to news of an empty tomb seems so incredible. Of course, the historicity of this “race” is hardly dispositive on whether the empty tomb is an authentic story.
Vergari,
(I omit the by now complicated quote history)
Thank you for spending time on a thorough walk through of my points. I’ll respond to some points only.
First, I do not think the gMatthew goes back to the followers of Matthew. Matthew, like Luke, used gMark and Q, and maybe Luke also used gMatthew, recognizing and discarding Matthew’s editorial mixture of gMark and Q. You may however like to compare how they use the Galilean retreat hints of Mark 14:26/16:7 . Matthew consciously expands it, while Luke consciously omits 14:26 and rewrites 16:7 into Luke 24:6. In a sum: Luke knows the Galilean retreat of gMark, and discards it because it is disturbing to his theology. When doing so, he probably thought that Mark was wrong, because stories about Peter and Jerusalem visions seriously had started circulating at his time and place of writing. The additions to gMark are second century harmonization efforts.
Second, Not sure if I understand your idea of eleven apostles going to Galilee. If Peter is missing, then Judas must be included? The “eleven” is clearly identified as the remaining apostle group left back after Judas apostasy. Luke has the “eleven” as well.
Third, if you do not like “oddities”, you may prefer the accepted methodological term “contextual (in)credibility”.
Fourth, we have to accept that parts of the gospels are completely legendary, even when rich in detail. The infancy chapters of Luke and Matthew has only two historical gist “facts”: Jesus grew up in Galilee and was born near the end of Herod the Great’s life. The rest are certain legendary fabrications.
Finally, I think it is very unlikely that the community members did not experience some type of visions, at least some key players. Later on the common community members felt sad about not having experienced any vision, so they had one too.
gavriel said
Vergari,First, I do not think the gMatthew goes back to the followers of Matthew.
You might be right about this. It’s a theory that would explain some things, but it is by no means something we can say with certainty is clearly more probable than not.
gavriel said
Vergari,You may however like to compare how they use the Galilean retreat hints of Mark 14:26/16:7 . Matthew consciously expands it, while Luke consciously omits 14:26 and rewrites 16:7 into Luke 24:6. In a sum: Luke knows the Galilean retreat of gMark, and discards it because it is disturbing to his theology. When doing so, he probably thought that Mark was wrong, because stories about Peter and Jerusalem visions seriously had started circulating at his time and place of writing. The additions to gMark are second century harmonization efforts.
You make a good argument here, particularly about Mark 16:7 and Mark 14:28 (I think you mean).
* * *
When I have more time, I will expand on some thoughts.
Thanks!
gavriel said
Vergari,Fourth, we have to accept that parts of the gospels are completely legendary, even when rich in detail. The infancy chapters of Luke and Matthew has only two historical gist “facts”: Jesus grew up in Galilee and was born near the end of Herod the Great’s life. The rest are certain legendary fabrications.
Let’s just say I agree that it is far more likely than not that the infancy narratives are legendary.
Am I prepared to say that everything is fabricated outside of his youth in Galilee and birth during the end of Herod’s reign? No. But I completely agree that it is more probable than not that the gist of the infancy narratives is mostly false.
BUT ….
…. I reach that conclusion based on the criteria I listed above: multiple / independent attestation, criterion of embarrassment, dissimilarity, language & environment and coherence.
gavriel said
Vergari,Second, Not sure if I understand your idea of eleven apostles going to Galilee. If Peter is missing, then Judas must be included? The “eleven” is clearly identified as the remaining apostle group left back after Judas apostasy. Luke has the “eleven” as well.
Having thought about it, the idea could cut in favor of your hypothesis actually.
To recap the chronology of Mark: Jesus is arrested (Mk 14:46); “everyone deserted him and fled” (Mk 14:50); Jesus is taken before the Sanhedrin (Mk 14:53); Peter sneaks into the proceedings (Mk 14:54); Peter denies Jesus 3 times (Mk 14:66-72).
Is there room to infer a separation between Peter and the other disciples? As in, the other disciples fled, but Peter didn’t. That’s what I’m getting at.
When the narrative appears in Matthew, following Jesus’s arrest, “all the disciples deserted him and fled” (Mt 26:56), but Peter once again follows Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mt 26:58) where he denies Jesus 3 times (Mt 26:69-75). After that, the next we hear from the disciples — other than the accusation of their stealing Jesus body (Mt 28:13) is the appearance in Galilee to what Matthew then refers to as “the Eleven” (for the first time in Scriptures). Whose name is absent from this passage? Peter’s.
What I’m getting at is that perhaps the reason that Peter makes his own appearance at the empty tomb in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 24:12) is that Luke realized that the earlier “accounts” had Peter separating himself from the other disciples.
Cutting against my “the Eleven” hypothesis and this idea is that Luke is clearly using that term as exclusive to Judas, not to Peter, and that, in Luke’s version, the disciples had not yet gone to Galilee. (Lk 24:9).
gavriel said
The three days may simply go back to a passing of roughly three days until Peter and others started having visions.
Legitimate question here:
If the third day goes to back to the passing of three days until Peter and the others began having visions, and if these visions happened following on the flee to Galilee . . . .
. . . . how fast could the disciples get from Jerusalem (where they were with Jesus for the Last Supper and then his arrest on Thursday or Friday) to Galilee? It’s about a 100-mile journey on foot.
Is it realistic to think that a group of at least a dozen people or so could make that trip within 72 hours?
It’s just hard for me to believe that the Third Day component came about through visions in Galilee, as opposed to an empty tomb.
vergari said
Legitimate question here:
If the third day goes to back to the passing of three days until Peter and the others began having visions, and if these visions happened following on the flee to Galilee . . . .
. . . . how fast could the disciples get from Jerusalem (where they were with Jesus for the Last Supper and then his arrest on Thursday or Friday) to Galilee? It’s about a 100-mile journey on foot.
Is it realistic to think that a group of at least a dozen people or so could make that trip within 72 hours?
It’s just hard for me to believe that the Third Day component came about through visions in Galilee, as opposed to an empty tomb.
I have no idea about the exact movements of the apostles/disciples following the arrest. They may have been hiding for a while waiting for the news, and as soon as they realized that all hopes were gone, they themselves decided to avoid the same destiny. They would definitely not walk openly in the vicinity of Jerusalem out of fear of being seized. Probably they ultimately returned to Galilee with all sorts of temporary hiding-places, speculating on the significance of the events,feeling very disappointed. The doubts they had during this period is clearly hinted at in Matthew 28:17. Ultimately they reformulated the theology they had been taught and got back in business, and in hindsight, three being a good theological number, the date of the “resurrection” became fixed.
Actually, the gospel stories imply a maximum of 48 hours from death to resurrection. In fact the Markan resurrection story is a theological construct but historically hopeless and illogical. However Mark , being influenced by Pauline thought, takes care not to violate the Pauline order of appearances. Matthew does so, in his eagerness to pick up the story from Mark 16:8.
gavriel said
Actually, the gospel stories imply a maximum of 48 hours from death to resurrection.
Yeah, I know. But I was trying to give your argument about visions on the third day in Galilee the benefit of the doubt.
gavriel said
In fact the Markan resurrection story is a theological construct but historically hopeless and illogical.
Which parts do you find “illogical”?
vergari said
Let’s just say I agree that it is far more likely than not that the infancy narratives are legendary.
Am I prepared to say that everything is fabricated outside of his youth in Galilee and birth during the end of Herod’s reign? No. But I completely agree that it is more probable than not that the gist of the infancy narratives is mostly false.
BUT ….
…. I reach that conclusion based on the criteria I listed above: multiple / independent attestation, criterion of embarrassment, dissimilarity, language & environment and coherence.
I completely agree that we should apply the various criteria. Theological bias as well. Was Jesus buried or left on the cross? Was there an empty grave?
What I think happened was this: Jesus created a situation in the temple yard that was a threat to the festival that ultimately could bring things out of control. In fact, that’s why the Romans brought in troops during the festival, to prevent riots. Jesus was seized and the easiest way out for the temple leadership was to hand him over to Pilate, who gladly sent him off to his destiny, using less than a minute on the case. The authorities on both sides of course knew that he had no earthly royal pretensions and considered him simply as a sectarian threat, perhaps much like his former master, John. Afterwards he was dishonorably buried, for the same reason: Wipe him out of the public eye, and may be because the temple priesthood made a deal with Pilate in order to not offend Jewish religious sensitivities.
vergari said
Which parts do you find “illogical”?
That will require some space 🙂
Let me just single single out one point from the heap:
The women observes the burial, which includes the placement of a huge stone, supervised by the mighty benefactor. Did they cooperate on the finalizing of the burial rituals? Did the women approach Joseph (by intermediaries perhaps) for access to the grave when they knew they would need some kind of help? What we see here are individual legendary story traditions, clumsily put together by the editor. The women stories goes back to the growing number of women in the Christian communities in the second half of the first century, and Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional figure intended to hide the shameful burial. I think.
So let me see if I am accurately and fully set forth the competing arguments as to the historicity of the empty tomb.
Arguments Against the Historicity of the Empty Tomb:
— Paul never mentions an empty tomb.
— Mark (w/o expanded endings) and Matthew never mention the apostles experiencing the empty tomb.
— Matthew states and Mark implies that at some point after the arrest of Jesus, the apostles fled to Galilee.
— It is possible to infer that the disciples began experiencing visions of the dead Jesus, upon returning to Galilee.
Arguments in Favor of the Historicity of the Empty Tomb:
— While Paul does not mention the empty tomb, he does say Jesus was buried.
— Paul also states that the resurrection happened on “the third day” — clearly a very old Christian belief, which is consistent throughout the Gospels and Acts.
— Because Galilee is a 100-mile walk from Jerusalem, it doesn’t make sense that the “third-day” motif could have been invented based on visions experience by the apostles on the third day in Galilee.
— All four canonical Gospels include an empty tomb story; Acts also mentions the tomb.
— All four canonical Gospels include several core elements to the empty tomb story: Jesus is taken down from the cross on the day of his death; Jesus’s body is taken by a man named Joseph of Aramithea (who is variously described as rich, a Sanhedrin, and a secret disciple of Jesus); Joseph wraps the body of Jesus in linens, and places it inside a stone-cut tomb, which is covered by a large boulder; on the “third day,” certain of Jesus’s female disciples (with Mary Magdalene always among them) go to visit the body; the women find that the tomb is empty and Jesus’s body is gone
— If Mark (or his source) invented the empty tomb story, it doesn’t make sense that he would use female eyewitnesses — and no other eyewitnesses.
— While the apostles merely having vision in Galilee of their dead friend seems plausible, it makes far less sense that a First Century Palestinian Jew would interpret such visions, without something more as corroboration, as a resurrection — because, while visions were common in Second Temple Judaism, it did not have a doctrine of individual resurrection; rather, a First Century Palestinian Jew would more likely believe they were simply having visions.
— The early anti-Christian polemics against the historicity of the resurrection, which even Matthew attempts to rebut, do NOT suggest that there was no dead body or no empty tomb, but rather that Jesus’s disciples stole the body from the tomb, thus seeming to concede that the tomb was, in fact, empty.
— Given Second Temple beliefs about visions and messiah figures, it is very difficult to explain the spread of Christianity among Jewish populations without an empty tomb.
Does this cover it? Do we need to amend this document? 😉
Material that Can Be Used Both in Favor of, and Against, the Historicity of the Empty Tomb:
— The different versions of the empty tomb story in the four Gospels conflict with one another. While this is true, each of the accounts of the story in the four canonical Gospels also has unique elements to it, which do not necessarily conflict. So this is positive as to the criteria of multiple attestations and dissimilarity, but violate the criterion of coherence.
— The story of Joseph of Aramithea likewise could be construed to violate the criteria of coherence and environment, but also passes the criteria of multiple attestations and embarrassment.
— While Mark and Matthew have the disciples leaving for Galilee at some point after the arrest of Jesus, all four Gospels have Peter remaining in Jerusalem to watch Jesus before the Sanhedrin. This leaves open the possibility that Peter’s visit to the empty tomb in Luke, which may have been created to provide a male witness to the empty, is somehow developed from the separation of Peter from the other disciples in Mark and Matthew. However, Luke and John (and shorter Mark) have different accounts of Peter visiting the empty tomb.
gavriel said
What I think happened was this: Jesus created a situation in the temple yard that was a threat to the festival that ultimately could bring things out of control. In fact, that’s why the Romans brought in troops during the festival, to prevent riots. Jesus was seized and the easiest way out for the temple leadership was to hand him over to Pilate, who gladly sent him off to his destiny, using less than a minute on the case. The authorities on both sides of course knew that he had no earthly royal pretensions and considered him simply as a sectarian threat, perhaps much like his former master, John. Afterwards he was dishonorably buried, for the same reason: Wipe him out of the public eye, and may be because the temple priesthood made a deal with Pilate in order to not offend Jewish religious sensitivities.
It’s a fair theory. The problem is reconciling it with the ancient documents and the spread of Christianity in a milieu of Second Temple Judaism. Obviously, this version is very much in conflict with even the non-supernatural elements of 1 Corinthians 15. And, the more one thinks about it, the harder it becomes to figure out just why Christianity would have taken off, if this was its historical foundation. How do we get from the very common execution of a mere rabble rouser to the Neronian persecution in Rome in merely three decades?
gavriel said
That will require some space 🙂
Let me just single single out one point from the heap:
The women observes the burial, which includes the placement of a huge stone, supervised by the mighty benefactor. Did they cooperate on the finalizing of the burial rituals? Did the women approach Joseph (by intermediaries perhaps) for access to the grave when they knew they would need some kind of help? What we see here are individual legendary story traditions, clumsily put together by the editor. The women stories goes back to the growing number of women in the Christian communities in the second half of the first century, and Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional figure intended to hide the shameful burial. I think.
So, this just isn’t convincing at all to me.
If the part of the story having the women needing to negotiate a large boulder to access the body rang so clearly false to First Century Jews, then how did a fictional story of that variety not get sorted out before making its way into wider circulation? Isn’t the simplest explanation that First Century Palestinian Jews wouldn’t have any problem with a story about women visiting a tomb to do something with the body … and that there were just common procedures in place to accommodate what they’d be doing? For example, readers would just assume that there would be a man or men nearby who could take care of the stone.
“The women stories goes back to the growing number of women in the Christian communities in the second half of the first century”
This is so speculative …. how can we take this seriously? Almost all scholars seem to think that the empty tomb story is part of a passion narrative that preexisted Mark by some years. That would place the empty tomb story probably in the first half of the First Century, not the second half.
Also, as I’ve said many times now, the burial and “third day” motifs — both in 1 Corinthians 15 — are probably among the very oldest Christian traditions, and almost certainly come from Judea. It’s very hard to come up with burial and “third day” resurrection without an empty tomb. And, if that’s the case, it’s hard to imagine why an early empty tomb tradition would be created using exclusively female eyewitnesses.
“Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional figure intended to hide the shameful burial”
Okay. But why invent a heroic fictional figure who is a Sanhedrin? Why not just make the fictional Joseph some wealthy guy who followed Jesus (like Matthew and John have him)? Why would you make the hero of your fictional passion narrative someone who was part of a group you considered evil?
Interesting discussion. Let me play a bit of catch-up here.
Second Temple Jews did not believe in some sort of rolling resurrection process.
True, but of course what stands between the early Christians and Second Temple views of the resurrection is Jesus. I suspect Jesus himself had the traditional view of an imminent general resurrection but then he didn’t have to accommodate his views to his own death. Paul and the other early Christians did. I think what we can detect in our sources is a transitional phase between the traditional view of a general resurrection and the view of Jesus’ resurrection as a unique, one time event. This transition probably matched the movement away from an apocalyptic, imminent view that we can detect in other writings of the NT. Paul probably started out with the traditional view but with the delay of the parousia after his vision of Jesus interpreted this interval as an opportunity for his ministry to the Gentiles. Jesus was first and a harbinger of more to come. Soon.
Revelation is a late document chronologically (unless you consider the theory that it began as an early Jewish apocalypse that was subsequently “Christianized”) but it is suffused with an early apocalypticism that had faded in other late writings of the NT.
Matthew’s Gospel was almost certainly written for an audience of Hellenistic Jews…
Prof Ehrman has hinted a couple times that he thinks both Matthew and John were Gentiles. Interesting idea! I look forward to hearing his reasons. I will stick to the traditional view but the importance of Matthew’s gospel to the later Christian movement tells us nothing about the actual size of Matthew’s community.
Using the empty tomb as a literary device is not mutually exclusive to the historicity of the empty tomb.
Certainly and it’s probably best to separate out the issue of the question of the historicity of the story from the gospel writers’ use of it. I have to confess (pardon the pun) my biases here. I’m not a believer and while I am interested in the historical aspect of the story I really don’t think there is much we can say about it. On the other hand my background is literary and there is a lot we can say about the ways the gospel writers shape the tradition to fit their narrative. There may be more to it than just a story but it is a great story!
the third day…
Well the early Christians were enthusiastic about proof texting their scriptures for signs of Christ.
There is the reference in Hosea 6:2 –
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Of course in the context of Hosea this wouldn’t make much sense but neither does the reference to a “virgin” in Isaiah.
The biggie though is the reference to Jonah, a connection that Matthew makes explicitly.
Matthew 12:39-40
A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
But of course this becomes one of those chicken or the egg arguments. Which came first, the tradition of the empty tomb or the references in the scriptures?
And for the mystically minded, there is the suggestion based on a Lunar calendar that the time of the New Moon, when the moon “disappears”, lasts approximately three days gauged by the naked eye. (Cue the theremin.)
vergari said
So, this just isn’t convincing at all to me.
If the part of the story having the women needing to negotiate a large boulder to access the body rang so clearly false to First Century Jews, then how did a fictional story of that variety not get sorted out before making its way into wider circulation? Isn’t the simplest explanation that First Century Palestinian Jews wouldn’t have any problem with a story about women visiting a tomb to do something with the body … and that there were just common procedures in place to accommodate what they’d be doing? For example, readers would just assume that there would be a man or men nearby who could take care of the stone.
“The women stories goes back to the growing number of women in the Christian communities in the second half of the first century”
This is so speculative …. how can we take this seriously? Almost all scholars seem to think that the empty tomb story is part of a passion narrative that preexisted Mark by some years. That would place the empty tomb story probably in the first half of the First Century, not the second half.
Also, as I’ve said many times now, the burial and “third day” motifs — both in 1 Corinthians 15 — are probably among the very oldest Christian traditions, and almost certainly come from Judea. It’s very hard to come up with burial and “third day” resurrection without an empty tomb. And, if that’s the case, it’s hard to imagine why an early empty tomb tradition would be created using exclusively female eyewitnesses.
“Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional figure intended to hide the shameful burial”
Okay. But why invent a heroic fictional figure who is a Sanhedrin? Why not just make the fictional Joseph some wealthy guy who followed Jesus (like Matthew and John have him)? Why would you make the hero of your fictional passion narrative someone who was part of a group you considered evil?
Compare this to the spreading of urban legends. These are catchy stories spreading fast through gullible audiences, but looking closer at them, you can identify them as they contain incredible and/or contradictory elements mixed with emotionally highly charged material.
gJohn tries to solve the inconsistency by removing the connection between the women and Joseph completely, here there is no need for cooperation because the women do not observe, and Joseph&Nicodemeus perform the required rituals already during the burial.
The stone removal: The gospel writers struggle hard to solve it, with all sorts of impossible explanations, obvious devices to solve the urban legend contextual incredibility problems.
It is the same story with the Sanhedrin member which is a typical Urban Legend impossibility. Matthew recognized this and changed his status to a “wealthy man”. John removed the title completely, and made him into a secret disciple in order to strengthen the probability of his intervention.
I think we should be able to reach these conclusions applyng the criteria of embarassment and contextual incredibilty.
How many folks who have visions of departed loved ones share a burger or two with the deceased? (Or fish and chips as the case may be?)
Why not make John The Baptist the Messiah? He was pretty hip and stirred up a lot of folks to get their act together. Heck, the Big Shots were afraid of the dude.
What inspired Paul, Tim, Philemon, the Marys, the whores, the publicans, Nick, Pete, Bartholomew, you know, the original gang of mostly devout Jews, to go nuts over a confused, egotistical, slightly daft, dead, apocalyptic preacher?
BTW, three K were converted on Pentecost. Not bad for the inaugural kickoff featuring a dead magician before Jewish residents who relocated from all over the world and heard uneducated fisherman speaking in their native tongues.
Stephen said
Interesting discussion. Let me play a bit of catch-up here.Second Temple Jews did not believe in some sort of rolling resurrection process.
True, but of course what stands between the early Christians and Second Temple views of the resurrection is Jesus. I suspect Jesus himself had the traditional view of an imminent general resurrection but then he didn’t have to accommodate his views to his own death. Paul and the other early Christians did. I think what we can detect in our sources is a transitional phase between the traditional view of a general resurrection and the view of Jesus’ resurrection as a unique, one time event. This transition probably matched the movement away from an apocalyptic, imminent view that we can detect in other writings of the NT. Paul probably started out with the traditional view but with the delay of the parousia after his vision of Jesus interpreted this interval as an opportunity for his ministry to the Gentiles. Jesus was first and a harbinger of more to come. Soon.
Revelation is a late document chronologically (unless you consider the theory that it began as an early Jewish apocalypse that was subsequently “Christianized”) but it is suffused with an early apocalypticism that had faded in other late writings of the NT.
Matthew’s Gospel was almost certainly written for an audience of Hellenistic Jews…
Prof Ehrman has hinted a couple times that he thinks both Matthew and John were Gentiles. Interesting idea! I look forward to hearing his reasons. I will stick to the traditional view but the importance of Matthew’s gospel to the later Christian movement tells us nothing about the actual size of Matthew’s community.
Using the empty tomb as a literary device is not mutually exclusive to the historicity of the empty tomb.
Certainly and it’s probably best to separate out the issue of the question of the historicity of the story from the gospel writers’ use of it. I have to confess (pardon the pun) my biases here. I’m not a believer and while I am interested in the historical aspect of the story I really don’t think there is much we can say about it. On the other hand my background is literary and there is a lot we can say about the ways the gospel writers shape the tradition to fit their narrative. There may be more to it than just a story but it is a great story!
the third day…
Well the early Christians were enthusiastic about proof texting their scriptures for signs of Christ.
There is the reference in Hosea 6:2 –
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Of course in the context of Hosea this wouldn’t make much sense but neither does the reference to a “virgin” in Isaiah.
The biggie though is the reference to Jonah, a connection that Matthew makes explicitly.
Matthew 12:39-40
A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
But of course this becomes one of those chicken or the egg arguments. Which came first, the tradition of the empty tomb or the references in the scriptures?
And for the mystically minded, there is the suggestion based on a Lunar calendar that the time of the New Moon, when the moon “disappears”, lasts approximately three days gauged by the naked eye. (Cue the theremin.)
Good stuff! Gave me some things to think about.
This is a fascinating discussion with some civil dudes.
Thanks, gavriel and Stephen!
gavriel said
gJohn tries to solve the inconsistency by removing the connection between the women and Joseph completely, here there is no need for cooperation because the women do not observe, and Joseph&Nicodemeus perform the required rituals already during the burial.
The stone removal: The gospel writers struggle hard to solve it, with all sorts of impossible explanations, obvious devices to solve the urban legend contextual incredibility problems.
How are these not examples of confirmation bias?
You have a preexisting hypothesis — the women visiting the tomb is a legend — and then interpret available data/evidence in a way which supports the preexisting hypothesis?
You seem to be interpreting all variations in post-Markan accounts as attempting to fix some prior failure of contextual credibility or perceived embarrassment. Note that this type of interpretation of the material basically requires any number of unprovable assumptions. For example, what evidence do we have that First Century Palestinian Jewish women would have considered the presence a sealing stone on the tomb to be an insurmountable obstacle, such that visiting the tomb would be contextual incredible? Quite to the contrary, we know the description of the tomb matches tombs from First Century Jerusalem, and we know that First Century Palestinians would return to the tombs to visit the bodies of the deceased.
Interestingly, in what is widely believed to be the oldest surviving post-Markan account — that of Matthew — the author expressly includes a counter to a contemporary polemic against the empty tomb story: that of stolen body. Indeed, Matthew devotes four verses to combat the stolen body polemic. But when it comes to the sealing stone, Matthew interposes an almost stock supernatural element: the earthquake, i.e., the very same element he inserts into the crucifixion narrative. Point being, it seems rather clear that the author of Matthew feels the need to address how the body went missing, but not necessarily to address whether the body went missing.
Also note that your approach to the material turns the criteria of multiple attestation and dissimilarity — really, the most important criteria for determining historical reliability — on their head, because you are using variations in additional accounts — which should serve to support historicity — as further evidence against it.
How would any historical accounts stack up to this approach? Could we even do history? I am fairly certain we could seek to disprove the historicity of virtually any major event from antiquity using this approach.
gavriel said
It is the same story with the Sanhedrin member which is a typical Urban Legend impossibility. Matthew recognized this and changed his status to a “wealthy man”. John removed the title completely, and made him into a secret disciple in order to strengthen the probability of his intervention. I think we should be able to reach these conclusions applyng the criteria of embarassment and contextual incredibilty.
Again, you’re turning the criterion of embarrassment on its head. Later accounts which seek to minimize an embarrassing aspect of an earlier account is not be used as evidence against the reliability of the earlier account. That’s not the way it works.
If Matthew and John failed to include any dissimilar material, which did not otherwise serve a theological or de-embarrassment purpose, then those accounts do not support the criterion of dissimilarity. But you cannot use later accounts to undermine the criterion on embarrassment as to the original account.
Thus, assuming, as you argue, that Matthew and John were, indeed, attempting to alter what they recognized to be an embarrassment in the account in Mark …. this actually strengthens the reliability of that account in Mark. So you’re actually making an argument in favor of Markan reliability.
vergari said
How are these not examples of confirmation bias?You have a preexisting hypothesis — the women visiting the tomb is a legend — and then interpret available data/evidence in a way which supports the preexisting hypothesis?
You seem to be interpreting all variations in post-Markan accounts as attempting to fix some prior failure of contextual credibility or perceived embarrassment. Note that this type of interpretation of the material basically requires any number of unprovable assumptions. For example, what evidence do we have that First Century Palestinian Jewish women would have considered the presence a sealing stone on the tomb to be an insurmountable obstacle, such that visiting the tomb would be contextual incredible? Quite to the contrary, we know the description of the tomb matches tombs from First Century Jerusalem, and we know that First Century Palestinians would return to the tombs to visit the bodies of the deceased.
Interestingly, in what is widely believed to be the oldest surviving post-Markan account — that of Matthew — the author expressly includes a counter to a contemporary polemic against the empty tomb story: that of stolen body. Indeed, Matthew devotes four verses to combat the stolen body polemic. But when it comes to the sealing stone, Matthew interposes an almost stock supernatural element: the earthquake, i.e., the very same element he inserts into the crucifixion narrative. Point being, it seems rather clear that the author of Matthew feels the need to address how the body went missing, but not necessarily to address whether the body went missing.
Also note that your approach to the material turns the criteria of multiple attestation and dissimilarity — really, the most important criteria for determining historical reliability — on their head, because you are using variations in additional accounts — which should serve to support historicity — as further evidence against it.
How would any historical accounts stack up to this approach? Could we even do history? I am fairly certain we could seek to disprove the historicity of virtually any major event from antiquity using this approach.
Again, you’re turning the criterion of embarrassment on its head. Later accounts which seek to minimize an embarrassing aspect of an earlier account is not be used as evidence against the reliability of the earlier account. That’s not the way it works.
If Matthew and John failed to include any dissimilar material, which did not otherwise serve a theological or de-embarrassment purpose, then those accounts do not support the criterion of dissimilarity. But you cannot use later accounts to undermine the criterion on embarrassment as to the original account.
Thus, assuming, as you argue, that Matthew and John were, indeed, attempting to alter what they recognized to be an embarrassment in the account in Mark …. this actually strengthens the reliability of that account in Mark. So you’re actually making an argument in favor of Markan reliability.
I think the basic, earliest accounts are those of visions and burial, as attested by Paul. The gospels present developments on these probable “facts”, all with clear theological bias, for which reason we should doubt them. The Markan empty grave is initially an attempt to prove the resurrection event , a clear spin doctor story arising at a time when the communities became increasingly involved in polemic with Jewish traditionalists.
Now, I may have been a bit unclear concerning embarrassment, but my point was that the later writers correctly tended to feel embarrassed about the intrinsic impossibility of the Markan composition/tradition (it is unclear whether John knew Mark) and therefor modified it. If we accept these later traditions as unhistorical modifications, then we are left with the original improbability of the Markan tradition, for which reason I discard it as unhistorical and apologetic.
The women and the sealing stone: It is from every angle highly improbable that somebody gets up before sunrise to buy spices (where?) without a clear plan for access to the grave. Poor people don’t waste their money. If there really was a need for completing the burial rituals, it would have been carried out differently, as a joint task between sympathizers that could feel safe.
So the empty grave story has to go down the flusher because of intrinsic incredibility, theological bias and later rescuing attempts.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)