moose said
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
Moose, the past tense in Isaiah, refers to the past from the time of Isaiah not what would happen centuries later. Talking about things that happened previously is not foreseeing. The confusion is understandable. When you read such passages now you think in terms of the past from your own perspective. Most Jews will likely tell you this was a statement about Israel. Even if, per chance Isaiah was actually talking about Jesus, it doesn’t follow that there was an empty tomb.
spiker said
moose said
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,Moose, the past tense in Isaiah, refers to the past from the time of Isaiah not what would happen centuries later. Talking about things that happened previously is not foreseeing. The confusion is understandable. When you read such passages now you think in terms of the past from your own perspective. Most Jews will likely tell you this was a statement about Israel. Even if, per chance Isaiah was actually talking about Jesus, it doesn’t follow that there was an empty tomb.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
moose said
spiker said
moose said
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,Moose, the past tense in Isaiah, refers to the past from the time of Isaiah not what would happen centuries later. Talking about things that happened previously is not foreseeing. The confusion is understandable. When you read such passages now you think in terms of the past from your own perspective. Most Jews will likely tell you this was a statement about Israel. Even if, per chance Isaiah was actually talking about Jesus, it doesn’t follow that there was an empty tomb.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, as John Shelby Spong argues, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
I think the best way to argue that there wasn’t an empty tomb would be to argue that Jesus didn’t get an honorable burial as the Gospels say. If the burial is historical (which I’ll get to), then there’s the question of why the Gospels agree that it was women who discovered it, why Luke and John independently agree that Peter ran to the tomb after being told by the women and so on. Interestingly, if Jesus really was buried in a tomb the way it is described in the Gospels, then they would have allowed for his body to decompose so that his bones were put into a bone box (ossuary) a few years later – so if his body was still in the tomb, someone would have figured it out sooner or later.
In my opinion, the real question lies in whether or not there was an honorable burial in the first place, and I think there really was. Here’s why:
1. If we include the non-canonical Gospel of Peter (120 AD or so), there are 3 independent sources that agree specifically that a man named Joseph asked Pilate for Jesus’ body after his death (I don’t count Luke and Matthew because they likely copied from Mark).
2. The detail in Mark that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus fits the criteria of embarrassment, and I think there’s evidence of this. All Mark has to say about who Joseph was is that he was “a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God”.
Later, Luke, who read Mark, has a problem with this description and changes it to say “…a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action.”
Matthew also has a problem with what Mark says about Joseph, so he changes the description to this: “there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.”
This change of the description (from Mark’s very straightforward description) is similar to the way the later Gospel authors try to explain away the Baptism by John the Baptist (to the point where John decides to leave it out completely). Luke and Matthew seem to need to explain away who Joseph is, and Matthew just turns him into a disciple (John does the same thing).
3. Similar to the previous point, I see no reason why, if the burial is invented, the Gospel authors did not make a disciple member or family member (someone already in the story) give the burial. Because Joseph is multiply attested, this detail (Joseph) likely pre-dated Mark. Why would the early Christians (who were not highly educated) invent a new person to carry out the burial? Matthew and John (both highly educated Christian authors) had no problem just saying he was a disciple, so why not just make it an already known disciple?
4. Lastly is the issue of Pilate. We know a little bit about Pilate’s time as governor from Philo and Josephus. We know that he was not on good terms with the Jews, doing multiple things to anger them, and at one point chose to withdraw his soldiers when the Jews stuck out their necks and dared him to have them all executed. We know he had to have been concerned about job security because he received an angry letter from Tiberius calling him out for not being sensitive to the Jewish laws and beliefs.
I think if a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin came to him asking for the body of Jesus, explaining that it was Jewish custom to give everyone an honorable burial (and it’s very well attested that it was), considering the fact that this was passover (the busiest time in Jerusalem), I think Pilate would rather have allowed the burial than risked a potential riot caused by leaving the body up.
There are probably more arguments I can give, but I think those are the best. With all this said, I think Jesus really was allowed an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and then, three days later, his tomb really was found to be empty by a group of his women followers.
john76 said
moose said
spiker said
moose said
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,Moose, the past tense in Isaiah, refers to the past from the time of Isaiah not what would happen centuries later. Talking about things that happened previously is not foreseeing. The confusion is understandable. When you read such passages now you think in terms of the past from your own perspective. Most Jews will likely tell you this was a statement about Israel. Even if, per chance Isaiah was actually talking about Jesus, it doesn’t follow that there was an empty tomb.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
Likely the clearest Prophecy about Jesus is the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah 53:3-7 is especially unmistakable: “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.”
The only thing is, as John Shelby Spong argues, Isaiah wasn’t making a prophesy aboout Jesus. Mark was doing a haggadic midrash on Isaiah. So, Mark depicts Jesus as one who is despised and rejected, a man of sorrow acquainted with grief. He then describes Jesus as wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. The Servant in Isaiah, like Jesus in Mark, is silent before his accusers. In Isaiah it says of the servant with his stripes we are healed, which Mark turned into the story of the scourging of Jesus. This is, in part, is where atonement theology comes from, but it would be silly to say II Isaiah was talking about atonement. The servant is numbered among the transgressors in Isaiah, so Jesus is crucified between two thieves. The Isaiah servant would make his grave with the rich, So Jesus is buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a person of means.
That’s very interesting. I have not read Spong. In another response I think you noted Ehrman’s earlier book “Did Jesus Exist?” as he responded to Crossen or Price on the keys to reading Mark. Unfortunately, that’s not in my Ehrman collection. I know this is out of context, but where do you come down on whether there even was an historical Jesus? The suffering servant Jesus whom no one recognizes is a fascinating literary invention, and Matthew ties the oral traditions and sources in another way…but do you think there was a there there? (or a whom who, if you prefer)- thanks!-
Luke 9733 wrote: “I think if a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin came to him [Pilate] asking for the body of Jesus, explaining that it was Jewish custom to give everyone an honorable burial (and it’s very well attested that it was), considering the fact that this was passover (the busiest time in Jerusalem), I think Pilate would rather have allowed the burial than risked a potential riot caused by leaving the body up.”
I also incline to believe there was a burial, probably by a well-to-do follower named Joseph who may have lived in a “suburb” called Ramathaim-Zophim. And been a member of the Sanhedrin.
But about the details, I’m a bit of a cynic. Possibly because I live in the capital city of a state whose legislature is notorious for corruption. The way things are “supposed to” be done and the way they actually are done can be very different! (Think bribery.)
First of all, I don’t think Jesus was important enough for there to have been any possibility of a “riot.” I don’t think there were more than a couple dozen people (including the disciples who’d fled) who gave a hoot about him. Pilate never thought of him again after more or less “rubber-stamping” the priests’ recommendation he be crucified. And by the time Joseph wanted the body, Pilate would have had “one foot out the door,” eager to get back to Caesarea.
So I think all Joseph had to do (given that Jesus was already dead) was bribe some underling.
As for what followed, my guess is that Joseph had wanted merely to get the body in a safe place before the Sabbath. He expected to give it to Jesus’s disciples after the Sabbath. But the disciples had fled. So he found someone else – possibly his own rabbi – who agreed to give it a decent, permanent burial, on condition his involvement be kept secret.
No part of that would have come to light if a few women hadn’t followed Joseph (without his knowledge), seen him put the body in his family tomb, and wrongly assumed the interment there was meant to be permanent.
But I also think that to have assumed “resurrection” when they later found the tomb empty, those women must have already been hoping God would raise Jesus from the dead. Nothing like that was supposed to happen to the Messiah; but Jesus’s followers did also believe in a coming “general resurrection,” so it’s not inconceivable that they’d begun hoping.
Chariton’s story Callirhoe was already circulating in the mid-1st century and includes the motif of Callirhoe being mistaken as dead, placed in a tomb, and then grave-robbers stole her body from the tomb leaving it empty. This empty tomb was mistaken by her loved ones as a resurrection by the gods (she did reawaken later on). Very conspicuous similarity, and circulating around the same time. Doesn’t necessarily mean one tale directly influenced the other, perhaps it was just something in the milieu of the time, but interesting nonetheless.
Dhyin said
Chariton’s story Callirhoe was already circulating in the mid-1st century and includes the motif of Callirhoe being mistaken as dead, placed in a tomb, and then grave-robbers stole her body from the tomb leaving it empty. This empty tomb was mistaken by her loved ones as a resurrection by the gods (she did reawaken later on). Very conspicuous similarity, and circulating around the same time. Doesn’t necessarily mean one tale directly influenced the other, perhaps it was just something in the milieu of the time, but interesting nonetheless.
Even if the work was written as early as during the reign of Nero, as some scholars believe, it would be too late to influence the Pauline attestation of the resurrection myth. Further the similarity is not conspicuous at all. It is quite different and the similarity is mainly in the way you paraphrase it. The idea that because a novel motif was invented by a writer in the mid first century, then it would also be floating around in the Greek speaking culture as well, is not convincing.
** you do not have permission to see this link **:
When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
Does Dr. Ehrman treat this passage in his forgeries and counterforgeries book, or in some other work? Whether or not Jesus’ body were stolen from the tomb, or if this stories was made up to pre-empt, either way does this passage not imply that all parties would probably have agreed that there was a tomb involved?
gavriel said
Even if the work was written as early as during the reign of Nero, as some scholars believe, it would be too late to influence the Pauline attestation of the resurrection myth.
But the thread topic here was the empty tomb, which those particular epistles do not reference at all, as the very OP of this thread even pointed out. Death- yes. Resurrection- yes. Empty tomb- not at all. Influence upon those epistles was not alleged or even implied here, so you might be ‘losing the plot’ here, I suspect.
Further the similarity is not conspicuous at all.
Well, conspicuous enough for scholar after scholar after scholar to make note of it, certainly no less conspicuous than the similarities between NT passages and OT passages, which the NT authors themselves admit to- you know, “in the way [they] paraphrase it.” A grave-robbed empty tomb mistaken as a resurrection event seems much more similar to a(n alleged grave-robbed) empty tomb alleged to be a resurrection event than does, say, the alleged similarity between that same tomb and the bowels of a whale, or the alleged similarity between an exsanguinated lamb and a crucified human, or between baptism and crossing a parted sea, or a bronze serpent on a staff and a Roman crucifixion, etc., etc., etc. It’s actually rather rare that a literary work is a carbon copy of those works it takes inspiration from, because in those cases it’s just flat out plagiarism. <But all of that assumes there even was any inspiration here, which as I stated from the outset- “Doesn’t necessarily mean one tale directly influenced the other.”
It is quite different and the similarity is mainly in the way you paraphrase it.
But it is the elements that are in those points of similarity that are the main focus of discussion here. The OP of the thread wasn’t concerned with the points where the differences would lie, such as the tomb’s location, appearance, occupant, etc. The OP was concerned about its vacancy, its omission in the aforementioned epistles, and the exhumation of the body as the source for the resurrection claim, which are all points of overlap with Callirhoe (though it’s omission in the epistles is admittedly irrelevant since there’s no reason to expect any reference to Chariton there, lol).
The idea that because a novel motif was invented by a writer in the mid first century, then it would also be floating around in the Greek speaking culture as well, is not convincing.
Indeed, but “a novel motif was invented by a writer” was not the context I was approaching from. First of all the empty-tomb-return bit was hardly invented by Chariton. Grave-robbers really did rob tombs and sometimes even removed the corpse, so the motif was not without a real precedent. There’s also the tale of Zalmoxis’ deception, and even the Egyptians for centuries mistook the empty tomb of Djoser at Abydos as the “legit” tomb of their god Osiris, etc. and so on. But moreover, taking all of that together with Chariton and the gospels and Xenophon circulating in the 1st century, rather than Chariton in isolation, it hardly seems unique, innovative, or strange, much like—in spite of the many differences—Captain Marvel arising in the 1930s in the milieu of comic-book superheros such as Superman hardly seems unique, innovative, or strange, etc. Hence if a group were to assert one being a more historical or more believable comic than the other seems like special pleading.
Dhyin said
gavriel said
Even if the work was written as early as during the reign of Nero, as some scholars believe, it would be too late to influence the Pauline attestation of the resurrection myth.
But the thread topic here was the empty tomb, which those particular epistles do not reference at all, as the very OP of this thread even pointed out. Death- yes. Resurrection- yes. Empty tomb- not at all. Influence upon those epistles was not alleged or even implied here, so you might be ‘losing the plot’ here, I suspect.
Further the similarity is not conspicuous at all.
Well, conspicuous enough for scholar after scholar after scholar to make note of it, certainly no less conspicuous than the similarities between NT passages and OT passages, which the NT authors themselves admit to- you know, “in the way [they] paraphrase it.” A grave-robbed empty tomb mistaken as a resurrection event seems much more similar to a(n alleged grave-robbed) empty tomb alleged to be a resurrection event than does, say, the alleged similarity between that same tomb and the bowels of a whale, or the alleged similarity between an exsanguinated lamb and a crucified human, or between baptism and crossing a parted sea, or a bronze serpent on a staff and a Roman crucifixion, etc., etc., etc. It’s actually rather rare that a literary work is a carbon copy of those works it takes inspiration from, because in those cases it’s just flat out plagiarism. <But all of that assumes there even was any inspiration here, which as I stated from the outset- “Doesn’t necessarily mean one tale directly influenced the other.”
It is quite different and the similarity is mainly in the way you paraphrase it.
But it is the elements that are in those points of similarity that are the main focus of discussion here. The OP of the thread wasn’t concerned with the points where the differences would lie, such as the tomb’s location, appearance, occupant, etc. The OP was concerned about its vacancy, its omission in the aforementioned epistles, and the exhumation of the body as the source for the resurrection claim, which are all points of overlap with Callirhoe (though it’s omission in the epistles is admittedly irrelevant since there’s no reason to expect any reference to Chariton there, lol).
The idea that because a novel motif was invented by a writer in the mid first century, then it would also be floating around in the Greek speaking culture as well, is not convincing.
Indeed, but “a novel motif was invented by a writer” was not the context I was approaching from. First of all the empty-tomb-return bit was hardly invented by Chariton. Grave-robbers really did rob tombs and sometimes even removed the corpse, so the motif was not without a real precedent. There’s also the tale of Zalmoxis’ deception, and even the Egyptians for centuries mistook the empty tomb of Djoser at Abydos as the “legit” tomb of their god Osiris, etc. and so on. But moreover, taking all of that together with Chariton and the gospels and Xenophon circulating in the 1st century, rather than Chariton in isolation, it hardly seems unique, innovative, or strange, much like—in spite of the many differences—Captain Marvel arising in the 1930s in the milieu of comic-book superheros such as Superman hardly seems unique, innovative, or strange, etc. Hence if a group were to assert one being a more historical or more believable comic than the other seems like special pleading.
I think the empty tomb is a development on the early belief in visions of Jesus, as reported by Paul. It can be seen entirely as a development within early Christianity, and not as something that has been borrowed from external literary sources, foreign to early Christianity. This is the most logical explanation, and one does not have to ponder why a gospel writer started making up things from literary sources.
If some scholars (who?) makes a note of something, it does not mean they think there’s a literary loan. The common elements in this case are very few, and the elements that differ are countless. Following this methodology one can create parallels between almost anything.
Dhyin: “But the thread topic here was the empty tomb, which those particular epistles do not reference at all, as the very OP of this thread even pointed out. Death- yes. Resurrection- yes. Empty tomb- not at all. Influence upon those epistles was not alleged or even implied here, so you might be ‘losing the plot’ here, I suspect.”
Paul has an empty tomb by implication. It follows logically from his writings a) that Jesus was buried, and b) his explicit explanation on the nature of resurrection, that it is a transformation into a new and brilliant body and not some kind of a soul evaporating from a deceased body. However, he says nothing of what kind of empty grave it may have been. He may have thought that it was a common grave for criminals, or an honorable grave provided by a benefactor, or whatever – impossible to say. But he must necessarily have thought that the grave became emptied.
Early Christianity already had an attestation of the resurrected Jesus, later traditions developed the already existing aspect of the empty tomb into an explicitly witnessed element, in order to strengthen the evidence. This is quite natural seen from the viewpoint of critical scholarship, and the impetus to this legendary growth comes from within the movement, and not from some far-fetched literary parallel.
gavriel said
Dhyin: “But the thread topic here was the empty tomb, which those particular epistles do not reference at all, as the very OP of this thread even pointed out. Death- yes. Resurrection- yes. Empty tomb- not at all. Influence upon those epistles was not alleged or even implied here, so you might be ‘losing the plot’ here, I suspect.”Paul has an empty tomb by implication. It follows logically from his writings a) that Jesus was buried, and b) his explicit explanation on the nature of resurrection, that it is a transformation into a new and brilliant body and not some kind of a soul evaporating from a deceased body. However, he says nothing of what kind of empty grave it may have been. He may have thought that it was a common grave for criminals, or an honorable grave provided by a benefactor, or whatever – impossible to say. But he must necessarily have thought that the grave became emptied.
Early Christianity already had an attestation of the resurrected Jesus, later traditions developed the already existing aspect of the empty tomb into an explicitly witnessed element, in order to strengthen the evidence. This is quite natural seen from the viewpoint of critical scholarship, and the impetus to this legendary growth comes from within the movement, and not from some far-fetched literary parallel.
James Tabor has some interesting comments on this topic. He says Paul believed in a new immortal body for Jesus, with His old body left in the grave. Tabor comments that:
“Paul clearly believes in a bodily resurrection, or more properly, an embodied resurrection. It is one thing to say the dead will be raised bodily and it is quite another to insist that the same bodies, long ago turned to dust or ashes, or buried at sea, must somehow be reconstituted in order to experience resurrection. The latter was the absurdity that the Greeks objected to in offering naïve objections to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead… Resurrection is not the transformation of the physical into the spiritual, for given the corruption of the body there is nothing left to transform. Resurrection is rather the reclothing or reincorporation of the essential self with a new immortal body that frees it from the Hadean state of death… A good illustration of this point is the case of John the Baptizer. The gospel of Mark, as well as Josephus, record’s John’s brutal death at the hand of Herod Antipas, who had him beheaded. Mark says that John’s disciples, hearing of his death, were allowed to take his body and lay it in a tomb. Sometime later Herod received reports of the miraculous activities of Jesus. He was so impressed that he said ‘John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead,’ thinking that what was reported of Jesus could only be explained if John had somehow returned from the dead (Mark 6:14). Yet there is no indication that Herod had John’s tomb checked to see if it was empty. He was not thinking about a beheaded corpse being revived but he still considered the possibility that John may have returned to life. This account illustrates how the Jewish culture of the time could imagine someone being resurrected and reclothed in a new body, their former body left in the tomb (James Tabor, Paul and Jesus, 64-5)“
john76 said
gavriel said
Dhyin: “But the thread topic here was the empty tomb, which those particular epistles do not reference at all, as the very OP of this thread even pointed out. Death- yes. Resurrection- yes. Empty tomb- not at all. Influence upon those epistles was not alleged or even implied here, so you might be ‘losing the plot’ here, I suspect.”Paul has an empty tomb by implication. It follows logically from his writings a) that Jesus was buried, and b) his explicit explanation on the nature of resurrection, that it is a transformation into a new and brilliant body and not some kind of a soul evaporating from a deceased body. However, he says nothing of what kind of empty grave it may have been. He may have thought that it was a common grave for criminals, or an honorable grave provided by a benefactor, or whatever – impossible to say. But he must necessarily have thought that the grave became emptied.
Early Christianity already had an attestation of the resurrected Jesus, later traditions developed the already existing aspect of the empty tomb into an explicitly witnessed element, in order to strengthen the evidence. This is quite natural seen from the viewpoint of critical scholarship, and the impetus to this legendary growth comes from within the movement, and not from some far-fetched literary parallel.
James Tabor has some interesting comments on this topic. He says Paul believed in a new immortal body for Jesus, with His old body left in the grave. Tabor comments that:
“Paul clearly believes in a bodily resurrection, or more properly, an embodied resurrection. It is one thing to say the dead will be raised bodily and it is quite another to insist that the same bodies, long ago turned to dust or ashes, or buried at sea, must somehow be reconstituted in order to experience resurrection. The latter was the absurdity that the Greeks objected to in offering naïve objections to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead… Resurrection is not the transformation of the physical into the spiritual, for given the corruption of the body there is nothing left to transform. Resurrection is rather the reclothing or reincorporation of the essential self with a new immortal body that frees it from the Hadean state of death… A good illustration of this point is the case of John the Baptizer. The gospel of Mark, as well as Josephus, record’s John’s brutal death at the hand of Herod Antipas, who had him beheaded. Mark says that John’s disciples, hearing of his death, were allowed to take his body and lay it in a tomb. Sometime later Herod received reports of the miraculous activities of Jesus. He was so impressed that he said ‘John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead,’ thinking that what was reported of Jesus could only be explained if John had somehow returned from the dead (Mark 6:14). Yet there is no indication that Herod had John’s tomb checked to see if it was empty. He was not thinking about a beheaded corpse being revived but he still considered the possibility that John may have returned to life. This account illustrates how the Jewish culture of the time could imagine someone being resurrected and reclothed in a new body, their former body left in the tomb (James Tabor, Paul and Jesus, 64-5)“
There may have been many conflicting ideas on the relationship between a deceased body and a possible afterlife within Judaism. But Paul’s ideas on this are fairly clear. And there is no way to know what Herod thought about it.
I would be a little more optimistic about finding history in The New Testament if the central event of the religion didn’t stink so much of midrash:________________________________________________________
(1) It is likely that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6. ________________________________________________________________
(2) Crossan and Miller & Miller point out the empty tomb is a midrash or pesher of Joshua chapter 10, and the vigil of the mourning women likely reflects the women’s mourning cult of the dying and rising god, long familiar in Israel (Ezekiel 8:14, Zechariah 12:11, Canticles 3:1-4, etc.)_________________________________________________________________
(3) Jesus’ resurrection narrative is a pesher of Psalm 16. Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:24, 29-32). Of course, Psalm 16 was not making a prophesy about Jesus, but rather Psalm 16 was used in a midrash to invent the story of Christ’s resurrection. Matthew also used the book of Daniel to construct the resurrection narrative.
john76 said
I would be a little more optimistic about finding history in The New Testament if the central event of the religion didn’t stink so much of midrash:________________________________________________________
(1) It is likely that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6. ________________________________________________________________
(2) Crossan and Miller & Miller point out the empty tomb is a midrash or pesher of Joshua chapter 10, and the vigil of the mourning women likely reflects the women’s mourning cult of the dying and rising god, long familiar in Israel (Ezekiel 8:14, Zechariah 12:11, Canticles 3:1-4, etc.)_________________________________________________________________
(3) Jesus’ resurrection narrative is a pesher of Psalm 16. Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:24, 29-32). Of course, Psalm 16 was not making a prophesy about Jesus, but rather Psalm 16 was used in a midrash to invent the story of Christ’s resurrection. Matthew also used the book of Daniel to construct the resurrection narrative.
The passion was a historical fiction? Even the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate? You can construct just about any narrative ad hoc with haggadic midrash, so that proves nothing. The gospels do parallel some of these passages in the OT, but that doesn’t mean the whole story is fiction. If you were going to fabricate a new religion in the ancient Levant, why would you create one with features that would have been alien, even blasphemous to the Jews (i.e. The Suffering Messiah) and an anathema to the Romans (i.e. The Crucified God)? It’s of course possible, stranger things have happened, but is it likely? Or is it more likely that a Jewish community experienced a tragedy and turned to scripture looking for answers?
JonathanMcAlroy said
Hi,I thought the consensus was that the Roman’s left the bodies on the crosses until they needed them again?
Philo (quoted by Crossan 159): “I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them the ordinary rites. For it was meet that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treatment upon the birthday of the emperor and also that the sanctity of the festival should be maintained”
Needed them? Why would the Romans need them? Weren’t they left till there was little to nothing left? Wasn’t denial of decent burial rites, part of the punishment? Also didn’t Jewish law prescribe common burial for those executed by the state? Does Philos “cases” include cases of treason or sedition? I’m pretty sure Bart dealt with the question of EXCEPTIONS. In short there were few if any.
john76 said
ICarrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.
How does one demonstrate “may have” pointing to SIMILARITIES is not a demonstration. At best it’s an insinuation. It’s instructive that the Disciples are considered too illiterate to write the gospels, but are literate enough to compose midrash.
Oh look, Obama has hair, Osama bin laden had hair, Obama has an Islamic name OBL had an Islamic name. This demonstrates they are both terrorists?
spiker said
john76 said
ICarrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.How does one demonstrate “may have” pointing to SIMILARITIES is not a demonstration. At best it’s an insinuation. It’s instructive that the Disciples are considered too illiterate to write the gospels, but are literate enough to compose midrash.
Oh look, Obama has hair, Osama bin laden had hair, Obama has an Islamic name OBL had an Islamic name. This demonstrates they are both terrorists?
Read This: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Matilda said
Unless there is a time machine built or something more unearthed about the matter, we will NEVER know.
I think that is correct. Supernatural stories are notoriously difficult to pin down. One of my favorite examples is the “well to hell.” Rich Buhler, Christian broadcaster and nobody’s fool, investigated this urban legend within months of its origin and he was unable to trace it to its source. Read the story at ** you do not have permission to see this link **. How can we expect to find a definitive answer on the resurrection 2000 years later?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert