CEJ said
JAS said
CEJ said
Scholars have paid a lot of attention to this story and have come to diverse conclusions. An excellent review of the scholarship is available here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As for my thoughts, I’m one who likes to keep it simple and probably therefore side with Crossan.
Thanks – that was an excellent book. It explained a lot of the things I was wondering about. This forum is really good. I have learned so much from these posts.
JAS said
CEJ said
A bodily resurrection was important to some; hence the empty tomb narrative.
But the tomb is not necessary for the bodily resurrection part. One just needs not to have two bodies. I think too many are just looking for a means to dismiss the whole story out of hand, with some special claim of credibility. The “official” practice does not negate the possibility of burial as the story has it. (I will freely admit that for a high-profile case, where everyone was watching, the official protocols would more assuredly be followed.)
Our earliest comments about the resurrection are from Paul and he makes no mention of tombs, young men/angels, earthquakes etc. All he tells us is that:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[** you do not have permission to see this link **] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. “
As an aside I find those those last two verses somewhat obsequious and they remind me of Uriah Heep in David Copperfield, ‘”I am well aware that I am the umblest person going”. 🙂
Flosshilda said
JAS said
CEJ said
A bodily resurrection was important to some; hence the empty tomb narrative.
But the tomb is not necessary for the bodily resurrection part. One just needs not to have two bodies. I think too many are just looking for a means to dismiss the whole story out of hand, with some special claim of credibility. The “official” practice does not negate the possibility of burial as the story has it. (I will freely admit that for a high-profile case, where everyone was watching, the official protocols would more assuredly be followed.)
Our earliest comments about the resurrection are from Paul and he makes no mention of tombs, young men/angels, earthquakes etc. All he tells us is that:
“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures 4 and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[** you do not have permission to see this link **] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. “
As an aside I find those those last two verses somewhat obsequious and they remind me of Uriah Heep in David Copperfield, ‘”I am well aware that I am the umblest person going”. 🙂
You’re right, of course, but apologists like Craig Lane claim buried means entombed.
And yup. Paul and his faux modesty can be a hoot.
From every book I read, I find more interesting stuff. 
Esmeralda said
Thanks TTHorne56 and CEJ 🙏You question if Mary ever found the grave empty. Which I agree, we could never be sure of.
But how then did the concept of the empty grave emerge? Without the empty grave, no tales of resurrection.
🌷Esmeralda
If he was buried in a mass grave that no one could find, his body wasn’t necessary for people to have claimed to have seen him alive. The empty tomb may have been a convenient explanation for the author of Mark.
It seems likely that the earliest form of resurrection belief was as an apotheosis rather than a resuscitation. Jesus was exalted by God and appeared to his disciples in visions. It’s not that they didn’t believe in a physical resurrection. It’s just that their conception of the body was much different than ours. The view that the body of flesh is a transient shell that contains an immaterial spirit that survives death came centuries later.
Stephen said
It seems likely that the earliest form of resurrection belief was as an apotheosis rather than a resuscitation. Jesus was exalted by God and appeared to his disciples in visions. It’s not that they didn’t believe in a physical resurrection. It’s just that their conception of the body was much different than ours. The view that the body of flesh is a transient shell that contains an immaterial spirit that survives death came centuries later.
The phrase Paul used (“he appeared”) seems to support that.
Bart, do you have an opinion on this issue regarding the word forsaken that I read in the book referenced below?
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, KJV)
As you can see from the above, the word translated “forsaken” (shbwaqtuni) is another form of the same word we found in the sixth line of Yeshua’s prayer, meaning to release or untie. The Aramaic lamana does not pose a question but is better rendered by “for such a purpose.” The early Twentieth century Assyrian Aramaic Christian scholar George Lamsa says this word introduces an exclamation like “what a thing!” rather than posing a question.9 Lamsa further points out that Aramaic has two words that can mean “forsake” or “forget” but that Yeshua uses neither of them here.10
Douglas-Klotz, Neil. Revelations of the Aramaic Jesus (p. 101). Hampton Roads Publishing.
“… question of what happened …”
A theory based on the text is that when the Roman guard pierced the side of Jesus (Yesu) on the cross which it says out-flowed water mixed with blood per John 19:34, and that saved His life by releasing the fluid from His heart and lungs.
Next it says that Jesus laid three (3) days in the tomb which 3 days of fasting and dehydration would have helped His wounds to stop hemorrhaging.
Later it tells that people saw Jesus still having wounds all over so He did not come back to life as a renewed person but instead it was still a very severely wounded person with severe injuries.
Next it says that He lived on with them for 40 days which would still be injured but still alive and thereby the miracle.
Lastly it tells that Jesus went away with the assistance of two other men, as told in Acts 1:9-12, and that can be interpreted that Jesus walked away or carried away over top of the mount so saying into the clouds up to Heaven is just another metaphor.
And the Disciples had reason to conceal that Jesus left the area because the Jews would want to kill Him, and the Romans might still want to execute Him again, and even the new followers of Jesus might want to track Him down, so they used colorful language to describe His exit.
So you’re proposing that Jesus fainted on the cross, and his resurrection was just coming to after he had a chance to rest, and the Gospel authors, writing 4+ decades later, knew that Jesus didn’t actually die and rise, but chose to speak in veiled language to protect him from further persecution?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert