Spirit-WWW: NewsGateway Article <news:talk.religion.misc.260772>


From Peter Kirby <kirby@SPAM.earthlink.net>:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, talk.religion.misc,

Subject: The Historicity of the Empty Tomb

All Follow-Up: Re: The Historicity of the Empty Tomb
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 22:37:51 -0800

This is a repost for "Ragu1997," who is corresponding with me under "The 
Historicity of the Resurrection."  Besides, it's rolling around to that time 
of year again...

Contemporary NT scholarship is divided on the issue of the historicity of
the empty tomb. Most contemporary scholars consider this tradition
historical, but most NT scholars are Christians. Although secular scholars
such as Grant and Jewish scholars such as Lapide accept the historicity of
the empty tomb, serious Christian scholars like Borg, Bostock, and Crossan
have been forced to dismiss the empty tomb story while still trying to
affirm the Easter event. Given this diversity of expert opinion, a
"scholarly concensus" cannot be used as evidence for or against the empty
tomb. 

Dr. Bill Craig is typical of proponents of the historicity of the empty
tomb, so I will deal with his arguments in evaluating whether there is
reasonable evidence for the story that Jesus was laid in a tomb that was
found empty three days later. His essay can be read at
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html.
his case as follows: 

1. Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb. 

2. The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story
supports its historicity. 

3. The use of 'the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day'
points to the primitiveness of the tradition. 

4. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and
nonapologetic. 

5. The discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable. 

6. The investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically
probable. 

7. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the
resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. 

8. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. 

I will consider each piece of evidence in turn. 

First, Craig claims that Paul implies the empty tomb story in two places. 

According to Craig, the phrase "he was buried" followed by the expression
"he was raised" implies the empty tomb. But this assumes that Paul believed
the burial tradition of the Gospels; unless Craig can prove that Paul
believed that Jesus was buried in a tomb, there is no reason to assume the
phrase "he was buried" implies an empty tomb. The word there is "etaphe,"
which is from the Greek word for "taphos," which just means "burial." It
does not mean "tomb," and it does not mean "sepulchre." The word for tomb
is "mnema," and sepulchre is "mnemeion." Paul, unlike the Gospels, merely
uses the general word for burial. This also assumes that Paul believed in
the resurrection tradition of the Gospels; unless Craig can prove that Paul
believed Jesus was resurrected physically, there is no reason to assume
that the phrase "he was raised" implies an empty tomb. Apologists often
argue that Paul was a Jew and thus must have had a physical concept of the
resurrection, but we know from other Pauline material that he was very
Hellenized even if he was actually a Jew by birth. 

Craig also claims that the expression "on the third day" points to the
discovery of the empty tomb, but the phrase "on the third day" is tied to
the expression "he was raised," not to the discovery of an empty tomb. Yet
Craig argues that the dating of the resurrection on the third day is
inexplicable apart from the discovery of the empty tomb on that day. Even
Craig acknowledges: "But of course there are many other ways to interpret
this phrase: (1) The third day dates the first appearance of Jesus. (2)
Because Christians assembled for worship on the first day of the week, the
resurrection was assigned to this day. (3) Parallels in the history of
religions influenced the dating of the resurrections on the third day. (4)
The dating of the third day is lifted from Old Testament scriptures. (5)
The third day is a theological interpretation indicating God's salvation,
deliverance, and manifestation." Despite the nit-picking of Craig, I do not
consider these explanations impossible. Moreover, even if the alternatives
given above are wrong, that does not suddenly imply that Paul accepted the
historicity of the empty tomb. 

I conclude that Paul does not seem to accept the historicity of the empty
tomb, and thus that Craig's further arguments that Paul could not be
deceived on such a point are irrelevant. 

This raises one of the most serious objections to the empty tomb: Paul, the
earliest and most prolific New Testament writer, says nothing about it.
Paul, of course, does refer to the resurrection - he makes it clear in 1
Corinthians 15 that it is central to his teaching - but he never mentions
an empty tomb. Even in 1 Corinthians, when he is trying to convince people
of the resurrection, he never mentions either the witnesses of the empty
tomb or the empty tomb itself. Craig would have us "imagine that during his
two week stay Paul would want to visit the place where the Lord lay" yet
that he then completely ignored such a great confirmation of the
resurrection when trying to convince the skeptics at Corinth! 

Moreover, there are good reasons to deny that Paul had a physical concept
of the resurrection with an empty tomb such as we find in the Gospels.
First, Paul gives only a list of resurrection appearances - no tomb, no
women, no angels, no earthquakes, no walking through walls, no eating of
fish, no ascension, etc. Second, he uses the general word for burial,
"etaphe," not the word for tomb or sepulchre. Third, he uses the word for
spiritual awakening, "egeiro," not resurrection, "anastasis." Fourth, he
uses the word for a vision, "ophthe," not a physical appearance, and he
seems to say that the earlier apostles had a spiritual experience like he
did. Fifth, he contrasts the "spiritual body" of Christ with the physical
body of Adam in 1Cor 15:45-47, and a similar contrast is found in 1Pt 3:18.
Finally, Paul explicitly says that, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God." This is in direct contradiction with Lk 24:39. These
arguments are made in greater detail by Dan Barker at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html.

Second, Craig claims that the empty tomb pericope was in the pre-Markan
passion story. Yet he never even defends the thesis that there was such a
pre-Markan passion story! The argument that the author would include "the
victory at the end" of the empty tomb presupposes that the empty tomb story
was in circulation at the time of writing. Thus, there is no reason to
assume that the passion story (even assuming there was one) included the
empty tomb story. Also weak is the argument that the passion story must
date in the 30s because the high priest is not named. Either Christians at
the time of writing knew that Caiaphas was high priest at the time of Jesus
or they didn't. If they didn't know, then neither did the evangelist, and
the reference to the "high priest" is simply because the author only had a
vague recollection of the events. If they did know, then the evangelist
would not need to specify who the "high priest" was. Because the Gospel of
Mark was written forty years later, and because Craig has failed to show
that an empty tomb source existed in the 30s, there is more than enough
time for a little legendary development. 

Third, Craig argues that the use of "the first day of the week" instead of
"on the third day" points to the primitiveness of the tradition. But if the
evangelists were inventing the empty tomb story, why couldn't they change a
few wordings around as well? 

Fourth, Craig claims that the nature of the narrative itself is
theologically unadorned and nonapologetic. "We are told that the story is
unvarnished history since it betrays no signs of theological Tendenz. No
theological coloring? In a story told to attest the resurrection of the Son
of God from the dead? What else is it? Isn't it all varnish? Formica,
instead of wood? Charles Talbert has no trouble adducing abundant parallels
from Hellenistic hero biographies in which the assumptions into heaven of
Romulus, Hercules, Empedocles, Apollonius (and let's not forget Elijah and
Enoch) are inferred from the utter failure of searchers to find any vestige
of their bones, bodies, or clothing. Talbert concludes that a resurrection
appearance, though not incompatible with such an "empty tomb" type episode,
would by no means be needful. The ancient reader would know what Mark was
driving at: God had raised the vanished Jesus from the dead. This is a
prime bit of form-criticism on the part of Talbert (no God-hating atheist,
by the way, but a Southern Baptist, if it makes any difference): it shows
precisely that the form of the story is dictated by the theological
function of the story. Contra Craig, it is theological through and through.
Can anyone miss the irony that Craig, who values the story as nothing but a
piece of apologetical fodder, can profess to see it as a bit of neutral
history?"
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html).
Moroever, Craig contradicts himself; later he acknowledges that the guard
story "was aimed at refuting the widespread Jewish allegation that the
disciples had stolen Jesus' body." 

Craig does note an argument against the historicity of the empty tomb
story: "None of the disciples or later Christian preachers bothered to
point to it. If the empty tomb had actually existed, it would have been a
powerful piece of evidence for the resurrection claim. We would expect the
early Christian preachers to have said, "You don't believe us? Go look in
the tomb yourselves! It's at the corner of 5th and Main, in the Golgotha
Garden Memorial Cemetery, third sepulcher on the right." This is exactly
what happened in Luke 24:24: two of the disciples ran to the tomb to verify
the women's reports. Yet Peter doesn't mention the empty tomb in his
preaching in Acts 2, nor does Paul mention it in his letters, nor do the
gospels give a location. If even the disciples didn't think the empty tomb
tradition was any good, why should we?"
(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html)

Fifth, Craig argues that the discovery of the tomb by women is highly
probable. He notes that women had low status and no qualification as legal
witnesses in Jewish society. But if we go back to the earliest Gospel,
Mark, the women are not used as witnesses to the resurrection. "They said
nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mk 16:8). This simply will not do
for the later evangelists, who have them go back and tell the boys to shore
up the weak testimony of the women. Far from confirming the empty tomb,
this shows that the evangelists felt free to change their sources so as to
make the story better evidence for the resurrection. 

There are implausibilities with the discovery of the tomb by women. It
seems clear that the claim that the women "said nothing to anyone for they
were afraid" functions to explain to the reader why nothing of this had
been heard of before. It sounds just like a rationalization, cut from the
same cloth as Mk 9:9. The silence repeatedly enjoined on these occassions
is the explanation, naive yet indispensable, of why these stories had not
been heard of before. Moreover, the Eastern climate would make it
impossible to anoint a corpse after three days. And it would not have
violated Sabbath law to anoint a body on the Sabbath, instead of waiting
until Sunday (Mishnah Shabbat 23:5). Besides, the body had been already
anointed in advance (Mk 14:8). And why do the women think of the stone over
the entrance only after they are underway? They should have realized the
venture was futile. Finally, as recorded in the Gemorah, women prepare
women and men prepare the bodies of men in Jewish culture. The presence of
women is a pagan anachronism and confirmation that the empty tomb story was
a late fabrication. 

Sixth, Craig claims that the investigation of the empty tomb by the
disciples is historically probable. Yet this assumes that Jesus had been
buried in a tomb in the first place. The story that the disciples
investigated the tomb was invented by the later evangelists, all over 50
years later, to shore up the weak testimony of the women. 

The earliest appearances probably took place in Galilee. Although Paul was
the first to report the resurrection appearances (to Kephas, the Twelve,
over 500 brothers, James, all the apostles, and Paul), he does not tell us
where these appearances took place. But the earliest Gospel, Mark, tells us
that the appearances to "his disciples and Peter" were to take place in
Galilee. Matthew continues this theme, saying that the eleven disciples saw
Jesus at a mountain in Galilee. This view is corroborated by the
twenty-first chapter of John, which tells us that Jesus appeared to Simon
Peter and other disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Luke, however, changed
Mark so that the appearances were in Judea, resulting in a major
discrepancy between Matthew and Luke over where the ascension took place.
This suited Luke's theological purposes and his theme that the apostles
were to be "witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to
the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The twentieth chapter of John seems to
have been influenced by the Lucan tradition (e.g., Lk 24:36-43 // Jn
20:19-29). This suggests that the Easter faith was born in Galilee, not
Jerusalem, after the disciples had returned there after the crucifixion. 

Seventh, Craig claims that it would have been impossible for the disciples
to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. Why
didn't "they" just produce the body? First, the body would probably have
been difficult to identify after seven weeks, which is when Acts says that
the disciples began proclaiming the resurrection. Second, this requires
that the authorities took seriously the resurrection claim. Third, there is
no evidence that Jewish or Roman leaders were actively engaged in refuting
the resurrection yet failing in their attempts; indeed, no historian of the
time even mentions the resurrection. Finally, even if the body was
produced, the rumor will revive and the cult will persist despite "hostile
witnesses." I have this picture of Christians simply giving up their
beliefs as soon as their facts are refuted. 

Eighth, the Jewish polemic presupposes an empty tomb. We don't actually
have the words of a Jew on the resurrection, only the claims of Christians
of what the polemic was, but let us assume that early Jews claimed that the
disciples had stolen Jesus' body. Either the Jews had independent sources
of information for this story or they didn't. If they did, then this
independent information must be evidence for the entire story, including
the claim that the disciples had stolen the body, because the Jews were
reporting history and not just inverting Christian tradition. If they
didn't, then the Jews were merely repeating what late first century
Christians were saying and can tell us nothing new. And this brings up a
reason to doubt the empty tomb story: There is no independent confirmation
from Jewish or pagan sources. 

In conclusion, not only is there no good reason to accept the historicity
of the empty tomb, there are several reasons for rejecting it: 

1. Paul, the earliest and most prolific New Testament writer, does not even
presuppose or imply the empty tomb. 

2. The earliest Gospel, Mark, indicates that the story had not been heard
of before by saying that the women "said nothing to anyone." 

3. The story of the women preparing the body of Jesus contradicts Jewish
law and reflects the later fabrication of Gentiles, and there are other
implausibilities with the discovery of the empty tomb by the women. 

4. The great divergence of the resurrection accounts (see, for example,
http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/lfif/stone.html),
general harmony concerning the passion and crucifixion, is good evidence
that the former stories were fabricated. 

5. Even the early Christians do not seem to consider the empty tomb to be
reliable evidence for the resurrection and did not challenge others to
investigate it. 

6. The earliest resurrection appearances took place in Galilee, so belief
in the resurrection began there due to the visions, not in Jerusalem due to
the discovery of an empty tomb. 

7. The Romans usually denied proper burial to victims of crucifixion, as
the last means of humiliation, preferring to throw the body in a common
grave. 

8. No Jewish or pagan sources confirm the empty tomb. 

In conclusion, the Gospels are little more than fiction beginning at Mt
27:57, Mk 15:42, Lk 23:50, and Jn 19:38. Jesus was thrown into a shallow
grave and perhaps eaten by dogs in accordance with Roman practice. The
Galilean fishermen he had for disciples returned home. The appearances to
Peter and the other disciples there, not the empty tomb, led to belief in a
spiritual resurrection such as we find in 1Cor 15. Mark fabricated the
story of the burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the discovery of the empty
tomb by women, contrary to Jewish law, as indicated by the alleged silence
of the women. The later evangelists embellished from there, making the
women go back and tell the men and fabricating the physical appearance
stories as an apologetic tact, resulting in major contradictions. The empty
tomb is a fable and can hardly be used as evidence for the resurrection.

Peter Kirby <kirby@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/

[Reply to talk.religion.misc] -- [Reply to author only] -- Use [back-button] to return.
NewsGateway V0.20beta