Amaleq13

What do you imagine stating something obvious to everyone might accomplish? I've already pointed out that Joseph of A is as incredible as he is convenient to the plot.

That is quite the understatement but it fails to actually explain anything. The empty tomb is hardly just an "episode" in the earthly life of Jesus.

It is central to Christian theology but it is totally absent from Paul's letters. Until you can provide a credible explanation for that, you are spinning your wheels.

No empty tomb, amigo, and that is deeply problematic for it being an historical fact. Deal with it.

Why would I need "proof" for something nobody is arguing? Enough with the straw men. Quit wasting time with the straw. You're either grasping at them or building scarecrows.

How would that be relevant to a character who does serve a crucial role but only appears in the story to do so?

That said, Jesus' mother obviously serves a crucial role at the beginning but, unlike the suspiciously convenient Joseph A, she reappears in the story and continues to provide plot points (eg Jesus considered crazy by family, status of "beloved disciple").

Another straw man? Nobody suggested that all followers have to be named. It is difficult arguing against such an obvious problem, isn't it?

We are talking about a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin who was also a secret disciple of Jesus. He was powerful and secure enough to be willing to ask Pilate for the body of an executed rebel but he only gets a cameo? It requires great faith to accept such a dubious character. Certainly more than I have.

Only to the naive, gullible, and/or faithful.

Of the two of us, I appear to be the only one who is thinking.

The tomb is not a credible detail independent of Joseph A and the guards.

Joseph A is not a credible character independent of the empty tomb and the guards.

The guards are not a credible detail independent of the empty tomb and Joseph A.

Again, I just don't have enough faith to ignore all these problems but ignoring them seems to be your only resolution.

Net2004

the readers of mark thought that the other possibility of a missing body is theft.matthew was aware of what the readers of mark thought and then created his bullshit rebuttal.

Diogenes the Cynic

1. Matthew is indisputably dependent on Mark, therefore it has to post-date 70 CE, and probably more like 80 CE.

2. No empty tomb tradition can be found in Christian literature before Mark's Gospel.

3. There is no evidence that 1st Century Jews ever claimed Jesus' body had been stolen, or that they were even aware of any resurrection story at all.

4. Matthew was writing to a Gentile audience 50 years after the alleged crucifixion, outside of Palestine and after the destruction of the first Jewish-Roman War. His audience was not at all likely to encounter any Jews going around saying Jesus' body had been stolen, but it was an obvious question which would have been raised by prespective targets of conversion, so Matthew was simply trying to preemptively head that question off at the pass. It was not necessary for the objection have been something the target audience had actually heard from "the Jews," only that it was a question that would naturally occur to anybody. As a matter of fact, if a dead body actually DID go missing from a tomb, then by far the most probable explanation is that somebody took it (other less likely, but still more probable than magical explanations include the possibility that animals took it or ate it, that the location of the site was misidentified or that there was some kind of natural geological event which moved or buried the body), so Matthew needed to contrive a rebuttal to an objection which anyone with any sense would raise immediately.

Jane H

Thank you for your reply. It seems that I've been less than clear in explaining the point, so I'll attempt again.

That the story the Jews were telling was of disciples stealing, and that that was a naturalistic response to an alleged Very Big Sign from God, is part of what I am saying. The bribe aspect is not in the core of my argument. We agree. The questions I pose are- why is Matthew putting ideas into potential converts minds about the body being stolen; and why is this Jewish claim and Christian counter-claim being played out in Matthew if the resurrected body thing is a late invention?

My conclusion isn't “...therefore Jesus is God, Hallelujah!”, but a more modest conclusion; that historically this guard story makes much better sense if we say the earliest Christians were claiming Jesus body had vanished, as a necessary part of their wider claim that he had risen again bodily.

To put it differently: let us suppose-

1)Earliest Christianity wasn't anything about a body.
2)Later Christians began to use resurrection language to describe some sort of exultation of Jesus.
3)Other Christians misunderstood and began to invent literal stories about the resurrection, unharassed by the Christians involved at stage 1).
4)Jews, worried at the rise of Christianity, invented a counter-story about the body being stolen, in preference to the “You're making it up as you go along” approach.
5)Still other Christians, getting worried by an effective counter-charge, if a doubly fictional one, added a further layer of fiction by inventing stories about guards and a bribe.
6)Matthew judged this tradition well enough established to include it in his gospel, so he cunningly split it in two and merged it seamlessly into his story.

Now all this happened by...well Diogenes (above) has Matthew at 80 C.E. Mainstream scholars tend to stop at the 90s at very latest. Whatever the date, the sequence above realistically just isn't going to be played out by then. Sixty years after the “events”-one would have to be very naïve to believe that this level of evolution would have occurred.

One wonders what the Christians involved at 3) and 5) actually believed in this scenario.

Jane H

It's not a wildly relevant question, but out of interest, why do you think this? It's not the usual thinking...

Kapyong

Gday,

... or the
Kashmir tomb of Jesus, or the tomb of Jesus in Japan.

http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm

http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/home.html

K.

Kapyong

Gday,

Anyway-
the empty tomb story appears quite late in the Christian works :

* Paul - no mention of the E.T.
* James - no mention of the E.T.
* 1,2,3 John - no mention of the E.T.
* Jude - no mention of the E.T.
* 1 Clement - no mention of the E.T.
* Revelation - no mention of the E.T.
* Didakhe - no mention of the E.T.
* Barnabas - no mention of the E.T.
* Gospel of Thomas - no mention of the E.T.
* 1,2 Peter - no mention of the E.T.
* Papias - no mention of the E.T.
* the Pastorals - no mention of the E.T.

Not until early-mid 2nd century did Christians start mentioning the empty tomb. The same time they started mentioning the Gospels.

K.

renassault

It's not really indisputable, especially seeing how much one has to accept as an omission and change on the part of Matthew for no reason (as much as a parable, albeit a short one; in Mark 4). In any case, even if Matthew did copy Mark, which the Evangelist probably didn't, this doesn't need to put him long after 60-65, as Mark doesn't need to be put long after 60. The above, which you haven't disputed, is simply another small point which adds up to the overall picture.

No literature we have really needed to mention it. It was probably one of the traditions Paul told instead of wrote to his followers, as he specifically states elsewhere of the numerous things he had told them when he is writing about them.

The above is implicit evidence. Other than that, it's not a suprise at all, seeing how we barely have the testimony of one Jewish historian about the fall of Jerusalem, which was certainly deemed important, along with the Talmud's references.

You have not demonstrated this.

Possibly, but does not need to cast doubt on veracity.

Have not shown this.

If that were true, then, as I stated previously, he would have defended against the much more obvious charge, that the Resurrection never happened, and that Jesus never did these things, which would suggest he was writing close to the time of the crucifixion, and close to the area.

You see how many other objections you can find off the top of your head? Why didn't Matthew answer all of these if he was just trying to dispell doubts his readers might have had before they had them. He seems focused on the one and only accusation of a stolen body, and does not bother to answer the charge that would have come first to anyone's mind: that there were no such events.

In order for a hypothesis, which you have in no way supported by the fairly strong observations that can be made from form criticism, to be accepted as plausible, you need to offer supporting evidence. He could have been invented, or he could have been simply mentioned because that's the only thing that makes him worth mentioning with respect to the story. So without any support, your suggestion is just a wild speculation based on nothing.

It certainly is a historical episode in Jesus' earthly life as it doesn't really symbolize anything (though it does today as a symbol of the Resurrection, but nothing theological). It doesn't fail to explain anything; Paul wasn't concerned with relating about Jesus' earthly life, but who he was theologically and how this relates to the churches' behavior and attitude.

It's not central to any sort of Christian theology. It's only used as proof that Christ rose from the dead and is a subset of history/form criticism.

They weren't concerned with it. If anything, the empty tomb would have been mentioned in person when the people were first converted. After they were converted, there was no use reproving Christ was seen arisen (only in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., where Paul does this due to 1) being away and 2) there being doubt of a physical Resurrection). Furthermore, as 1 Corinthians 15:3ff. proves, and as common sense shows, it is much better to talk about living witnesses of a risen Christ than an empty tomb.

It's why Paul didn't mention the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff.

Because his serving a crucial role is the only thing that made him part of the story. Otherwise you would have a pointless naming contest for no reason. For example, "And Jesus and the Twelve, and Joseph of Arimathea, went to the mountain..." and what did Joseph of Arimathea do? "He just listened to what Jesus had to say." So what would be the point of including him in the story? Not to mention that no one except Joseph of Arimathea would know what he was doing up until he showed up to get the body from Pilate.

If you want an example where a character who wouldn't be of such a nature, then you have Nicodemus, who certainly serves more than just a discussion with Jesus about rebirth; he is part of the Sanhedrin and votes not to execute him, and is present at the burial.

She doesn't appear in Mark at any beginning. Jesus' mother doesn't provide any plot points, only when the women who go to the tomb, and she could have easily been excluded from that group especially seeing the (most likely historical) report of considering Jesus crazy. The beloved disciple, you'd have to gather points to show why he's fictional, but that's a different issue.

What else do you want recorded about him if he didn't do anything? That's the point, you can only mention a person if he stands out somehow amongst the hundreds of disciples.

It is, only to those who must have it their way and don't apply any logical arguments.

That doesn't really seem to be the case especially how you've misunderstood everything.

Up to you to show.

Up to you to show, certainly not based on your above claims.

Up to you to show.

Ignore what problems? You've just ignored points and applied a new meaning to them which you've proceed to 'knock down'. That my friend is a real strawman.

renassault

Jude doesn't mention that Christ resurrected. Does this mean the author didn't consider that to be part of his belief? Name one occasion where the above documents should have mentioned the empty tomb.

The Empty tomb wasn't something apologists resorted to, but the appearances to Apostles (1 Clem 44.4, 1 Corinthians 15.3ff.).

Again, nowhere they should have. One would understand if the Didache wasn't a teaching manual but a discussion about the Resurrection (in historical terms), but it isn't.

We have very little of what he wrote.

No occasion for it.

Yet 2 Clement, written in the late 2nd century didn't. Does this mean it didn't exist until then?

Amaleq13

Wow, that is one horribly convoluted sentence!!

Your clearly faith-based objections certainly notwithstanding, I've provided ample support to any rational and objective inquirer. Denying reality isn't helping your credibility.

There is nothing "wildly speculative" about noting the problematic absence of an empty tomb tradition in Paul or your inability to offer a credible alternative explanation. The notion that such a symbol of the resurrection would not have been used by Paul is simply absurd on its face.

There is nothing "wildly speculative" about noting the dubious nature of the sudden appearance of the amazingly convenient and unlikely character of Joseph A.

There is nothing "wildly speculative" about noting only one of four versions includes the rather crucial detail of guards at the tomb. In fact, none even seem to leave room in the story for them!!

Multiple independent lines of argument lead to the same rational doubt. This continues to hold true despite your repeated straw men and rhetorical characterizations (eg "wildly speculative"). Denying the rational basis for doubt only emphasizes the absence of rational thought involved in your position.

What can I say to such blatant foolishness? The symbol of the resurrection has no theological significance? It isn't central, it only serves as proof of the central belief of Christianity? :rolling:

What lengths won't the faithful go to in order to retain their belief?

You offer another "secret Sanhedrin disciple" who is only mentioned in one version as support? This remarkable man should also be taken with a grain of salt by any rational reader.

You've been given very clear, rational and independent reasons to doubt Joseph A, the tomb, and the guards and have offered no credible rebuttal to any of those reasons. The doubt stands. :wave: