JoeWallack

JW:
Critique of Peter Kirby:

“The Case Against The Empty Tomb�

Page 233:

Peter gives a footnote itemizing these scholars which I wish more people would do. Not surprisingly, these are all non Christians. Most Bible scholars are Christian and accept the historicity of the empty tomb. This observation can be extended beyond scholars. Generally, Christians accept the historicity of the empty tomb while non-Christians do not. This indicates that acceptance of the historicity of the empty tomb is based primarily on religious orientation and not on Evidence in practice. The Implication is that the Evidence is not very good.

The above is illustrative of the lack of General type arguments in Peter’s article. The problem with making General type arguments is that they are much easier to criticize than Specific arguments. But by not using General type arguments Peter is left with evidence for his argument consisting significantly of Gospels that are clear and agree that there was an empty tomb.

I think Peter’s ultimate objective is unclear here. Objectives should always be clearly stated at the start of an article. Is Peter:

1) Merely arguing that the historicity of the empty tomb should be Doubted?

2) Arguing that the empty tomb is Likely/Probably not historical?

Peter then gives a summary of support for this argument including signs of fictional creation in the empty tomb narrative. What Peter does not identify here is the General observation that the Gospels in General are primarily narratives of Fiction (the Impossible claims). Because the Gospels make so many Impossible claims this creates doubt as to the Possible claims such as an empty tomb. Surely if a narrative reported an empty tomb without any related “resurrection� it would be more likely to be historical than a narrative with both claims.

Ignoring the effect of Impossible claims on the historicity of Possible claims is what Christian Bible scholarship does. Why would a Skeptical Bible scholar do this? A Skeptic may accept some assumptions of a Christian in Argument in order to be more persuasive to Christians. But Peter’s article presumably is written in Absolute form without any relative assumptions.

The four possibilities Peter gives all assume that Jesus was crucified. Does Peter believe that Jesus was crucified? Again, why just accept a Christian assumption if Peter either disagrees with or doubts it?



Joseph

andrewcriddle

The standard source for this rabbinic idea (of the resurrected bodies still having the defects they had in life) is Ecclesiastes Rabbah which is rather late probably over 500 years after the death of Paul.

IMO we have little information about the views of the resurrected body found among Pharisees and Rabbis in the first two centuries CE.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Review of The Empty Tomb. Enjoy!:

The Empty Tomb is the first serious Skeptical challenge to an important Assertion of Christianity, there was an Empty Tomb, in about 1,500 years. It is Hoped by Skeptics that unlike its predecessors, this one will survive to maturity. To give the Reader some idea of the current Environment this book was written in, the original title was "Jesus Is Dead, He's Dead James". Prometheus Books, one of the most Skeptic sympathetic Publishers, decided this Title was too much, hence, "The Empty Tomb". So it's probably going to be some time yet before all Bibles in hotel rooms are replaced by Humes' "Treatise On Human Understanding." The book consists of a number of short articles by various Skeptics. By being only a "contributing author" as opposed to "The Author of" these Skeptics feel it more likely that they won't have (the) holy spirit kicked out of them and we therefore won't be seeing them anytime soon on the really big and important News shows like Late Night With David Letterman or The Daily Show. This Review consists souly of the contribution by the rising young Skeptical Star, ironically named Peter (Kirby), The Case Against The Empty Tomb. Peter does have the huge advantage compared to most Biblical Scholars that he is still in College. He is thus underly influenced by Practical pressures of the Real World and overly influenced by cranky old professors who take off points for any deviation from every jot and tittle of The Grammatical Law. Peter thereby writes the most logical and organized article of The Wild Bunch, the one that most directly and organizationally takes on the Specifics of the Christian argument For The Empty Tomb.

After reading Peter's Report I have Good News and Bad News for Christianity. First, the Bad News - There is no "Good News". Now, the Good News - I won't tell you the Bad News. Peter makes a Positive argument for his Position:

"The Empty Tomb" is likely a fictional creation by the Anonymous author of "Mark".

Arguments are best won by stating a Positive Proposition and then supplying sufficient evidence to support your conclusion. This is Peter's strategy. Too often people try to prove their conclusion by primarily criticizing the other sides' conclusion.
Peter's main points supporting his conclusion are as follows:

1) Dependence On "Mark"

There is no awareness of an Empty Tomb tradition in Christian literature before "Mark". The time gap between the supposed event and the first claim of an empty tomb suggests that the empty tomb story was not based on a historical event. Later Christian claims of an empty tomb are all dependent on "Mark" again indicating that there was no historical witness available for subsequent authors.

The potential weakness of the above is that it can be argued that "John" (which Peter adresses briefly) and non-Canonical Gospels are not based on "Mark".

2) Fictional Characteristics Of "Mark"

The Empty Tomb narrative in "Mark" contains likely fictional characteristics such as Joseph of Arimathea. No one knows where "Arimathea" was. Literally the word means "best disciple town". The stone is implied to be round, which was generally true at the time "Mark" was written, but generally not true for the time period supposedly described. Why would women bring spices to anoint for a body that had already been prepared for burial and buried?

3) Burial Traditions

There are Christian traditions that suggest Jesus' burial was handled by his enemies, "The Jews". The Jews would not have wanted a potential site for a shrine such as a tomb.

What Peter misses here is that it's even more likely that the Romans, who had the final authority, would not have allowed/permitted any Type of honorable burial as preventing this was one of the primary points of crucifixion.

4) Appearance Traditions

There is disagreement in Christian literature about whether the resurrected Jesus appeared to women. "Mark" and "Luke" make no such claim. Also, if a historical Empty Tomb in Jerusalem was really discovered while the disciples were still in Jerusalem, why does Christianity generally put the first post resurrection sightings in Galilee? Wouldn't the disciples be motivated to investigate (in Jerusalem)?

There is a defense here that no matter what the diciples thought the significance of the empty tomb was they would have returned home for practical reasons.

5) Lack Of Known Location

Early Christianity had no idea where Jesus' tomb was. Human nature would be to venerate it as a shrine. Lack of knowledge of a location that Christianity would be very interested in suggests that there was no such location.


This then, is the Bad News for Christianity based on Peter's witness. You can accept all kinds of General Christian assumptions as a background for discussion of historicity of The Empty Tomb and still making a convincing argument based on Specifics that The Empty Tomb was Likely not historical.

The Good News for Christianity here is that Peter makes no attempt to discuss the GENERAL reasons to doubt the historicity of the supposed Empty Tomb and the Christian argument for The Empty Tomb is primarily based on the General argument of credible contemporary witness reasonably preserved by a large institution and the lack of comparable contemporary dispute. In order to take away the Crown of The HeavenWait Champion of this world, scoring a decision is not enough. One has to win in this situation by Knockout. In order to knockout the Christian assertion it's not enough just to present a better argument, one also has to discredit the other argument.

General reasons do take longer to develop and are more easily criticized so Peter may have been limited in the size of his argument by the Highest Authority (the Editor) as well as implicitly leaving them to the other authors. In my opinion though the general reasons make an even better argument in doubting the historicity of The Empty Tomb:

1) The Gospels are primarily reports of the Impossible so any Possible claim has substantially more doubt than if it was presented without accompanying Impossible claims.

2) We know very little about the author of "Mark". For all we know she didn't intend for The Empty Tomb to be taken as history.

3) The Church Tradition that selected "Mark" as Canon was biased. The motivation may have been primarily what the Church wanted to believe as opposed to what was historical.

4) We have no good evidence as to what Standards the Church used to determine what would be Canon.

5) We have good evidence that the Church suppressed relatively early non-Christian testimony disputing Christian assertions.

6) It's Likely that the current "Mark" post-resurrection sightings are not original. Peter identifies this but doesn't discuss what it Means in General. What it means is that Christianity forged potentially its best evidence for the resurrection to the ending of the original Gospel. Perhaps more important is the attitude of some of the best early Church scholars such as Eusebius and Jerome to this knowledge. What was most important to them is that the Gospels of their time be harmonized as opposed to scientific determination of what was likely original. What does this say about Credibility to a general argument based on supposed Credibility?

I have Faith that the Words of II Peter will rock the Believing world.



Joseph

andrewcriddle

I have two separate problems with Joseph of Arimathea being a fictional character invented by Mark with 'Arimathea' being derived from 'best disciple'

a/ Although ARI could be used as a prefix in this way to mean 'best' ARIST or ARISTO would be much more usual. There are numbers of parallels using ARIST(O) (best ruler, best counsellor, best prophet, best citizen) and it's hard to find close parallels using ARI particularly involving words coined in post-classical Greek.

b/ IF Joseph of Arimathes was invented by Mark then the only relevant information about him is that found in Mark.

Now on the information in Mark alone ignoring the other Gospels, there is no clear indication that Joseph of Arimathea is considered as a disciple of Jesus at all. The description 'a respected member of the council who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God' does not need to mean that Joseph supported Jesus at all. (Matthew and John make Joseph explicitly a disciple' Luke makes him at least on the side of Jesus against the majority of the Sanhedrin.)

Brown in 'Death of the Messiah' actially argues that for Mark Joseph is not meant to be regarded as a disciple but just as a pious member of the Sanhedrin carrying out the religious duty of ensuring that the dead (even the executed dead) receive burial.

It is IMO problematic to interpret 'Arimathea' on the basis of claims about Joseph of Arimathea that Mark never explicitly makes.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

That is simply a clever dodge on Brown's part to produce historicity where none exists, more historicist desperation. When is the phrase 'kingdom of God' used in Mark where it does not represent the followers of Jesus?

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" is framed based on the use of "Amazing" (astonished, surprised, marvelled, wondered, etc.) which even Jesus is subject to:

Mark 15: (NIV)
5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.
6 Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested.
7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.
9 "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate,
10 knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.
11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
12 "What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them.
13 "Crucify him!" they shouted.
14 "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers.
17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.
18 And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!"
19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.
20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
The Crucifixion
21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull).
23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.
24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
25 It was the third hour when they crucified him.
26 The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.[a]
29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days,
30 come down from the cross and save yourself!"
31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! 32 Let this Christ, b this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
33 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[c]
35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah."
36 One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and[d] saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son[e] of God!"
40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.
42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached,
43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.
44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.


JW:
"Mark" is written in the Classic Greek Tragedy Style of Irony. The Blind Prophetic Seer is the Prophetic Jewish Bible. Instead of Prophesying that the Anti-Hero will blindly kill his own Father the prophesy is that the Anti-Hero ("The Jews") will blindly kill his own Messiah ("Reject the cornerstone").

In the Frame above the author skillfully repeats a Pattern:

1) Passover

2) Custom of Releasing

3) Barabbas (Son of the Father)

Note that the Name Identifies the Ironic Substitution. "Barabbas", the Guilty and Convicted Taker of Life, is Substituted for the Father's Son, the Innocent and Acquited (Judged Innocent by Pilate) Giver of Life.

4) Indictment of "The Jews".

Compare to:

1) Sabbath

2) Custom of Releasing (for burial)

3) Arimathea (Best Disciple Town)

Arimathea, as representative of Sanhedrin, the Guilty Convictor and Taker of Jesus' Life, is Substituted for Jesus' Family (Disciples) which should have been the ones accepting Jesus in death and burying him.

4) Indictment of "The Disciples".

When it happens once (Barabbas) it may be a coincidence. When it happens twice (Arimathea) it's not.

When you can see this Andrew than there's hope I can Save you.



Joseph

andrewcriddle

In Mark 12:34 a scribe debating with Jesus is described by Jesus as "you are not far from the kingdom of God". The scribe is presened as sympathetic to Jesus but he is not a disciple.

Mark 15:43 is the only place in Mark where 'looking for' PROSDEChOMAI occurs. However in Luke 2:25 and 38 it is used of Simeon 'looking for the consolation of Israel' and unspecified persons 'looking for the redemption of Jerusalem'. Simeon in effect may possibly be regarded as a disciple but I don't think the people in verse 38 can be seen as disciples.

Luke, who's account of Joseph of Arimathea, is closest to Mark, does not regard 'looking for the kingdom of God' as making clear Joseph's sympathy for Jesus and adds 'who had not consented to their [the Sanhedrin's] purpose and deed'

(Just to clarify I quite agree that Mark presents Joseph of Arimathea as a positive character, but that is different from being presented as a disciple of Jesus.)

Andrew Criddle

jlowder

All,

I've created a website devoted to the book at:

http://www.infidels.org/~jlowder/emptytomb/

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Vorkosigan

OK, you got me there.

OK.