Switch89

Although it was released in 2005, I have only now gotten my hands on a copy of "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave". It is a collection of fifteen essays which respond to Christian Apologist claims concerning the alleged Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The real creme de la creme of these essays is, by far, Richard Carrier's "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb". At over 100 pages, it is pretty much a small book included in this volume!

In it, Carrier presents (in my opinion) a hefty case for the following thesis: The first christians did not believe that Jesus arose in the same body he lived in. Rather, the first christians believed that Jesus' body was left behind in the tomb and that his soul recieved a new (more glorious) body.

Carrier also defends the hypothesis that the Empty Tomb story is a myth: He believes that the tomb was symbolic, representing Jesus' fleshly body, and that its emptiness represented that Jesus' soul had left his original body. I have no idea how this holds up historically or theologically, but it is very interesting indeed.

However, I do see a problem: If you read the end of the gospel of Matthew, you will notice that Matthew tells of a report amongst the Jews that the disciples stole Jesus' body, to which Matthew replies that the guards were paid to say this. Let's think about this for a minute: If the empty tomb was a symbolic fiction, wouldn't Matthew have reacted to this rumor amongst the Jews by saying that the empty tomb was not literal, but only a symbolic expression meant to convey some spiritual truth? I suppose Carrier could argue that the story of the Jews' rumor and its reply all have some symbolic meaning. That's fine. But the burden of proof is on him to show that this interpretation is correct, since the plainest, simplest reading of the text does not indicate any such thing. The best explanation is that this story is not (completely) symbolic myth.

Perhaps the next best essay in the book is Jeff Lowder's response to William Lane Craig's case for the Resurrection. Lowder does a superb job responding to Craig, and even presents a hypothesis of his own: That Jesus' body was moved sometime in the night, and his followers later discovered it empty.

The rest of the book is also lively: Robert Price delivers an often-funny rant against William Lane Craig, Michael Martin contributes two essays showing the immense improbability of the Resurrection, and Keith Parsons defends the hypothesis that the followers of Jesus were victims of hallucinations. Until I read the last essay I had no idea that mass hallucinations were so well-documented, and it makes me wish that I had mentioned them in my recent article on the Resurrection.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to those wishing to investigate arguments for and against the Resurrection of Jesus.

aa5874

You see the problem? Mass hallucinations have not been well-documented.

Now, I want to know if there has been mass hallucinations of any event not previously known about Jesus?

Even if there was a Jesus and he did resurrect, it could not be proven.

Resurrections are not known to occur after a person is dead for three days.

dmbateson

How about the sun dancing at Fátima?

daniel.

Huon

There are at least 4 different situations (admitting the existence of JC) :

1 - What felt and believed the friends of JC immediately after his death.
2 - What felt and believed the other Jews immediately after his death.
3 - What felt and believed the friends of JC ~50 years after his death.
4 - What felt and believed the other Jews ~50 years after his death.

The gospel of Matthew describes situation #3. Much time had elapsed, the Jews "knew" that JC was not their Messiah, they did not believe that JC was the son of Yahweh, they considered the followers of JC as traitors to the national cause, etc... Saying that "the empty tomb was not literal, but only a symbolic expression" would have induced the answer : "So, you admit that the whole story was just a story (a lie) !".

Steven Carr

'Let's think about this for a minute: If the empty tomb was a symbolic fiction, wouldn't Matthew have reacted to this rumor amongst the Jews by saying that the empty tomb was not literal, but only a symbolic expression meant to convey some spiritual truth? '

Where does Carrier say that the author of Matthew did not really believe in corpses being raised, and that Matthew believed the empty tomb was a symbolic fiction? After all, Matthew has many of them rise from their graves?

You might also be interested in my debates on the subject at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/ and http://media.premier.org.uk/unbeliev...8c9f596e15.mp3

Solo

I don't think Carrier says quite that. He argues that the idea of the empty tomb is Mark's, that it has psalmic originis, and the "the third day" motif harkens back to the prophecy of Hosea 6:2 and the three-day search for the ascended Elijah in 2 Kings 2.

I have not seen Carrier say that the dearly believers thought the body was left behind. Quite the contrary, the idea of the empty tomb was to symbolize the status of Jesus as the son of God. The ascension of Jesus was an article of faith, one that was shared in the early communities, but - something that Carrier failed to observe - did not necessarily imply resurrection or rising from the dead , for the Nazarene Jerusalem group. They thought of the 'rising from the dead' in a purely figurative sense, as a spiritual revival, that happens here on earth. Note for example the order of Jesus' deeds in a message to John (Mt 11:5): 'the blind receive their sight, land the lame walk and the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have have the gospel preached to them.' It is simply inconceivable that the restoration of life would have been seen as simply one the good deeds, and therefore casually placed as the last among other 'cures'.

The simplest explanation is that Matthew (or more likely a later editor) was a sarcisist (Carrier's term for a believer in physical resurrection) and believed that the idea for the story he created came to him directly from God - and therefore it must have happened that way for real.


One thing you need to realize is that the text of Matthew was developping over time. The 'bribed guards' story (Mt 28:11-15) was most probably a later addition. One sure indication is the calumny of the disciples stealing the body supposedly was spread 'among the Jews'. This stereotypic formula is alien, and runs counter, to the original Matthew, the most Jewish gospel of the four.

Jiri

aa5874

What made you realise that gMatthew was developping over time? There are no sources of antiquity that can show the "bribed guards" story developped over time.

The "bribed guards" story is found only in gMatthew, no other Gospel writer developped such a story.

Up to the middle of the 1st century the "bribed guards" story was used by Justin Martyr which may indicate that gMatthew's "bribed guards" story was the only story at that time.

Johnny Skeptic

Wikipedia says that Justin Martyr lived from 100-165 A.D. If that is true, then he could not have used the "bribed guards" story in the middle of the first century. Perhaps you meant to say the second century.

Johnny Skeptic

How can the empty tomb be properly debated without first reasonably establishing where the body was buried? What historical evidence is there that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb?

Obviously, it would be absurd to debate whether or not Elvis Presley's body is missing from his tomb without first reasonably establishing where the tomb is.

aa5874

Thanks for pointing out the error. I should have stated "the middle of the 2nd century."