Steven Carr

This can be found here http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article...129555,00.html

' To the New Testament texts the authors of The Empty Tomb (or via: amazon.co.uk) take some sharp blades wielded well.'

' The authors treat Christian claims with just the bracing rigour with which they assess the (palpably false) claims of Rastafarians or the Heaven’s Gate sect; the Christian sect, after all, grew in more fertile soil than either of these.'

Anduin

I'll definitely get the book.

I'm always flabbergasted by Christians who use the "empty tomb" argument. As far as weak arguments go, this one takes the prize.

The argument tends to equate empty tombs with resurrection, a logical jump that I’m not willing to make. Does every empty tomb imply resurrection? Here is a big empty tomb:



Copyright notice (this is a Creative Commons image).

Loren Rosson III

Steven, thanks for pointing this out. I wrote my own review of the book about a year ago on XTalk. What follows is an updated version of it.


The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave is a collection of essays from the skeptic's corner, containing much to agree with, much to dispute, as each contributor deals with the resurrection inquiry in some way. Peter Kirby has an essay refuting the authenticity of the empty tomb; Richard Carrier has a lengthy essay, also arguing that the empty tomb was a legend coming later than Paul's two-body doctrine of the resurrection, and then a shorter article arguing that if the empty tomb were authentic it is plausible to assume Jesus' body was stolen. Keith Parsons writes about the plausibility of hallucination theories; Jeffrey Jay Lowder argues for the relocation of Jesus' corpse to a second tomb. Then there is an extremely polemical piece by editor Robert Price -- called "By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus" -- bemoaning the influence of neo-conservative scholarship, insisting that William Lane Craig is a menace both to scholarship and the commonweal.

There are more essays (fifteen total), but for now I'll focus on four which particularly grabbed my attention: two by Richard Carrier, one by Keith Parsons, one by Robert Price. It's a sizeable enough agenda for one review/post.

"The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb" (Richard Carrier)

Carrier's first essay on the legend of the empty tomb is unconvincing as it is long, propped up by an unlikely hypothesis of Paul's view of the resurrection: that Jesus rose in a different body completely distinguished from the old. I want to focus on this two-body idea, because Carrier offers the most thorough treatment of it I've ever read. He begins by trying to pinpoint the source of the Corinthians' objections and concerns:

If the corpse of Jesus remained on earth, it is easy to see how some [of the Corinthians] might [have] come to believe his resurrection was peculiar, in a way ours could not be. It is possible some decided his resurrection was only metaphorical or that it was simply a necessary consequence of his divinity -- just as God lived without a body before the incarnation, so obviously he would afterward. And we are not gods, so we cannot count on the same fate. Whatever their particular interpretation was, like these, it must have made our own resurrection somehow dubious. Only that would make any sense of Paul's reply. So now their specific worry becomes explicable: If Christ didn't get back his old body, how are we going to live without ours? Paul's answer is: We get a new body.(pp 121-122)

Carrier, in other words, has the Corinthians worrying about a bodiless fate. But this was compatible with the things they'd always believed. Even more to the point, Paul's answer ("we get a new body"), in its simplest and unelaborated form, would have already been taught to them. It's simply incredible that Paul wouldn't have initially mentioned anything about the "new body", whether that of Jesus or those of believers.

I think it's clear from Paul's language that the Corinthians accepted Jesus' resurrection from the old corpse, yet wondered, on the basis of old-beliefs-die-hard, if this would really end up being true for themselves. After all, he says, "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" (I Cor 15:12), presupposing that everyone already accepts Christ has been raised -- and raised "from the dead", or from the old corpse.

Carrier, as expected, leans heavily on the two passages which have been pressed into service of sharply distinguishing a new spiritual body from the old physical. Taking the first, "It is sown a natural body, and it is raised a spiritual body" (I Cor 15:44):

There are two subjects in that last clause, hence two bodies. That two distinct bodies are meant is clear in 15:46 and the final clause of 15:44. Paul is saying the earthly flesh that is sown is dishonorable and weak and subject to decay, but what rises is glorious powerful, and immortal. And he captures all this in his concluding dichotomy between two fundamentally different bodies: a biological body and a spiritual body... If Paul meant that one body would be changed into the other, he would say so. He would not use analogies that he has, which all entail different things, not changes from one living thing into another. Likewise he would use appropriate grammar (e.g. "that which is sown is raised"), but he doesn't. (pp 127-128)

Too many commentators have pointed out, however, that the metaphor of a seed sprouting (I Cor 15:38ff) supports the idea of an old body transforming into a new one. The two subjects ("it, it") refer to the same essential entity.

For the infamous second statement, "Neither flesh nor blood can inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (I Cor 15:50), Carrier declares:

Flesh and blood goes away, to corruption and decay. Period. Flesh does not receive immortality. It cannot receive it. That is why there must be a new, different body, one capable of immortality... Christ is now a pneuma and has a pneumatic body, unlike the body of Adam, which was made of the flesh and blood formed from the dirt of the earth... Paul says such things are perishable, and they cannot enter heaven, so they cannot have any place in the resurrection. And he clearly says, contrary to Luke, that the risen Christ is a spirit. (pp 134-135)

Furthermore, says Carrier, against Wright's claim that Paul was using spirit as an adjective of relation as opposed to material -- that Paul was speaking of a pneuma-driven, or pneuma-powered, body:

Contra Wright, the distinction between -ikos (adjectives of relation) and -inos (adjectives of material) is not so clear-cut, especially in Koine, as even he admits... The context decides, and our context clearly indicates substances are the issue: sarx versus pneuma, different kinds of flesh, astral bodies versus terrestrial ones... We can therefore reject all gospel material emphasizing the physicality of Christ's resurrection as a polemical invention. (pp 129, 135)

It's true that Paul didn't express himself well in I Cor 15:50, but Carrier's "period" shouldn't come at the end of this verse, rather three verses later, when Paul qualifies with the idea that the perishable body itself "must put on imperishability" (15:53), again implying continuity. "Flesh and blood" is simply a loose (and admittedly confusing) way of referring to an ordinary human body as yet unchanged. Wright gets a lot of things wrong, but he's on the right track about this.

From this point Carrier proceeds to the second half of his essay and argues that the empty tomb was a legendary development after Paul, made to square with later gospel reports of a more physical resurrection. I don't think Carrier is any more persuasive here than he is with Paul's supposed two-body hypothesis, but I'll leave it alone and proceed to Carrier's second essay, about which I can say good things.

"The Plausibility of Theft" (Richard Carrier)

In this shorter essay Carrier assumes the opposite conclusion of what he argued previously: if the empty tomb were historical, then Jesus' body may have been stolen.

Indeed, it may well have been. Grave-robbing was common enough in antiquity, and necromancers especially valued the body parts of holy men and/or crucified men; Jesus was both. There's obviously no way to rule out other ideas (Jesus' corpse being moved to another tomb, the disciples stumbling on the wrong tomb, etc.), but the grave-robbing explanation remains a strong candidate. Carrier makes interesting analogies to the rumor of theft reported in Mt 28:15, suggesting that Matthew blames the rumor on conspiracy ("the Jews' desire to conceal the truth") in the same way that the Heaven's Gate cult blamed the argument against their imminent spacecraft on a conspiratorial earth traitor (pp 356-357). And just as Matthew accuses Jews of paying off guards, the survivors of Jonestown accused the government of fabricating evidence and paying off forensic doctors to fabricate evidence which made them look bad.

The upshot is that Carrier's short essay on "the plausibility of theft" is a better piece than his lengthy article preferring legend which rests, in turn, on an incorrect interpretation of Paul's view of the resurrection. "Less is more" with Carrier.

"Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory" (Keith Parsons)

Keith Parsons accounts for the New Testament appearances of Jesus in terms of visions, or as he prefers, hallucinations. In responding to Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli's thirteen objections to the hallucination hypothesis (argued in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics), he successfully refutes ten arguments, but not three.

(1) Kreeft and Tacelli: "There were too many witnesses; hallucinations are private." Parsons says this ignores the phenomenon of mass delusions (pp 435-438).

(2) K&T: "The witnesses were qualified -- simple, honest, and moral, who had firsthand knowledge of the facts." Not only do the gospels portray the disciples as disloyal and dense, it's equally true that honest and moral people are perfectly susceptible to hallucinations (p 439).

(3) K&T: "The five hundred saw Christ together, at the same time and place." But this may have been a collective vision (see (1)) (p 440).

(4) K&T: "Hallucinations usually last a few seconds or minutes; rarely hours. Jesus hung around for forty days (Acts 1:3)." This naively assumes a literal forty-day period in which "Jesus" was continuously present (p 441).

(5) K&T: "Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane." This claim is simply unfounded (p 441).

(6) K&T: "Hallucinations come from within, from what we already know and expect. Jesus did unexpected things, like a real person and not a dream." A bizarre claim: in dreams and visions many unexpected things occur (p 442).

(7) K&T: "Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't believe it at first; they initially thought he was a ghost." This not only begs the question by assuming a vision cannot overcome skepticism, it's a common rhetorical tactic of religious believers to claim they began as skeptics until later convinced of the "truth" (p 443).

(8)/(9)/(10) K&T: "Hallucinations do not eat."/"Hallucinations cannot be touched."/"Hallucinations cannot be heard." All are unfounded claims (p 444).

(11) K&T: "The apostles could not have believed in the hallucination if the corpse had still been in the tomb." A smoke-and-mirrors (ultimately empty) objection (pp 445-447).

(12) K&T: "If the apostles had hallucinated and then spread the story, the Jews would have stopped it by producing the body." That depends on the corpse's state of decay (p 448).

(13) K&T: "A hallucination would explain only the appearances; it would not explain the empty tomb; only the resurrection explains both." Point-counterpoint: that's like saying only real ETs explain all phenomena associated with UFO sightings (p 448).

For full elaborations on these rebuttals see the pages cited. Most of them are solid, save (3), (8), and (13). Objection (3) is more valid than Parsons allows, since documented cases report less than ten people experiencing the same hallucination at the same time; certainly not crowds of hundreds. Objection (8) also appears to be valid; reported apparitions do not eat or drink. Parsons may be conscious of the difficulty since he tries dealing with (8) (9) and (10) all as a single objection, but while testimony abounds for tangible and audible visions, that's not true for eating/drinking visions. Objection (13) carries weight only on the assumption that there was no cognitive dissonance in place which could have (easily) caused the disciples to make any outlandish claim they wanted, regardless of whether or not there was an empty tomb. But without cognitive dissonance (i.e. if, for the disciples, expectations hadn't yet been shattered) the objection is more valid than Parsons allows. [When I originally wrote this review, I'd finished proof-reading Dale Allison's manuscript for Resurrecting Jesus, in which he raises similar counters to these three objections and deals with them better than Parsons does. Now, of course, Allison's book is available.]

On the whole, I agree with what Parsons is getting at. There is nothing unlikely about the appearances of Jesus being "hallucinations", whether those described by Paul or the more explicitly tangible ones by the gospel writers. I would use the term to refer to apparitions occasioned by grief or trauma over the recently deceased. Gerd Ludemann has been the champion of this view, and Dale Allison explored the possibility by going even deeper into this territory.

"By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus" (Robert Price)

Price's diatribe against William Lane Craig will amuse the irreverent and anger the pious. For me it was only mildly off-putting. Price declares that biblical scholarship is in dire straits, with the ever increasing influence (as he sees it) of the more conservative wing: "Craig may well be correct that NT scholarship is more conservative than it once was. This has more than he admits to do with which denominations can afford to train the most students, hire more faculty, and send more members to the SBL...Is this trend toward neo-conservatism an enlightenment? Rather, I regard it as a prime example of what H.P. Lovecraft bemoaned as the modern failure of nerve in the face of scientific discovery." (p 412). This strikes me as paranoid, and I don't quite see neo-conservatives dominating the field of NT scholarship to the extent Price does. What about the influence of the Jesus Seminar? Burton Mack and Jonathan Smith? More feminist scholars? Biblical studies, if anything, seems to be more diversified than ever these days.

Furthermore, the rise of neo-conservative influence in some quarters has brought as much good news as bad. The early Christians had many beliefs conducive to "conservative" thinking, for better or worse, and scholars like (say) Bauckham and McKnight can certainly appreciate this more than a quaint Bultmannian.

To top it off, Price concludes his screed against Craig with the worst topic he could have chosen -- by going down the same avenue as Richard Carrier with a quasi-gnostic interpretation of Paul's view of the resurrection, laced with trademark rhetoric and contempt for his dialogue partner. I don't particularly like being a defender of William Lane Craig, but here Emperor Price has no clothes. Others, however, may think Price's rhetoric and idiosyncratic ideas make for some entertaining reading.

Conclusion

This is a flavor of an important collection of essays which should be on the shelf of anyone interested in the resurrection. Studies from the last few years have been impressive. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God ('03) is good for understanding what resurrection meant to the early Christians, though not for its silly apologetics. Ludemann's Resurrection of Christ ('04) is a fair counter to some of Wright, though it doesn't offer the most comprehensive treatment of hallucinations/apparitions. Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus ('05) is of course the best study to date. The Empty Tomb supplements the Wright-Ludemann-Allison trilogy with verve and covers a lot of important ground.

Steven Carr

Now there's an argument from silence , if ever there was one....

It is equally 'incredible' that people would convert to Christianity, such as the Thessalonicans and Corinthians did, and doubt resurrection at all, still less bodily resurrection, given the Gospel stories.

And surely Paul would already have told the Thessalonicans that the dead would be resurrected. That would be the very minimum of teaching about a resurrection, yet he still has to tell them again in 1 Thess. 4, and tell them that the dead were not lost.



And, of course, they object to *any* bodily resurrection, not just their own.

Believing that the body of Jesus had been raised, and then asking how a dead body could be raised makes no sense.

As Carrier explains, in the chapter you are reviewing, it only makes sense if they thought of Jesus as having a dual nature. He was a spirit before he came God Incarnate, and reverted to spirit form after he died, leaving his body behind.

As the Thessalonicans were not gods like Jesus, they would have wondered how they could be resurrected, when they lacked the dual nature of Jesus.

Totally begs the question.

And Paul calls the Corinthians idiots for not realising that you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed which dies.

And why does Paul then start to talk of all sorts of different bodies, made of different materials, which never turn into each other, just to set the Corinthians straight that the material body will turn into a different material.

Paul goes out of his way to emphasise discontinuity between different types of bodies. He talks about bird, fish, animals, men , sun, moon and stars.

He puts these bodies into different catgeories, meaning it was a category error to think that a natural body could become a spiritual body, as stupid as thinking that a man could become a bird, or that the sun could become a moon.

His talk of birds, fish , animals, men , sun, moon and stars is irrelevant to people who wondered how a corpse dissolved into its elements could be reassembled.

It is highly revelant when teaching that God will create a new body, made of a different element, not found on earth.

'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.'

This is why he had to write another letter, 2 Corinthians, where he says in chapter 5 that the earthly body could be destroyed, and he will get a new body made in heaven.

He longs to be rid of his old body and wear his new body.

And because Paul is unclear in 1 Cor 15 , Christians had to forge 3 Corinthians, where the fake Paul says 'and he arose, both body and soul and bones and spirit'

Who is closer to 1 Corinthians 15? The fake Paul or the real Paul?

Context. The whole chapter is about *substances*. Paul , like the author of 1 Peter, thinks 'All flesh is grass'. By this he does not mean that some flesh will be made eternal.

Paul thinks flesh and blood, by the very definition of flesh and blood, is a paradigm example of something that will be temporary.

it is a bizarre metaphor for somebody trying to teach that flesh and bones will be made immortal.

And , once again. people prove that the only way they can get Paul saying the perishable body must put on immortality is to change what is written.

The glib statement 'that the perishable body itself "must put on imperishability" (15:53)' founders on the simple fact that there *is* no word body in 1 Corinthians 15:53.

It is intriguing that people defend the idea that Paul thinks bodies will rise by adding body to passages which lack it.

I'm sure Paul would also have realised that he could teach that a dead body will rise by adding the word 'body' in important places, such as 1 Cor 15:53.

But he doesn't. I think we should respect his wishes. He didn't say 'body' in 1 Cor 15:53, because he didn't mean body.

The only time he is really clear is when he says 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'. And he said 'spirit' because he meant spirit.

Steven Carr

I forgot this bit.

It is really easy to get Paul to say what you want him to say, by the very simple expedient of putting in words which he never uses. There is no 'it', in the passage you have translated as 'It is sown a natural body, and it is raised a spiritual body'

Paul could have put an 'it' into the Greek. Should we respect his wishes? No, because then he would not be saying what we want him to say. So the 'it' goes in, even if there is nothing in the Greek for that it. Now Paul says just want we want him to....

There are two abstract phrases. The nearest noun available as a subject is 'the dead'. So if you want to put in a subject, Paul says 'the dead are sown in a natural body, and the dead are raised in a spiritual body'. But Paul never says one turns into the other.



Did Paul really believe that corpses would come back to life again? The Gospels say that is what happened to Jesus, but Paul would have denied that.

Section Sanhedrin 90b of he Talmud discusses the question that Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15 - how can dust come back to life?

Paul denies that it will. He claims resurrected beings will not be made of the dust of the earth. In 1 Corinthians 15:47-48 'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.'

Paul denies that dust will come back to life. If there is a resurrected body, he writes, it will not be made from dust, it will be made from heavenly material.

There were Jews who did believe that dust comes back to life again. See how Sanhedrin 90b handles the question, and see how utterly alien it is to Paul's way of writing in 1 Corinthians 15.


An emperor said to Rabban Gamaliel: 'Ye maintain that the dead will revive; but they turn to dust, and can dust come to life?'

Thereupon his the emperor's daughter said to him the Rabbi: 'Let me answer him: In our town there are two potters; one fashions his products from water, and the other from clay: who is the more praiseworthy?' 'He who fashions them from water, he replied.1 'If he can fashion man from water, surely he can do so from clay!'

The School of R. Ishmael taught: It can be deduced from glassware: if glassware, which, though made by the breath of human beings, can yet be repaired when broken; then how much more so man, created by the breath of the Holy One, blessed be He.

A sectarian said to R. Ammi: 'Ye maintain that the dead will revive; but they turn to dust, and can dust come to life?' — He replied: I will tell thee a parable. This may be compared to a human king who commanded his servants to build him a great palace in a place where there was no water or earth for making bricks. So they went and built it. But after some time it collapsed, so he commanded them to rebuild it in a place where water and earth was to be found; but they replied, 'We cannot'. Thereupon he became angry with them and said, 'If ye could build in a place containing no water or earth, surely ye can where there is!' 'Yet,' continued R. Ammi, 'If thou dost not believe, go forth in to the field and see a mouse, which to-day is but part flesh and part dust, and yet by to-morrow has developed and become all flesh.

These Jews believed in the resurrection of corpses and so 'proved' that dust will turn into flesh.

And the way they do it is just so utterly different to Paul's thought that it is obvious he is not thinking anything remotely like a process of making dust alive again.



Paul did not believe in the resurrection of corpses and wrote how dust was a thing of the past. The new body will not be transformed dust.

This totally contradicts the Gospels , where the corpse of Jesus gets up and walks around.

GakuseiDon

So, when you say "lack it", you can't mean "lack the word 'body'", because otherwise you would have said it?

What did he mean? Given the context, "body" is by no means implausible.

Yes, and since Paul says directly before that, "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body", I'm not sure why you think that is significant. I think you are trying to impose modern ideas on the text.

1 Cor:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead...
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being."* The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

Is Paul saying that we don't have a spirit until after we are dead, IYO? Given Paul's analogy of the seed, he seems to be speaking of a transformation. The body doesn't get left behind anymore than the seed is left behind.

Steven Carr

Putting words in bold does not add them to a Bible which lacks them.

There is no word 'it' in the Greek.

Perhaps if you used a bigger font for 'it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body', you might convince me that Paul wrote those words. Mere bolding is not doing it for me, perhaps put it in red or something.

The seed doesn't get left behind?

So when Jesus talked about separating the wheat from the chaff, what he meant was that the chaff doesn't get left behind?

Paul would have regarded our body as chaff, a part to be discarded.

Have you ever seen a seed germinate?

Something comes out of the seed case, which is discarded.


But just as much as you like quoting words Paul doesn't use, I like quoting words Paul does use.

What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.

You do not plant the body that will be.

And God gives each type of seed the appropriate body for that type of seed.

Apparently, when Paul says that God gives it a body, he meant that it already had a body, and all God had to do was mould it. Same as when I give you fifty dollars. All I am doing is taking the money you already have and turning it into a fifty.

Paul uses the word 'sperm' for seed. Apparently, we are all already in our father's testes, and God just transforms the seed, rather than creating new life.

Paul writes as though the seed is just a marker, a place-holder to tell God what kind of thing to create.

GakuseiDon

I can't see why you are objecting to "it". What is your preferred translation?

Does anyone with knowledge of Greek have an opinion here? Is "it is sown a natural body and it is raised a spiritual body" misleading or a bad translation?

The Greek can be found here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...1-8106.html#44

1 Cor:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead...
44 [it is] sown a natural body, [it is] raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being."* The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

Steven Carr

The nearest now before these abstract phrases is 'the dead' (nekros), so if you want a subject , you can have 'the dead are sown in a natural body, the dead are sown in a spiritual body.'

Which is what Paul has been saying all along.

Paul never says one body becomes the other.

Paul could so easily have written the way you suggest he did write.

But he carefully avoided doing so.

Chris Weimer

You people really need to learn Greek:

1st Corinthians 15.42 introduces the subject "resurrection of the dead". speiretai and egeiretai are both 3rd person singular present passive indicative. There's nothing else in the sentences except resurrection of the dead that it can be referring to. The "it" is part of English grammar to keep from appearing to amiguous when using the 3rd person.

This is all basic Greek grammar, very useful to know before you try calling bullshit.

ETA: Stephen Carr - it can't be referring to the dead - nekrwn is plural, and the verbs are singular. It refers to the resurrection of the dead.