Davka

"International inspection committee"???

You think the UN existed back then?

Here's the deal, as I understand it: The Jewish tradition says that Jesus' body was removed from the tomb. The Gospel of Matthew shows awareness of that tradition (meaning that it was around pretty early) and attempts to refute it. The story of Roman guard being posted at the tomb to prevent such an occurrence has some pretty big holes in it, however.

1. Why would Rome care about the dead leader of yet another obscure Messianic sect? Is there any evidence to indicate that they guarded the tombs of other executed zealots or would-be Messiahs to prevent the formation of such rumors?

2. Let's assume that the guard really were posted. The penalty for falling asleep on the job as a Roman guard was, I believe, death. Ditto for allowing your charge to escape of be stolen. So if the body of Jesus was removed by someone, would the guards be likely to cop to it? Or would they be more likely to go along with some cock-and-bull story, especially if some of the locals agreed to back their tale? "Honest, Centurion, there really were angels - we saw them too!"

Anyone with half a brain can see that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark. John, otoh, appears to be based on powerful psychotropic substances. Or psychosis. Or both.

show_no_mercy

Why didn't Mark attempt to refute it?

Probably because Mark created the "tradition" of the empty tomb.

Johnny Skeptic

But what evidence is there that the body of Jesus was put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb? The Gospels are not sufficient evidence that body of Jesus was put in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb.

Davka

Well, if you put it that way, the Gospels are not sufficient evidence that Jesus of Nazareth even existed! It seems to me that if you're going to discuss the question of what happened to Jesus' body, you need to at least grant for the sake of discussion that he existed and was placed in a tomb of some sort. I'm not sure if it really matters whether it was Joseph of Arimathea's, but that's neither here nor there - the thing is, it's kind of hard to argue the point if you're going to ask for empirical evidence of some kind. There is none.

afaik.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Darstec,

For Captain Kirk, Flash Gordon, Buck Rodgers and Captain Midnight were probably the traditions.
Harry Potter is a little harder to say. A television show called "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" was a hit show in the U.S. a year before the first Harry Potter book came out. It was about a teenage witch being taught witchcraft by her two aunts.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Johnny Skeptic

It matters a lot to conservative Christians regarding the stolen body issue. Whether or not a body is missing is irrelevant unless you first know where it was put in the first place. Assuming for the sake of argument that the body of Jesus was put somewhere, what non-biblical evidence says where the body was put? The stolen body issue that conservative Christians promote assumes that the location of the tomb was known by critics, but what evidence suggests that that was the case?

Solo

No, but my mom's middle name was Sarcastic.

Or it could be that a Matthean editor tried to convince the readers that the tradition came about as a reaction to an actual happening and not to an earlier version of a fictional storytelling.

Be it as it may, the point I was making was that the article referenced in the OP is so hopelessly naive and uninformed that it does not seem to know that the refutation of the empty tomb as the proof of resurrection actually was made by rival Judaic group(s) who claimed the disciples stole the Jesus' corpse.

Jiri

Davka

Ah. Sorry, my eyes aren't what they used to be. *squints* Yeah, now I can see your tone of voice. My bad. :Cheeky:

OK, now I feel really dumb. I completely missed your point and took your response at face value.

My experience (nearly 20 years of studying Christian apologetics as a fundamentalist) is that the vast majority of apologetic articles, sermons, books etc. are hopelessly naive and uninformed. Most are based on unfounded rumors and half-truths that circulate within the Christian community. It is the rare Apologist who actually bothers to venture outside of Christian circles for source material.

JoeWallack

JW:
There are many issues here but a scientific analysis of the related Gospel narratives indicates that "Mark" is the original source and there is relatively little variation. I've already demonstrated this in:

The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack

Specifically here you can see how closely the subsequent Gospel "Matthew" followed "Mark's" Empty Tomb story:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...1&postcount=86

Mark. Mark 16	Matthew Matthew 28
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	28.1-8. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	28.1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 28.3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	28.4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	28.5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	28.7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.

JW:
"Mark" to 16:8 (AE) sure looks like "Matthew's" source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell.

Not much doubt here that "Mark" was "Matthew's" source for the Empty Tomb story and the lack of any significant editing on the part of "Matthew" indicates it was "Matthew's" only source here.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Davka

Just a quick addendum to JoeWallack's post - not only does an examination of Matthew and Mark side-by-side strongly suggest that Mark is, in fact, the primary source for Matthew, but an examination of Luke shows that it, too, is primarily derived from Matthew.

In the case of Luke, most Christian scholars will agree that it is derived from Mark, since Luke does not even claim to have been an eyewitness to the events described. The author of Luke claims to be a Greek physician who compiled stories about Jesus after his death. A side-by-side examination of Mark and Luke seems to indicate that, aside from a few embellishments here and there, Luke relied almost exclusively on the Mark account.

The Synoptic Gospels may all derive from an earlier account which has since been lost. In any case, there is no question that both Matthew and Luke are derivative.