HRG

IIRC, Miles' body was never found either. At least, Ms. Bujold hasn't yet written about it

Best regards, HRG.

Vorkosigan

No, it WAS found, but he was in cryogenic suspension.

Wads4

"Matthew 28:12 13 specifically states that the chief priests invented the story that the disciples stole the body. There would be no need for this fabrication if the tomb had not been empty. "

Sounds like double-bluff to me. Matthew wrote it (decades later) in order to elicit the conclusion amongst believers which you yourself have come to.

Richbee

Just the facts Man, just the Historical facts. Now run along and don't come back until you can address the historical FACTS!

Richbee

I was seaching for the original wise guy who questioned quoting, "modern scholarship", and I discovered a better or more complete macro view.

Be careful what you wish for!

IMO, the skeptics don't fair well, and many are dubious at best, such as J.D. Crossan the Anthropologists - Ex-Christian, heretic or Apostate from the Faith.

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?

by Gary R. Habermas

An edited version of this article was published in the
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3.2 (2005), pp. 135-153

- snip -

Since 1975, more than 1400 scholarly publications on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus have appeared. Over the last five years, I have tracked these texts, which were written in German, French, and English. Well over 100 subtopics are addressed in the literature, almost all of which I have examined in detail. Each source appeared from the last quarter of the Twentieth Century to the present, with more being written in the 1990s than in other decades.[1] This contemporary milieu exhibits a number of well-established trends, while others are just becoming recognizable. The interdisciplinary flavor is noteworthy, as well. Most of the critical scholars are theologians or New Testament scholars, while a number of philosophers and historians, among other fields, are also included.

This essay is chiefly concerned with commenting on a few of these most recent scholarly trends regarding the resurrection of Jesus. I will attempt to do four things here, moving from the general to the specific. This will involve 1) beginning with some tendencies of a very broad nature, 2) delineating several key research trends, 3) providing a sample interpretation of these research trends from the works of two representative scholars, and 4) concluding with some comments on what I take to be the single most crucial development in recent thought. Regarding my own critics over the years, one of my interests is to ascertain if we can detect some widespread directions in the contemporary discussions—where are most recent scholars heading on these issues? Of course, the best way to do this is to comb through the literature and attempt to provide an accurate assessment.

Richbee

You would be most interested in the Roman Guard sent by Pontius Pilate!

According to Matthew's version, on Saturday, that is, on the Sabbath, which Matthew strangely circumnavigates by calling it the day after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate for a guard to secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and thus 'fulfilling' Jesus' prediction of rising on the third day. Pilate says, 'You have a guard; make it as secure as you can.' It is not clear if this means that Pilate gave them a Roman guard or told them to use their own temple guard. The Gospel of Peter uses a Roman guard, but this is probably read into the tradition and may be designed to emphasize the strength of the guard. If one might mention a psychological consideration, Pilate would probably be by this point so disgusted with the Jews that he might well rebuff them; but legends know no psychological limits. If Pilate rebuffed the Jews, then one wonders why this part of the story be told at all; but if the Jews really did go to Pilate, then perhaps this detail was remembered. If Pilate gave them a guard it is strange that Matthew does not make this explicit, like the Gospel of Peter, as this would strengthen his apologetic. The fact that the guards return to the chief priests is evidence that a Jewish guard is intended; contrast the Gospel of Peter, where the Roman guard report to Pilate the events at the tomb. The mention of the governor in v. 14 might indicate a Roman guard, but then it would not be clear how the Jews could do anything to keep them out of trouble. The fact that Roman guards could be executed for sleeping on watch and taking a bribe would further point to a Jewish guard. In the Gospel of Peter the bribe and the sleeping story are eliminated; Pilate simply commands the Roman guard to keep silent. If one gives the story the benefit of a doubt, one would assume that the guard is Jewish; but if one is convinced the story is a worthless legend then nothing could prevent one from taking the guard as Roman. So the guard is set and the sepulcher sealed. It has been said that Matthew omits the anointing motif because of the guard and the sealing,{4} but this holds no weight, for the women were clearly ignorant of such actions taken on the Sabbath. Rather it could be that Matthew is following different traditions here, since v. 15 makes it evident that there is a tradition history behind Matthew's story.{5} Before the women arrive, an angel of the Lord rolls back the stone, and the guard are paralyzed with fear. It is not said that the guard see the resurrection or even that this is the moment of the resurrection.{6} After the women leave, some of the guard go to the Jewish authorities, who bribe them to say that the disciples stole the body. This story has been spread among the Jews until this day, adds Matthew.

Source:: The Guard at the Tomb

Richbee

You actually reference one of the most unbelievable facts found in the New testament!

How was it that the frightened disciples ever bother to come back around show their faces let alone preach in the city of greatest danger and hostility?

What was their motive to preach the risen Christ? Power? Position? Money? Fame?

They were instantly branded as Jewsih heretics and threatened with death!

pharoah

Are you kidding me? I ask you for a Roman source to back up your claim and you point me to Matthew? :wave:

Gamera

For the record Richbee, while I appreciate your obvious commitment to the gospels, I don't think the resurrection can be "proved." If it could, faith would be unnecessary. Rational people would accept the gospel, and only the irrational would not. Thus the rational could boast. This simply isn't what the gospel message is about. It's not about intellectual beliefs and doctrines.

So I would assert that there is absolutely no historical evidence of the resurrection, and that's exactly how God intended it.

This is simply a categorically different question than questions about the priority of various manuscripts and the historicity of various factual events claimed in the NT. On that I agree with you. I just don't think the resurrection fits in that category.

Doug Shaver

I've known a lot more people to boast about being irrational than about being rational. Especially two kinds of people: Christians and New Agers.