thedeist

Hello all,


Do any of you know of Biblical scholars who doubt the historicity of guards at Jesus tomb besides [Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Raymond E. Brown,Richard Carrier, and Dr. Thomas Sheenan].

If you do please post your sources.



Thanks

Malachi151

That's kind of like asking who doubts the existence of flying monkeys in the land of Oz.

The only real debates are:

1) Did Jesus exist at all.
2) Was there even a tomb.

You won't find many people debating on whether or not guards were "really" at the tomb. Skeptics on the issue doubt the entire scene, not the details of the scene.

Here is some reading that touches on comments by other scholars and discusses the issue:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#12

patcleaver

Malachi151,

Your usually so right, but I think your wrong here.

There are lots of sites discussing various aspects of the flying monkeys just goggle ("flying monkeys" "wizard of oz") and peruse some of the sites. They debate things like the aerodynamics of flying monkeys, the possible histories of flying monkeys, where the flying monkeys lived, differences between flying monkeys in the oz books and in the oz movie. There are also huge numbers of sites debating various aspects of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, and the gospels that have nothing to do with reality.

It is just as legitimist to debate whether there were guards at the tomb as it is to debate why in a room full of wizards including aurors, nobody tried to curse Voldemort except Harry Potter.

spamandham

Rather than excluding real objective scholars such a Robert Price, you might consider excluding any "scholar" who takes the resurrection seriously.

Huon

Mark and Luke are also "scholars" who know nothing of the guards at the tomb of JC. How can this be possible ?

Toto

previous post by thedeist on the guards seems to cover the ground.

It might be more useful to ask if there are any scholars who do argue for the historicity of the guards - aside from Christian apologists.

spin

I just wonder what your interest in the subject here is. You've been a member of BC&H for two years, albeit an almost silent member, so you should have had the chance to see what people are talking about, where they come from "philosophically", what they are prepared to assume. Given that you should know that most people would have some logical concerns with the subject of whose historicity concerns you. Would you expect people on BC&H to keep up with the sort of writers who would treat the guards as historical? For most of us who think about the issue the guards would be a late addition to the gospel tradition, even the core of whose origins is in doubt.

So 1) I fear you'll get little on the subject here and 2) what is the purpose of your enquiry?

[ETA: Just noticed Toto's pointer to thedeist's earlier shot at the subject, which makes me wonder all the more about the purpose of the enquiry here.]

(Post 10001.)


spin

Chili

Thanks for the contribution spin.

John Kesler

Even The Apologetics Study Bible--which was written by conservative apologists Ravi Zacharias, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff et al--acknowledges, even if tacitly, that the guards-at-the-tomb story may have been fabricated. Here is part of the annotation found on page 1460:

The Interpreter's Bible, volume 7, page 613, offers the following regarding Matthew 27:62-65:

Regarding 28:11-15, the same source states this:

thedeist

Hi all,


The purpose for my enquiry is because I am almost finished writing a paper in response to the following quote by Dr. William Lane Craig:

Dr. William Lane Craig writes: “Some of these alleged discrepancies are easy to answer and are what we should expect from independent accounts of the same event. Others are more difficult but are in the end not of great consequence. Historians expect to find inconsistencies like these even in the most reliable sources. No historian simply throws out a source because it has inconsistencies. Moreover, the inconsistencies Ehrman is talking about aren’t within a single source; they’re between independent sources. But obviously, it doesn’t follow from an inconsistency between two independent sources that both sources are wrong. At worst, one is wrong if they can’t be harmonized. The problem with focusing on discrepancies is that we tend to lose the forest for the trees. The overriding fact is that the Gospels are remarkably harmonious in what they relate. The discrepancies between them are in the secondary details.”

"“All four Gospels agree: Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem by Roman authority during the Passover Feast, having been arrested and convicted on charges of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin and then slandered before the governor Pilate on charges of treason. He died within several hours and was buried Friday afternoon by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb, which was sealed with a stone. Certain women followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, having observed his interment, visited His
tomb early on Sunday morning, only to find it empty. Thereafter, Jesus appeared alive from the dead to the disciples, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of His resurrection.”


To which I respond: The problem with Dr. Craig’s argument above is that if one strips away these so called discrepant secondary details [legendary fabrications] from the resurrection narrative (guards at Jesus tomb, Roman seal on Jesus tomb, resurrected saints walking around at Jesus death, two earthquakes, spearing Jesus side by the Roman soldier, the story of Jesus showing the doubting Thomas his wounds and putting his hand in his pierced side, the shroud of Jesus being left in his empty tomb etc., Jesus resurrected body having feet) then the skeptic is more able to provide a stronger explanation for Jesus NOT resurrecting. For example if there were no guards at Jesus tomb or a Roman seal on Jesus tomb, then the body of Jesus could have been relocated by Joseph of Arimathea Saturday night after the Sabbath was over because leaving Jesus body in his tomb would defile his tomb. Joseph wouldn’t have told anyone where he put the body of Jesus because as a member of the Sanhedrin he was a secret disciple of Jesus. Thereby Mary Magdalene (a woman who had psychological problems in the first place) who went to the open tomb (that Joseph had not rolled the stone back over after he took Jesus body out) could have had a hallucination of Jesus [as do many people who have post-mortem experiences of loved ones]…and so on."