Peter Kirby

I plan on double majoring in computer science and religious studies. And I may pursue a doctorate. But it's not set in stone.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Paul does not mention the empty tomb and it can be convincingly argued that he did not believe in a historical Jesus except that would perharps be tangential.
John believed in Christ Logos who also died and resurrected like other saviour figures like Attis.
Mark was composed via literary borrowing and midrash.

Pure and simple.

Ted Hoffman

If you have a publisher, I think you ought to go ahead. If the Phd comes, it comes. If it doesn't it doesn't. You only live once (yeah, I know it sounds silly).

Doctor X

For what it is worth, nothing impresses a graduate school than publications--shows you can "do it."

Unless . . . of course . . . you plan to apply to a program headed by someone you describe as "not worthy of the crust on his underwear."

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

The other thing is that I have plenty to be doing besides writing a book. Including my school work, my web sites, etc. When I graduate, I will have the credentials and the opportunity--if I want to write at that time.

Doctor X, it would depend on the publisher as to whether it impresses--some vanity publisher, no way. I do hope to write a few articles for journals while I am still in college (in addition to the one I have already written on the empty tomb).

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

A good point. Obviously, evidence and argument are not enough.

Vorkosigan

Geoff Hudson

Don't die young Peter. It ain't worth it. Just take your time.

Geoff

Doctor X

Peter:

With regards to publishing you may consider excerpts for journal publication. A faculty member may be very helpful with getting your foot in the door.

With a few publications it is easier to get a book published . . . down the line . . . you are laying groundwork.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

That "article of faith" bit is false. Stevan Davies, for example, has argued for the historicity of the empty tomb on occasion. I would not become a conservative Christian if I came to believe that there was an empty tomb, and that is a subject for a separate essay. On the other hand, it would be no speculation to say that the historicity of the empty tomb is an article of faith--without it, there would be no bodily resurrection in modern Christian theology. (Of course, that is not to suggest that Christians put their faith in a vacant sepulchre--though you might get that impression from some apologetics!)

The substance of your response is that the non-factual judgment on the empty tomb tradition is not supported by the sources. This suggests to me that you may not have made a close reading of the essay, for two reasons. First, in chapters (3) through (6), I pay close attention to the sources for an empty tomb--the four canonical gospels--and support the conclusion that the empty tomb bit is not reliable reporting. Second, in chapters (7) and (8), I comment on traditions that do exist concerning the burial and appearances, and it is argued that these sources reveal an earlier tradition that probably didn't include an empty tomb. If these traditions are older, then they are the ones that get the points, in my evaluation. Of course, the primary goal of the essay is to survey the arguments and allow the reader to reach her own opinion on the subject. So I am not disturbed that the table is populated with different numbers by different people--I anticipate that eventuality. The objective conclusion of the essay is that neither side in the debate has overwhelming evidence.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

While 'article of faith' went a bit far, denying the historicity of the empty tomb is a useful touchstone to identify the self identifying school of 'critical scholars'. This is the general impression I've got from following this issue even if it is not a scientific observation. You mention the use of the tomb by conservative apologists and I tend to see the denial of it as a stick with which to beat them rather than anything to do with history. Its rather like the way political correctness has led scholars to deny any Jewish involvement in Jesus's death.

I admit I have not had time for a close reading of your paper (as you mention, its quite long). However, it does seem to be stuck in the pseudo-theology/lit crit paradigm of NT studies rather than the classical history paradigm. The former (represented by nearly all critical NT scholars is badly tainted not only by post modernism (see Robbins and Price) but also the anti-conservative agenda of Funk et al. It is interesting to note that British scholars (Stanton, Fox, Grant, French, Metzger), less effected by both these influences and commonly trained as historians in secular departments (like *blush* me), take a much more straight line with the sources.

Fox's Pagans and Christians contains at least two masterful analyses of early Christian documents - the martyrdom of Piones and the Oration to the Angels. His methodology there is applied to Acts and John in The Unauthorised Version and we finally see the bible studied in a way that is completely untainted by any kind of theology. The result would bizarrely be called 'conservative' by many NT scholars but simply shows they really do need to get some solid classical history under their belts before attempting something as loaded as the NT.

I've had a look at this and you are trying to have your cake and eat it. The 'buried is sand' comment is your only evidence for a dishonourable burial and you seem to thing it trumps everything else. Bad methodology - picking out the ambiguous phrase that can be used to support your case while ignoring the rest. The argument from silence on tomb veneration is also just that. As the tomb was under a Temple to Aphrodite after 132AD we need ask no further. And the first century sources of contemporary Christians practice in Jerusalem are, shall we, somewhat scanty?

You are doing the Crossan trick of chopping your sources up until you have bits small enough to re-esemble into what you are looking for. There is no good evidence for a non-tomb tradition.

In that case you should drop your conclusions as they taint the rest of the work. It reads like an effort to make common cause with a particular clique of scholars rather than anything objective.

Consider, if Christians were making a claim - any claim - on grounds as flimsy as yours for an earlier non-tomb tradition, they would be laughed out of court. We have Mark and John, independent, early (by classical standards) and in one case probably primary. You really need some evidence to overthrow that rather than just an awful lot of lit crit.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: I typed this fast and it comes across as rather stronger than I meant. Please don't get the impression I don't respect your wrok even if I disgree with it.