Metacrock

In this thread I'm not going to talk about the evidence that there was a tomb, or that it was empty. I'm arguing about why the apologists of the early christian faith didn't talk about the empty tomb.


The skeptics, such as Doherty, assume that to the apologists of the early christian centuries the empty tomb would have had the same importance and function that it has for modern day evangelical apologists; that it is "court room style evidence" for the ressurection. Doherty's case is 60% argument from silence. To Doherty the lack of mention of the empty tomb is damning and certain proof that Jesus didn't exist (go figure). For many skeptics, the fact that Paul doesn't explicitly say "there was an empty tomb" is just absolute proof that there was no tomb.

But the truth of it is, the tomb did not mean the same thing to them that it means to modern day evangelical apologists. There was no late antiquity Josh McDowell. They did not have court room evidence. Courts in the ancient world were not places where ancinet Perry Masons proved their cases by logic and clues and last minute confessions by intimidated witnesses who have only to keep their mouths shut to get off. (you know, Mason goes to the water fountin to get a drink, the witness is there ahead of him. Mason says "O excuse me," the witness says "OK, I confess! I had to do it..."


To the early christians the tomb was a site to vinerate, a symbol of the resurrection, but the resurrection itself was the thing, the tomb was just a necessary conseqeunce of it, and wasn't worth mentioning. Paul tells the Greek Philosphers on Mars hill about the 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ, even in that speech he doesnt' mention the tomb. He doesn't pull the McDowell line, "how did they get the body past the guards?" Why not? If the author of Acts invented Paul's testimony, why not just invent the guards on the tomb? Becasue they didn't think that way. To Paul, the 500 seeing the risen Jesus was the proof, not the empty tomb, which was just a circumstance and not the point at all. The 500 were the proof, that made a difference. It would never dawn on them to make a logical argument about how did they get the body past the guards, even assuming they believed in the guards. Becasue there was no court room evidence. Those courts were not places of forensic science.

here are the reasons, or some of them, why I think the tomb wasn't talked about more:

1) no court room evidence, the tomb didn't have that meaning for them.

2) Paul was writting theology, he was speaking to people who knew the story. He didn't have to tell about the tomb, there wasn't reason to mention it.

3) that was the time to make a theology for the chruch, not the time to win converts, he was writting to believers.

4) the latter day apologists were more concerned with stopping the persecution. they weren't trying to turn the emperor into a believer, they were trying to appear favorable enough that the persecution would stop.

5) no one thought of the tomb as proof of anything. They thought of it as a symbol, as a holy place to vinerate, but not as some missing peice of forensic evidence, they just didn't think that way.

6) no one questioned it, no one argued that the tomb didn't exisxt, it wasn't an issue. No reason to talk about it.

So over all, the empty tomb per se did not have the kind of importance in their minds that we place upon it. They did not see it as that kind of a thing. and ancinet apologists were not concerned with proving forensic style arguments.


Now, I didn't get this after years of argument with sketpics. I learned this form my profs in seminary when I went to seminary years ago. They were not concerned at the time with answering the questions of skeptics. They do not lose sleep over Doherty's website. They just happened to bring it up because it's important to understand the way ancient world people thougth about things.

argument form silence cuts both ways, and it proves nothing.

Toto

Meta: you make a lot of unsupported assertions. You say:

Doherty does not say this. I challenge you to find anything in his writings that even resembles this.

Further, what evidence do you have that early (1st c.) Christians venerated the tomb, or even knew where it was? Doherty does use the fact that 1st century Christians did not venerate the site of Jesus' alleged death or resurrection as one small part of the evidence that early Christians did not worship a human Christ.

Where in Acts does it mention 500 witnesses to the risen Christ? I think you are confusing one of Paul's letters with Acts - 1 Cor 15:6. (This verse is possibly interpolated.) If you didn't learn the difference between Acts and Paul's epistles in seminary, why should I trust anything you say?

In Acts 17 it says:

1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ, " he said.

Assuming this bears some vague relationship to what happened, it appears that Paul used the Jewish scriptures as proof. If he had other evidence, why didn't he mention the 500 witnesses or the empty tomb?

He tells the Athenians:

31 For [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33 At that, Paul left the Council.

Still no mention of the 500 witnesses, the empty tomb, etc. Why didn't Paul make this argument? Did he realize that a magic trick like raising someone from the dead is no proof of anything, even if he could show that it happened?

Metacrock

Meta => He may not say that in particular, but the guy I've been arguing on the other thread sure does, so his followers say it. But he does make a lot out of argument from silence. He begins his 12 step "in a nutshell" thing with the phrase "conspiracy of silence." He includes the no mention of empty tomb in that conspiriacy argument. And he also has a section called "the sounds of silence." I don't think he means that as a tribute to Simon and Garfunckel.




Meta => He's wrong. Second century pilgrims reported that Jewish-christians had told them the site was vinerated from the late first century. Two archaeological excavations have offered decent evidence that the CHS is the actual site.




http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/...Res2_page2.htm





Meta => I meant 1 cor. I've been awake all night. I did tell the guys on Mars hill about the res and that witnesses saw it. you sure he didn't mention the number there too? I'll look it up.



Meta => Look, I'm not starting this thread to argue for the res. I'm concenred here only with answering that one argument form silence. There is a method to my madness.

But you need to look for the part where he's on Mars hill, perhaps he did mention them those Jews and Luke didn't include it there because he doesn't give a transcript but, I don' t know if that would mean as much to Jews as explaining the prophesys. Probable he did mention it in connection with fulfillment.


Meta =>Maybe he hadn't learned about them yet. Or maybe since Luke wrote Acts and not Paul, and he wasn't there for some of that, he's just giving the general senerio and not trying to write a docudrama.

Gooch's dad

Meta, I read through the link following that quote, and you didn't prove your case at all. It wasn't much more than one unsupported assertion after another. WHERE is the evidence showing that 1st century Christians venerated at that specific place? You keep mentioning that fact without actually supporting it. Which 2nd century pilgrims reported this?

By the way, thanks for making a good effort to make your posts readable.

Cheers,

-Kelly

Infidelettante

quote: Metacrock
here are the reasons, or some of them, why I think the tomb wasn't talked about more:

1) no court room evidence, the tomb didn't have that meaning for them.

Jesus had come back from the dead and ascended into Heaven. I would think anything he was associated with in any way would have been given enormous significance. How could the empty tomb not have been at the top of any early Christians places to see list? Saying they didn't think in legal/courtroom terms is not to prove the tomb had as little meaning as you say.

2) Paul was writting theology, he was speaking to people who knew the story. He didn't have to tell about the tomb, there wasn't reason to mention it.

Paul was writing theology is correct. He did not mention the empty tomb because the authors of the Gospels had not yet invented it.

3) that was the time to make a theology for the chruch, not the time to win converts, he was writting to believers.

2) all over again?

4) the latter day apologists were more concerned with stopping the persecution. they weren't trying to turn the emperor into a believer, they were trying to appear favorable enough that the persecution would stop.

Does it make sense to you that the Christians would not use the most powerful truth at their disposal, the empty tomb, to their advantage?

5) no one thought of the tomb as proof of anything. They thought of it as a symbol, as a holy place to vinerate, but not as some missing peice of forensic evidence, they just didn't think that way.

Again, saying "they didn't think that way" is poor evidence that the empty tomb had as little meaning as you say. The empty tomb was the only physical proof of the resurrection that could be shared with non-believers. And it makes me think you had to work really hard to pull this out of the air if the best you can do is "no one thought of the tomb as proof of anything." Do you really think the early Christian didn't think the empty tomb proved anything? I find that very hard to believe.

6) no one questioned it, no one argued that the tomb didn't exisxt, it wasn't an issue. No reason to talk about it.

It is evident from the writings of Paul that there were false teachers preaching other gospels. You present the early church as set piece without disagreement over events or their interpretation. This is not true to what we know was serious disagreements among early Christians and even between Paul and James as to the structure of the church and it's tenets. One of those tenets was the resurrection and the tomb was only proof of it. I think it telling that to settle their differences James sent Paul to the temple, not the tomb.

JT

Metacrock

Meta => I've studied this problem at length, and I've concluded that skeptics don't know what evidence is. Now you probably are thinking of lie detectors, or maybe video cameras catching first century pilgrims in action, but that's not really what historians mean when they speak of "evidence." All you can really go by is what people say in written recoreds.


Now the stuff on that page s says several pilgrims went to the holy land in the second century and wrere told by natives that they had vinerated the site since the first century. They found out where the site was, and recorded it. It also told how ST. Helena chose the site, which linked it to that tradition. And it talked bout the Crobo expidition finding an artifact, a ring, and the Biddle expedition finding the educule, which at least proves that this is the site that Helena chose.

So that if nothing else links it to the site that the pilgrims said was it. That's as much proof as anyone could find anything historical.

that is proof, as good as it gets. The guy talked to the people, he left a recored. that's all anyone could do. that does't prove he wasn't lied to sure, but it's better than just guessing, and its as good any historical mystery could be proven.

why is that not evidence?

see I don't think you get the drift about history. Histiory is not a scientific experiment. It's not like math there the answer is very clear and its not like a lab experiment where you record it while it happens. History is documents. That's all it can be. If the docs are good there's a good probablity that it's true. But history is probability. It's not empirical.

Meta => glad to oblidge.

Metacrock

Meta =>It was, they did venerate the site. I've already proven that. But what they did not do was to think of it as apologetics! they didn't have Evidence that Demands a Verdict Their understanding of apologetics was very different form ours today. They didn't have the idea of proving the truth of an event by preserving the scene for clues, and finding evidence one could take to courts. They didn't have court room style evidence in the first place.

2) Paul was writting theology, he was speaking to people who knew the story. He didn't have to tell about the tomb, there wasn't reason to mention it.


Meta =>See that's what we call [i]conjecture[/b]It's just your little surmize, it's not something you can prove.In fact I have showen in other threads that the story of the empty tomb did exist in writting before the Puline letters were written.



3) that was the time to make a theology for the chruch, not the time to win converts, he was writting to believers.

4) the latter day apologists were more concerned with stopping the persecution. they weren't trying to turn the emperor into a believer, they were trying to appear favorable enough that the persecution would stop.




Meta =>Are you not a native speaker? We today may see that as the "most powerful truth at our disposal" but they did not see it that way, becasue they didn' t have the concept of that kind of argumentation!





5) no one thought of the tomb as proof of anything. They thought of it as a symbol, as a holy place to vinerate, but not as some missing peice of forensic evidence, they just didn't think that way.



Meta =>Do you have comprehension problmes? they din't think in terms of physical proof! When you read stuff about coutrs in the ancient world they do not talk about physical evidence much. They didn't have forensic science, they didn't have a concept of finding physical clues to prove something after the fact. In fact they didn't even think of apologetics as proving a case, or proving they were right.










Meta =>since you seem to have problems understanding conceptual thinking, there's just no accounting for what you are going to think. But as I said, I learned this in a lecture at seminary years ago, and it had nothing to do with apologietics. It was about the attitudes of the ancient chruch.






6) no one questioned it, no one argued that the tomb didn't exisxt, it wasn't an issue. No reason to talk about it.



Meta =>NO I do not! I know there were other sects and other teachers. The problem is you assume that if there werre others, then they had to be right and the orthodox had to be stupid and wrong. But that's not an argument it's a prejudice. Just because they had other views doesn't mean those otherw would have questioned the empty tomb.

That's argument from silence. You know the problem with argument form silence? It's not proof, it's just conjecture. So if I can find another reason for a silence, there's no to prove it either way, nothing is proven. So then the mythers act like silience is proof. Their assertion is that if there is no evidence for something it's the best proof possible.








Meta =>NO! You are making that up! there is absolutely no evidence at all that Paul and James disagreed on the resurrection. And you can't show me any evidence that the resurrection was an issue between these goups or that anyone denied the empty tomb. If you think you can show me that, then show me! Quote the evidence! You can't cause it wasn't. You wont find it.


You are making bold assertiong wihthout proof based upon prejudice and ignorance.

Gooch's dad

Meta, you missed my point entirely. WHAT 2nd century pilgrims? Who records this, and when? Eusebius, many years later? Who? All you've done is say that some pilgrims said that some other pilgrims said...get the picture here? It's hearsay.

I couldn't find anywhere on your site where the actual *reference* is given for 2nd century pilgrims, much less 1st century Christians.

But the idea that a tomb was empty isn't that big of a deal. Others have presented many mundane scenarios that could explain an empty tomb--for example, even if this Joseph of Arimathea character existed, and put Jesus in his tomb on Friday night, he might have done so just to satisfy Jewish laws. On Saturday, he had Jesus removed from his tomb and buried in a common grave. The disciples only knew of the Friday events, and weren't around for the Saturday burial. They think the tomb is empty because Jesus physically resurrected.

Please don't tell me that you find the above scenario to be *less* plausible than a dead man coming back to life after a day and a half? If you do, then you have zero reason to gripe about the gullibility of the freethinkers you're debating with.

Metacrock

Meta => right, and Eusebius is always bad, and he's such a liar. But no, that was all crap started by Gibbon. There's really not nearly as much reson to doubt him as people think. Anyway, you will have to read the link, I"m not sure if it does come through Eusebius. These pilgrims did write their own accounts, and it names who they were. go read it again.


Meta => YOu have to look at the New Advent article that its taken from. But there is a link to it on the page.

anyway it's backed up by Cornfeld. He was a good scholar and highly respected among Israeli Archaeologists. Cornfeld, Biddle and Corbo all though it was pretty good.


Meta => I didn't even argue that the tomb is empty. I didn't say anything about that. Right now I"m just arguing about the mere fact that Jesus existed. That's my only concern for the moment.

the point of that was that they did vinerate a tomb in the 1st century, so there must have been a guy to put in the tomb.


Meta => That's a theolgoial matter, and not for this discussion. But you can't object to the resurrection on those kinds of grounds; becasue that's must a metaphysical assumption of materialism and doesn't prove anything. So you are biased and predispossed to think materialistically, I'm not. So what?

Peter Kirby

Meta writes: "Second century pilgrims reported that Jewish-christians had told them the site was vinerated from the late first century."

Kelly replied, "WHERE is the evidence showing that 1st century Christians venerated at that specific place? You keep mentioning that fact without actually supporting it. Which 2nd century pilgrims reported this?"

Meta writes again, "Now the stuff on that page s says several pilgrims went to the holy land in the second century and wrere told by natives that they had vinerated the site since the first century. They found out where the site was, and recorded it."

Kelly replies again, "I couldn't find anywhere on your site where the actual *reference* is given for 2nd century pilgrims, much less 1st century Christians."

Meta writes, "These pilgrims did write their own accounts, and it names who they were. go read it again." And "YOu have to look at the New Advent article that its taken from. But there is a link to it on the page."

So I read the entire article at New Advent and Meta's article for any mention of these second century pilgrims who wrote accounts of the stories of first century veneration of the tomb. No mention was made.

Meta, if these second century pilgrims wrote accounts, can you quote the exact words of these accounts? Can you give us the names of these second century pilgrims to the tomb of Jesus?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, you are wrong about there being accounts from second century pilgrims to the tomb of Jesus. No mention in extant documents is given of the location of the tomb of Jesus until the fourth century. "It is at this period that history begins to present written records of the location of the Holy Sepulchre. The earliest authorities are the Greek Fathers, Eusebius (c.260-340), Socrates (b.379), Sozomen (375-450), the monk Alexander (sixth century), and the Latin Fathers, Rufinus (375-410), St. Jerome (346-420), Paulinus of Nola (353-431), and Sulpitius Severus (363-420)."

The Catholic Encyclodia also says, after talking about the New Testament accounts, that "No further mention of the place of the Holy Sepulchre is found until the beginning of the fourth century." It immediately follows up with, "But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition" but no evidence is given that this alleged oral tradition went back to the first century.

You may be thinking of this passage: "It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where 'these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out'. As he died in 180, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella. After this it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem 'for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places', and that Origen (d. 253) 'visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples'." This does show that some people in the second and third century visited Palestine, it does not show that they visited the alleged tomb site of Jesus. None of these authors provide us reports or records about the site of Jesus' tomb as you suggest.

"History is documents," you say. So where are the documents from these second century pilgrims to the holy sepulchre? Name them. Quote them.

best,
Peter Kirby