Vorkosigan

In a brutal thread from last year which I will not link to, Richard Carrier and Layman had the following exchange:

Layman: If Paul believed in a physical resurrection from the dead, do you think that lends support for the historicity of the empty tomb?

That is, if 1 Cor. 15 presumes that Jesus' body was resurrected, does not that indicate the early existence of an empty tomb tradition?

Carrier: Ah, now I get your question, and its a good one. The answer is yes: if the preponderance of evidence tips the scale toward belief that Paul believed Jesus's flesh-and-blood body was raised, that would add an acorn to the belief side of the scale for an empty tomb. Of course, his belief in such a case would not entail the truth of the empty tomb (thus it doesn't trump all opposing evidence), but that would not be necessary for it to have weight nonetheless.

I had earlier replied to Layman and pointed out that Paul's opinions are basically irrelevant, because he never met Jesus. Layman responded by observing that Paul had met Jesus' putative companions in Jerusalem. Richard asked Layman for clarification, and then the thread fell apart thanks to our old buddy Metacrock.

I had intended to respond to Richard, because I think Paul's remarks, even if they mean a physical resurrection, do not imply knowledge of the Empty Tomb story.

The logic of this is simple. If you are Paul, and you have heard that Jesus has been resurrected physically, you may then, working backward, conclude that his tomb was empty. However, this does not imply that you know of a particular story about the tomb, such as the Empty Tomb legends from the Gospels. Indeed, Paul seems unaware of such a tradition, other than to note that Jesus was buried. Paul says that this was according to Scripture -- in other words, Paul gathered this story from scriptural evidence, he did not hear it or logic it out. I don't think this is as strong an indicator that Paul knows of a tradition about the tomb as Richard and Layman appear to think.

Vorkosigan

Clutch

Vorkosigan, I agree. There are so many confounds between Paul's belief, of whatever specific content and origin, and the putative events of the crucifixion, that Paul's sincerity on its own is effectively irrelevant.

Whether it amounts to something more if it's true that he met with disciples might be another matter, though. What do you think of that? Your remarks seem to suggest that that story is a confabulation, or that Paul's meeting with the disciples strangely did not result in his gaining any specific knowledge of the ET story as portrayed in the gospels.

Which is kinda weird, eh? You'd think it would be the first thing he'd ask about, and then maybe, oh, write some letters about it. Maybe share the details as he heard them straight from the guys who saw Thomas put his fingers in the wounds, and such?

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>