I hear this phrase quite often, the resurrection account is "hopelessly
inconsistent", or some semblance thereof. Now obviously you are on one side
of the fence of evidence, while just as many if not more are on the other
side (i.e. claiming there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the
resurrection.). So neither of us are going to get anywhere with these sorts
of cliches. Let us move on.
I do, however, commend you for qualifying this statement as your opinion. I
agree with the notion that contradictions undermine any given evidence. I
would be a disgrace to all the trial lawyers in my family, if I denied
this. However, there must be a clear distinction, as in a trial in the
court of law, between a differing account and a contradicting account. On
numerous occasions I have asked, "Does a differing account necessitate a
contradiction?". Let me give an example, with which I am sure you are
familiar with, of a car accident. Humor me, if need be, for a moment.
If you and I were walking down the street, unaware of each other, and
witnessed two cars get into a wreck, one would think since we sa the same
accident that we would have the same eyewitness account. That is true. But
there may arise differences in our accounts of what happened. If I said
that the one car was red and the other was green, and you said that they
were both black, is this a contradiction when trying to determine if the
accident happened. Of course not. We know that the accident happened,
however, you and I have differing accounts. Now, if the issue was
specifically what color were the cars, than we would have a contradiction.
Either the cars were both black, as you said, or they were red and green as
I said, or neither. If someone were trying to ascertain the color of the
cars, we as a source would be unreliable. If someone were trying to
ascertain if the accident happened, we would be reliable witnesses because
we both attest that the two cars collided.
Now, with that, let's look at the historicity of the resurrection. I would
not and have not set out to show that historical evidence proves factually
that the man Jesus rose from the dead. That is a supernatural act which
neither historical science or physical science can examine. I would,
however, postulate that given the historical evidence that a historical
hypothesis can be made for the following events:
1.) Jesus of Nazareth lived
2.) He was crucified
3.) He was laid in the tomb of a Joseph of Arimathea
4.) Three days later the body was found to be missing, much to the dismay
of the Jews, Romans, and Christians.
It is with these simple (and definitely in need of further explanation)
events that I believe one can formulate an accurate historical hypothesis.
It is with that hypothesis that we then compare it to such other
postulations (not necessarily true hypotheses though) as you have mentioned.
>Before that question matters, you need to provide evidence that (1) the tomb
>was full and (2) the same tomb was empty three days later.
Very true.
How do we know that the tomb "was full".
First, let's look at the time factor. Though I believe it to be, let's not
consider the New Testament to be an inspired book, but rather a set of
alleged historical sources about this man, Jesus of Nazareth. Now we know
that this man was most likely crucified in or around 33 A.D. Most if not
all NT scholars date the Gospels within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses of
Jesus' life. The latest proposed dating must be prior to the destruction of
the temple in 70 A.D. What does this mean? That we have clear and
widespread testimony to a miracle working, supernatural, resurrected Jesus
no later than fifteen to twenty years after the events of His life.
Furthermore, many of the NT writings contain heavily Semitic hymns,
phrases, and statements, which by the way translate easily back to Aramaic
from Greek. It is crucial to understand that these statements, phrases and
such existed prior to NT because we do not find them as readily used in
Pauline writings of a decade or two later. Finally, there are re very good
reasons to believe that the Acts account of the Apostle Peter preaching of
the miracle working, supernatural risen Jesus can be dated just five weeks
after His death.
Again, what all of this indicates from strictly a historical perspective,
that there was a clear, widespread picture of a miracle working,
supernatural Jesus who rose bodily from the dead within several weeks after
His death, and at the latest within the first decade. So what implications
do the time factor have? There was just not enough time for the facts of
Jesus' life, death, and resurrection to be forgotten and replaced with lies
and/or myths. It has even been suggested that as short of a span as two
generations is typically insufficient time for legend or myth to take over
hard historical evidence.
Now that we have briefly considered the internal evidence for the full,
then empty tomb, let us take a look at some external evidences. Again, most
NT scholars hold that the NT statements concerning the empty tomb are
historically accurate. They do right so for several reasons.
First, the plausibility of Jesus' burial and tomb have been verified quite
adequately by archaeological discoveries. Tombs, similar to those described
in the Gospels have been found in Jerusalem and were the burial places for
Jewish holy men. Which leads me to my second point.
In those days when a Jewish holy man was buried, in such a tomb, he was
venerated. Granted, most Jews of the day likely could care less about the
veneration, much less the burial, of Jesus. But the NT does not give
account for them, but rather for Jesus' disciples, namely this Joseph of
Arimathea (of whom I will mention more later). these would no doubt have
wanted to venerate the body, but be it as it were they would have to have
waited because of the Passover/Sabbath until Sunday. So it is quite likely
that they made very sure as to the location of the tomb. Reasonable? I
believe so.
Joseph of Arimathea is an interesting sort. He was a member of the
Sanhedrin, yet a secret follower of Jesus. Surely a fictional Christian
creation of such a man would have been refuted by the conservative and
outspoken Sanhedrin. Furthermore, if he were fictional, then why such
incidentals as he was rich, probable considering his social status, how
about that he was from Arimathea, where? Why would a fictional character be
made to come from a town of little or no scriptural importance let alone
any other importance. And of course his sympathetic nature towards Jesus,
of whom Mark says the whole Sanhedrin council voted for condemnation (Mark
14:55. 64; 15:1)
Lastly, why would a fictionalized account of the resurrection be told to
have women as the first to find the tomb empty? Women were at such a low
social status in the day that they were not even allowed to give legal
testimony. Certainly, a fabricated plan would have used men to have been
among the first to find the empty tomb. What's more Paul's resurrection
formula in I Cor. leaves out the women's testimony, no doubt because of his
evangelizing intention. The point of this is that the Gospel writers (with
the slight exception of John) intended to recount for the growing church in
detailed fashion what happened in the life of Jesus and his death, burial
and resurrection.
There is a small portion of my argument concerning you request of evidence.
For more on this argument you can refer to a book called, "Does God Exist"
by J.P. Moreland, or ask me more specific questions. No doubt I will get
quite a bit of fire from this, but this argument is not new as I am sure
you are aware.
>Even if we accept the historicity of Jesus and "daas" (the crucifixion), how
>do we know that it was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea?
If you want more than what I provided above, let me know.
>Quitepossibly it was laid in a shallow grave (I think that was the common
practice for crucified criminals).
>Or perhaps it was eaten by dogs.
True, it was common practice for common criminals to have been laid in
shallow graves. What do you consider a common criminal by, though.
Certainly, Jesus was not a common criminal. this is reasoned by the fact
that he had a at least a couple hundred disciples, including Joseph of
Arimathea, and Nicodemas, a Pharisee, both of which, not to mention the
other hundreds, would have demanded the body for a proper burial
considering they believed Jesus to be innocent, and therefore not a common
criminal and wrongly crucified.
>You'll note that what is most likely the earliest recounting of the
Resurrection - 1Cor -
>doesn't say anything about a tomb. Quite possibly the tomb was a legendary
>development, and its apologetic value is obvious.
It is interesting that you bring this up. I would suspect you are eluding
to the suppositions that either Jesus was not buried in the tomb or that he
did not resurrect bodily, but rather in spirit. You need to understand the
I Cor. was likely not written until about 55 A.D. Given that I established
above that it is very likely that there were resurrection accounts in
circulation within weeks, and a decade (which at the latest would be around
45 A.D.) at the latest, then we can begin to resolve this by considering
Paul's intent in writing. Who was he writing to? He was writing to a body
of believers, with the intention tho show the criticality of the
resurrection to their salvation. Not whether it was a matter of fact. They
already believed that, regardless of whether it was true or not. When Paul
says "Christ died, was buried, and rose on the third day", he is only
summarizing what the Corinthain church already knew in detail, thus their
salvation according to Paul. One more interesting note is the use of the
"third day" motif. In later summarizations of the resurrection (such as
this one by Paul) we no longer see the use of "the first day of the week",
as found in Mark for instance. this, at the very least, seems to imply
traditional summary accounts of the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ in hymns, creedal formulas, and statements.
>And even if the tomb was empty, all that tells us is "He is not here." We
>have to add "He is risen." And this is by no means self-evident. Perhaps it
>was stolen by someone who didn't himself actually believe in the
>Resurrection. This seems to have been the early Jewish polemic anyways.
Once again, good point. Your question of "if the tomb was empty, it simply
means he was not there", begs my question, THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BODY?
As for whether some one else stole the body, who? The Jews? Then why did
they not provide the body later to refute the claims of The Way? Could the
Romans have taken the body? Why would they? Why would they order the tomb
to be guarded and then steal the body? As with the Jews, why did the Romans
not produce the body when having to deal with social irritations of the The
Way? Just some obvious question to look into when considering these options.
I would enjoy and entertain any arguments to any and all of these
evidences. But, with one question. How do you examine these historical
claims, and by the same method do you refute them? Please provide your
criteria for developing and analyzing a historical hypothesis. For the sake
of time I have not. But I will if asked to.
Thank you
Chris
At 07:18 PM 6/17/97 -0400, PeteKirby@AOL.COM wrote:
>> If Jesus was in fact laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea,
>> and three days later the body was gone, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BODY?
>> What diiference does it make if there were two angels or one, if only Mary
>was
>> there or others accompanied her, or if they actually entered the tomb or
>> resided outside. If the tomb was empty, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BODY?
>
>Contradictions undermine the reliability of an account. When your only
>possible evidence is so hopelessly inconsistent, how can you claim that the
>Resurrection happened? Not with very good evidence IMO.
>
>Before that question matters, you need to provide evidence that (1) the tomb
>was full and (2) the same tomb was empty three days later.
>
>Even if we accept the historicity of Jesus and "daas" (the crucifixion), how
>do we know that it was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea? Quite
>possibly it was laid in a shallow grave (I think that was the common practice
>for crucified criminals). Or perhaps it was eaten by dogs. You'll note that
>what is most likely the earliest recounting of the Resurrection - 1Cor -
>doesn't say anything about a tomb. Quite possibly the tomb was a legendary
>development, and its apologetic value is obvious.
>
>Also, how do we know that the same tomb was empty three days later? Quite
>possibly the whole story of Easter was a legendary development stemming from
>belief in the Resurrection, which could easily have been based on a vision
>one of them saw one night or any of a number of things. Or perhaps the women
>went to the wrong tomb. It seems that people were claiming exactly that at
>the time the evangelists wrote, as there is an obvious apologetic concern
>about the women going to the right tomb.
>
>And even if the tomb was empty, all that tells us is "He is not here." We
>have to add "He is risen." And this is by no means self-evident. Perhaps it
>was stolen by someone who didn't himself actually believe in the
>Resurrection. This seems to have been the early Jewish polemic anyways.
>
>Cheers,
>Peter #16
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Uzzi
Yahoo! Inc.
408/731-3516
cu@yahoo.com