TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
When, many years ago, I started arguing with a creationist, in a duel of letters in our local newspaper, he asserted that the empty tomb was an irrefutable argument against which non-believers had only lame rebuttals. Using Matthew's resurrection account, he said that the people of the day could only assert that someone had stolen the body of Jesus. However, they really had no way to account for the empty tomb.
Of course, Matthew's account, including what might have been a Jewish argument against the validity of the empty tomb. was probably written ca. CE 80 or later, some 50 years after the Crucifixion and 10 years after the total destruction of Jerusalem. Even mark's sparse account, in which the empty tomb was the only evidence of the Resurrection, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Constantine's mother, Empress Helena, supposedly discovered the empty tomb late in the fourth century. However, before this the Romans had thoroughly flattened Jerusalem in the year 70. They destroyed rebuilt city in 136, at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt and built a new, Roman style city, Aelia Capitolina on its ruins. Thu, the likelihood that the sepulcher had survived all this is nil.
There are a number of possibilities regarding the burial of Jesus:
1) As one convicted of sedition, Jesus was consigned to a mass grave, rather than a first century sepulcher.
2) He was interred in a family sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. It was a free standing building and was reduced to rubble in the year 70.
3) He was interred in a family sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, which had been dug into a hillside. It was buried in rubble in CE 70 and buried in more rubble in 136.
4) He was interred in the tomb, but his followers stole the body, then gave out that he had been physically resurrected.
5) He was interred in the tomb, but was resurrected.
One thing we can be fairly sure of is that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was not built over the tomb of Jesus. I'm curious to hear from the Christians on this forum what their beliefs are concerning the burial of Jesus and the empty tomb.
Of course, Matthew's account, including what might have been a Jewish argument against the validity of the empty tomb. was probably written ca. CE 80 or later, some 50 years after the Crucifixion and 10 years after the total destruction of Jerusalem. Even mark's sparse account, in which the empty tomb was the only evidence of the Resurrection, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Constantine's mother, Empress Helena, supposedly discovered the empty tomb late in the fourth century. However, before this the Romans had thoroughly flattened Jerusalem in the year 70. They destroyed rebuilt city in 136, at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt and built a new, Roman style city, Aelia Capitolina on its ruins. Thu, the likelihood that the sepulcher had survived all this is nil.
There are a number of possibilities regarding the burial of Jesus:
1) As one convicted of sedition, Jesus was consigned to a mass grave, rather than a first century sepulcher.
2) He was interred in a family sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. It was a free standing building and was reduced to rubble in the year 70.
3) He was interred in a family sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, which had been dug into a hillside. It was buried in rubble in CE 70 and buried in more rubble in 136.
4) He was interred in the tomb, but his followers stole the body, then gave out that he had been physically resurrected.
5) He was interred in the tomb, but was resurrected.
One thing we can be fairly sure of is that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was not built over the tomb of Jesus. I'm curious to hear from the Christians on this forum what their beliefs are concerning the burial of Jesus and the empty tomb.
