Belz...
Fiend God
When your experiences clash with reality, reality wins.
The Empty Tomb
- Thread starter TimCallahan
- Start date
When your experiences clash with reality, reality wins.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
In pursuing edge's idiosyncratic views on Judas and his defense of Gospel of John's episode of the soldiers spearing Jesus in the side, we've somewhat wandered away from the subject of the OP. I realize that starting a thread doesn't give me any right to control where it goes; but I don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion. So, going back to the tomb, let's consider the likely possibilities of the fate of Jesus' body.
1) As a felon convicted of sedition, Jesus would have likely suffered the indignity of being denied a burial of any sort other than being thrown into a pit and having lime sprinkled on him or being consigned to a mass grave with other executed felons.
2) If, for some reason, he was buried in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea that tomb may well have been destroyed or buried in the year 70. Were it buried in rubble, it would have been built over when Jerusalem was rebuilt, then buried again when that city was razed at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt.
3) Since ossuaries recovered from first century tombs are usually empty, and since "Jesus - actually Yeshua - was a common name, it would be nearly impossible to tell if an ossuary bearing that name had originally held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
1) As a felon convicted of sedition, Jesus would have likely suffered the indignity of being denied a burial of any sort other than being thrown into a pit and having lime sprinkled on him or being consigned to a mass grave with other executed felons.
2) If, for some reason, he was buried in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea that tomb may well have been destroyed or buried in the year 70. Were it buried in rubble, it would have been built over when Jerusalem was rebuilt, then buried again when that city was razed at the end of the Bar Kochba revolt.
3) Since ossuaries recovered from first century tombs are usually empty, and since "Jesus - actually Yeshua - was a common name, it would be nearly impossible to tell if an ossuary bearing that name had originally held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Unless a Papal Edict reverses reality.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
You’re curious to hear a substantial Christian POV…or you’re curious to hear from the Christians on this forum in particular (of which there are…how many…do you think?????)?
So you’ve got a grand total of…..one…. response.
…this is a farce…right? How is it possible not to question the motives of someone looking for that kind of response on a forum swarming with rabid skeptics? Or are we just up for a bit of Christian-bashing? Feed the dogs and all.
IOW…if you genuinely want to understand the Christian POV on the subject…go to a Christian forum and ask them. Guaranteed…not only will you get lots of responses…you will also find responses that are challenging. If, on the other hand, all you’re interested in is tossing bones to the skeptic hyenas…this is the place to do it.
This isn't one of them.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
TC
Returning to the OP, as you request, Matthew never says that any human being ever checked the tomb. There was a commotion, during which the women and guards were invited to "come and see," but they all seem to have fled promptly. Which, under the circumstances, seems prudent. The tomb was open when they left, and unattended.
It is clear that what Matthew says happened at the tomb, what the women and guards were fleeing from, an angel descended from heaven, is not a historical fact claim. No historical problem arises from it. If it happened, then it was a supernatural event, and only a supernatural explanation could suffice.
As to Matthew's incident with the guards and the Temple authorities, this tale simply proposes a Jewish origin, Jews telling lies, of a story that anybody, even a schoolchild, might conjecture independently within seconds of first hearing the story. This "Jewish liars" story exemplifies Matthew's vicious anti-Semitism more than it explains an obvious guess.
The first telling of the story that survives is Mark's. What Mark says the women found is a wide open tomb with a man (not an angel) sitting in it. The man refers to a conversation Jesus had with his disciples about a planned rendezvous in Galilee. He tells the women to leave, and they do.
So, Mark's story is a historical fact claim, and the possibility of historical, wholly natural, explanation attaches. Imagine hearing that story for the first time. Who do you think the man is? What do you think he is doing there, perhaps half an hour to an hour after first light?
My guess is that he is a minor disciple (the women apparently don't recognize him, but he accurately refers to Jesus' travel plans), and that the women have interrupted a tomb disturbance in progress. In other words, the story Matthew attributes to Jewish liars fits the earlier version of the story which is told in Mark, and probably was a widely heard reaction, not only among Jews, but thinking people of whatever persuasion.
Returning to the OP, as you request, Matthew never says that any human being ever checked the tomb. There was a commotion, during which the women and guards were invited to "come and see," but they all seem to have fled promptly. Which, under the circumstances, seems prudent. The tomb was open when they left, and unattended.
It is clear that what Matthew says happened at the tomb, what the women and guards were fleeing from, an angel descended from heaven, is not a historical fact claim. No historical problem arises from it. If it happened, then it was a supernatural event, and only a supernatural explanation could suffice.
As to Matthew's incident with the guards and the Temple authorities, this tale simply proposes a Jewish origin, Jews telling lies, of a story that anybody, even a schoolchild, might conjecture independently within seconds of first hearing the story. This "Jewish liars" story exemplifies Matthew's vicious anti-Semitism more than it explains an obvious guess.
The first telling of the story that survives is Mark's. What Mark says the women found is a wide open tomb with a man (not an angel) sitting in it. The man refers to a conversation Jesus had with his disciples about a planned rendezvous in Galilee. He tells the women to leave, and they do.
So, Mark's story is a historical fact claim, and the possibility of historical, wholly natural, explanation attaches. Imagine hearing that story for the first time. Who do you think the man is? What do you think he is doing there, perhaps half an hour to an hour after first light?
My guess is that he is a minor disciple (the women apparently don't recognize him, but he accurately refers to Jesus' travel plans), and that the women have interrupted a tomb disturbance in progress. In other words, the story Matthew attributes to Jewish liars fits the earlier version of the story which is told in Mark, and probably was a widely heard reaction, not only among Jews, but thinking people of whatever persuasion.
Yes, the young man in the white robe seems quite human and natural, and his message has nothing magical about it. It merely assumes that Jesus survives being crucified, which is possible, particularly if he had the help of others. However, although it is not a supernatural tale, how probable is it?
The subsequent verses, in which a risen Jesus is made to babble about demons and poison and snakes, and to consign unbelievers to hell, are now generally believed to be a later addition to Mark, not part of the original text.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Craig
OK, then, I conclude that the man in the tomb belongs to, and possibly leads, a work party which has very recently removed the corpse. That's what Mary Maddalene is reported to have thought in John 20, and mistaking Jesus for a gardener, demands information from him.
I don't know why the corpse was removed, although the man referring to the rendezvous plan does suggest, to me, that he has some connection to the disciples. In the absence of any evidence that the disciples thenselves ever taught an empty tomb, however, I simply don't know why they would have stolen the corpse.
The treatment in Matthew is realistic in one sense: if the disciples did show off an empty tomb, who exactly would be stupid enough not to suspect that they emptied it thenselves?
Anything after 16:8 is now widely thought to be a later addition, not part of the orginal Mark. Whether the original Mark ended at 16:8 is unknown. If it had some further verses, then they are lost. In any case, there is no reason to think that there would have been any more talk about the tomb and, if there was, we have no idea what was said..
I don't see that at all. Based on what I am being told, I estimate that the women most likely interrupted a tomb disturbance in progress. I see no basis at all for thinking that the occupant of the tomb wasn't dead. The man the women meet, and probably some assistants whom they don't meet, probably have just then removed the corpse. It might still be on the grounds nearby. (The women are said to go directly to the tomb, and then to leave directly. There is no search, no cross-examination of the man, not even to ask "are you here alone?"... nothing except the encounter itself, and then the women do part of what they are told, which is to leave.)
Well, it seems to me that there are two discussable options. First, some version of "it's all just made up anyway," in which case, you have your answer. The other discussable (although not the only logical possibility) is that Mark is telling us, in the best Joe Friday style, what a fact witness could testify to: the time of day, what the women saw and heard, what the man said to them, that they left as they were asked to do, etc.
OK, then, I conclude that the man in the tomb belongs to, and possibly leads, a work party which has very recently removed the corpse. That's what Mary Maddalene is reported to have thought in John 20, and mistaking Jesus for a gardener, demands information from him.
I don't know why the corpse was removed, although the man referring to the rendezvous plan does suggest, to me, that he has some connection to the disciples. In the absence of any evidence that the disciples thenselves ever taught an empty tomb, however, I simply don't know why they would have stolen the corpse.
The treatment in Matthew is realistic in one sense: if the disciples did show off an empty tomb, who exactly would be stupid enough not to suspect that they emptied it thenselves?
eight bits
If I am to assume that the tomb incident in Mark is a "natural" occurrence, and I read that the person encountered by the women at the tomb tells them
If I am to assume that the tomb incident in Mark is a "natural" occurrence, and I read that the person encountered by the women at the tomb tells them
then I must assume that Jesus arose because he had never in fact been dead. Dead people don't wake up and tell a follower: "I'm off to Galilee. Tell the others I'll see them there as we arranged." And if he had still been dead and his inert body had been lugged away for some reason, it makes no sense for someone to stay behind and tell these women that Jesus had "risen", far less that he had "gone ahead"! These are the activities of living people, not dead ones.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
It makes no sense for anyone to stay behind in a tomb either way.
As I was saying, stealing bodies was a capital offence in Ancient Rome. The guy hanging around in a tomb that had been opened and where the body was missing, risked being the next one nailed to a stick. (Well, unless he was a Roman citizen, in which case they might just behead him.)
Now maybe Jesus woke up from a coma and walked out, or maybe just for ad-absurdum sake there was a miracle. But the Romans wouldn't know that. For all Pilate would know, that guy telling the women to meet Jesus in Galilee could be one of those who stole the body and were hauling it to Galilee.
And it would only get worse if the Romans did buy it that Jesus is now alive and well, and this guy in the tomb is one of his henchmen. Miraculous or not, Jesus was still convicted of... well, whatever it was that warranted a crucifixion. Inciting revolt against Rome, maybe? Because I'm guessing that's what the whole "king of the Jews" thing would have sounded like to the Romans.
And they'd probably reach the same conclusion you just did, namely that he wasn't dead in the first place. And he still has some people thinking he's the rightful king of the Jews. So they'd surely want to catch him again and do it right this time.
Either way, at the very least the guy in the tomb would risk being arrested and brought in for questioning. Whether the Romans believed he stole the body, or that he's working for a convicted criminal, they'd want to know more about it. And the Romans could be pretty brutal with the questioning, if you weren't a citizen.
So whatever happened there, I don't really believe that a guy would be just hanging around in an opened grave, waiting for someone to come look for Jesus. (Even skipping past the fact that more realistically nobody would want to go look in the tomb for another few months.) It takes not just somehow knowing that the women will be coming there for no realistic reason at all, but more crucially that nobody else would beat them to it. Because all it would have taken were for some other Jew to come to the cemetery half an hour before the women and call the guards.
As I was saying, stealing bodies was a capital offence in Ancient Rome. The guy hanging around in a tomb that had been opened and where the body was missing, risked being the next one nailed to a stick. (Well, unless he was a Roman citizen, in which case they might just behead him.)
Now maybe Jesus woke up from a coma and walked out, or maybe just for ad-absurdum sake there was a miracle. But the Romans wouldn't know that. For all Pilate would know, that guy telling the women to meet Jesus in Galilee could be one of those who stole the body and were hauling it to Galilee.
And it would only get worse if the Romans did buy it that Jesus is now alive and well, and this guy in the tomb is one of his henchmen. Miraculous or not, Jesus was still convicted of... well, whatever it was that warranted a crucifixion. Inciting revolt against Rome, maybe? Because I'm guessing that's what the whole "king of the Jews" thing would have sounded like to the Romans.
And they'd probably reach the same conclusion you just did, namely that he wasn't dead in the first place. And he still has some people thinking he's the rightful king of the Jews. So they'd surely want to catch him again and do it right this time.
Either way, at the very least the guy in the tomb would risk being arrested and brought in for questioning. Whether the Romans believed he stole the body, or that he's working for a convicted criminal, they'd want to know more about it. And the Romans could be pretty brutal with the questioning, if you weren't a citizen.
So whatever happened there, I don't really believe that a guy would be just hanging around in an opened grave, waiting for someone to come look for Jesus. (Even skipping past the fact that more realistically nobody would want to go look in the tomb for another few months.) It takes not just somehow knowing that the women will be coming there for no realistic reason at all, but more crucially that nobody else would beat them to it. Because all it would have taken were for some other Jew to come to the cemetery half an hour before the women and call the guards.
Last edited:
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Craig
What the man said, however, is a natural fact. Yeah, sure, maybe a man said that. Why not?
Sometimes people say things that aren't factually true. The man in the tomb wants the women to leave as soon as possible. We know that because he tells them to leave. His speech succinctly undermines any reason for them to stay (there is no corpse for them to annoint), and provides an affirmative reason for them to leave (they should tell the boys something time sensitive - but not something that encourages them to fetch the boys to take a look at the tomb immediately). As an added bonus, the whole event scares the bejeesus out of the women. Profit.
In an event which was not totally unprecedented in human project planning experience, the job takes several minutes longer than expected. It's after dawn, and the women approach. The work party can run for it, but probably not run with the corpse. Or, everybody but one guy hides nearby, with the stiff, and the front man's job is to get rid of the women, while ensuring that they don't sniff around too much. In the event, he succeeds. Presumably, as soon as the women are gone, the party finishes at the tomb, not further hindered by unwelcome company.
Bonus: now the work party doesn't have to push the G.D. rock back into place.
Hans
Thank God!
You and I agreed twice yesterday, and I was worried that maybe the end of days finally was at hand.
I see no basis for concluding that what the man said is true, except for what the women apparently saw for themselves, that the corpse wasn't there in plain sight. Neither the women nor Mark have any way to know that the man is telling the truth. They can't offer us testimony for the truth of what the man said.
What the man said, however, is a natural fact. Yeah, sure, maybe a man said that. Why not?
Sometimes people say things that aren't factually true. The man in the tomb wants the women to leave as soon as possible. We know that because he tells them to leave. His speech succinctly undermines any reason for them to stay (there is no corpse for them to annoint), and provides an affirmative reason for them to leave (they should tell the boys something time sensitive - but not something that encourages them to fetch the boys to take a look at the tomb immediately). As an added bonus, the whole event scares the bejeesus out of the women. Profit.
Quite so. The living disciples are supposed to go to Galilee. Maybe they do, since they've already been told that that is the plan, by Jesus, who was still alive at the time. So, they go to Galilee. Maybe Jesus shows, maybe Jesus doesn't show. Either way, how is that a problem for the man in the tomb, whose articulated objective is to get rid of the women? Which he did.
It is entirely possible that the work party didn't plan on the women showing up right when they did. As it is, the women had bought the spices that morning and the sun is up when they set out. The work party could have set out at first light, intending to be finished (or at least to be somewhere other than the tomb) by dawn or very shortly thereafter.
In an event which was not totally unprecedented in human project planning experience, the job takes several minutes longer than expected. It's after dawn, and the women approach. The work party can run for it, but probably not run with the corpse. Or, everybody but one guy hides nearby, with the stiff, and the front man's job is to get rid of the women, while ensuring that they don't sniff around too much. In the event, he succeeds. Presumably, as soon as the women are gone, the party finishes at the tomb, not further hindered by unwelcome company.
Bonus: now the work party doesn't have to push the G.D. rock back into place.
Hans
Thank God!
You and I agreed twice yesterday, and I was worried that maybe the end of days finally was at hand.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Oh, I'll agree with your accidental meeting scenario. I was disagreeing with Craig's idea that someone would have intentionally hung around to tell the women about Jesus.
I think that's more than a guess, but a very sound assumption. It's made explicit in Acts 17 that many Diaspora Jews though that's what the Jesus people were up to, and (here they may have been wrong) that Paul was involved in it. He's in Thessalonica.
You may be right about that. It would be pointless and dangerous.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Besides edge and DOC, Darth Roter has stated he is a Christian. There are, also, a few others.
This doesn't mean, BTW, that I'm not interested in hearing other points of view and explanations. I find the "swoon theory" - i.e. that Jesus was thought to be dead but wasn't and was later revived - in its various forms interesting. However, I don't find it convincing.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
So, are you saying the Jesus actually survived the Crucifixion? Or are you saying the tomb was actually empty because some of the disciples broke in and took the body?
Another alternative is that Joseph of Arimathea actually did procure the body of Jesus, but had no intention of laying it in his family tomb, only giving out that he was going to do so, instead hiding the body elsewhere in order to create the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. Had this happened, then the empty tomb would be the only evidence of the Resurrection, just as Mark has it. Also, if this were the case, the Jews (and others) might well have logically and truthfully divined that the followers of Jesus stole the body.
Of course, since bodily resurrection was a belief held by many of the Jews of the first centuries BCE and CE (see 2 Maccabees 7:14), and since Jesus had said that he would rise from the dead in three days (Mk. 8:31), these might well have been excellent reasons for the Romans refusing to give the body to Joseph of Arimathea, thereby forestalling any such mischief. Had this been the case, the Christians could have claimed the Romans gave Joseph the body and then could have staged the open, empty tomb, claiming bodily resurrection. This might well have provoked the Pharisees and others to claim the body had been stolen.
I would sill go with the idea that Jesus, one of many messianic pretenders, was summarily crucified by the Romans for sedition, and that the Romans then threw his body into a garbage dump and covered it with either lye or quicklime.
Belz...
Fiend God
Maybe they should've let him on the cross longer than a few hours.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
TC
The announcement of the plan is told by Mark at 14: 28, outdoors at the Mount of Olives just before the "Agony in the Garden." Mark is traditionally reputed to be unreliable about the sequence of the events he reports, but his is the only report we have, so let's take it at face value for argument's sake.
There was at least one minor disciple (or possibly non-disciple) present, the youg man who will flee naked (at 14: 51-52). Perhaps he's the one in the tomb, or perhaps several young men worked the party that night, and one of them is the man in the tomb. I can think of one or two reasons why the women might never have been introduced to such a man.
So, I can't really nail the major disciples because an unnamed man can accurately allude to something that we "know" at least one other person was in a position to overhear.
Don't you just love a mystery?
The "dumped" theory has the virtues of being a usual thing, and there is no evidence that the empty tomb was ever taught in Jerusalem until it enters the surviving writing with Mark, a generation after the tomb would have been emptied anyway. All I'm saying by bringing up Mark, the earliest known instance of the "emprty tomb, is that there is a naturalistic quality to his report when taken at face value (regardless of what he might be hinting).
"Jesus survived the crucifixion" theories don't appeal to me at all. Call me old fashioned, or literally romantic, but I think that the Romans knew how to off people, and that if a Roman soldier says that dude is dead - to his CO (15:44) - then smart money says that dude is dead.
Other views are possible, of course.
Based on Mark? My guess is that somebody was hauling off the body, and the women interrupted the caper. I don't know that it was "the disciples." The man in the tomb accurately described the rendezvous plans in Galilee, but the women don't seem to recognize him.
The announcement of the plan is told by Mark at 14: 28, outdoors at the Mount of Olives just before the "Agony in the Garden." Mark is traditionally reputed to be unreliable about the sequence of the events he reports, but his is the only report we have, so let's take it at face value for argument's sake.
There was at least one minor disciple (or possibly non-disciple) present, the youg man who will flee naked (at 14: 51-52). Perhaps he's the one in the tomb, or perhaps several young men worked the party that night, and one of them is the man in the tomb. I can think of one or two reasons why the women might never have been introduced to such a man.
So, I can't really nail the major disciples because an unnamed man can accurately allude to something that we "know" at least one other person was in a position to overhear.
Yes, him, too. Conceivably, he would have close enough contacts with the disciples to know the rendezvous plan. Since his motives are utterly unknown, he may have emptied the tomb, his tomb, for any number of reasons.
Don't you just love a mystery?
The "dumped" theory has the virtues of being a usual thing, and there is no evidence that the empty tomb was ever taught in Jerusalem until it enters the surviving writing with Mark, a generation after the tomb would have been emptied anyway. All I'm saying by bringing up Mark, the earliest known instance of the "emprty tomb, is that there is a naturalistic quality to his report when taken at face value (regardless of what he might be hinting).
"Jesus survived the crucifixion" theories don't appeal to me at all. Call me old fashioned, or literally romantic, but I think that the Romans knew how to off people, and that if a Roman soldier says that dude is dead - to his CO (15:44) - then smart money says that dude is dead.
Other views are possible, of course.
Last edited: