Tweet
Did Jesus leave an empty tomb behind?
The link can be found here.
------
Did Jesus leave behind an empty tomb? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
I was alerted recently to a blog by someone known as Schrodinger's Christian (SC from now on) who claims to be a doubting Christian and in this post is arguing against the empty tomb. I looked through and saw more of the same and decided since it was late in the evening that I would write a response to it. Now that that time has come, what can be said to a post like this?
First off, I think it's noteworthy that such an emphasis is placed on an error-free text. I've said before that inerrancy is a secondary issue and while it is no doubt an important one, it is too easy to marry one's Christianity to inerrancy. We see at the start*Defending Inerrnacy cited and I'm not surprised it did not have much effect. SC is right in that we must look when doing history to what is probable, but there will be no need to defend inerrancy here to make the case for the empty tomb. Of course, the writings of the Gospels must be taken into consideration, but we don't need to treat them as inerrant or inspired to make the case.
SC goes on to say that he thought that it was unanimous among historians that there was an empty tomb. I would very much like to know where he got this idea. As someone who knows extremely well both of the main people behind the minimal facts approach, I have never once heard any of them utter such a thing. Is it a majority view? Yes. Is it a unanimous view? Not at all.
He goes on to list a number of points such as Mark is the first mention of an empty tomb, Paul doesn't hold to it, Mark's ending isn't original, no other sources talk about the empty tomb, etc. All of these are of course disputed to some degree, but let's look and see what he does with them. Does he also interact with the scholars in the field on this?
SC starts with Paul asking why Paul doesn't ask where the body went and why he doesn't ask his detractors to explain what happened? The reason is because no one there was doubting that Jesus rose from the dead. Paul is making a classical argument and the start of it is stating what we all agree on. Here's where we agree. Jesus was raised from the dead. The argument in 1 Cor. 15 is on the general resurrection. Gentiles would be able to say Jesus was an exception because of who He was. Paul starts off by giving the agreed statement on Jesus's resurrection, an early Christian creed.
In fact, SC shows no knowledge that this is a creed in this post. (Noteworthy that by that standard that he has given, it is probable that he does not know this since surely he would have mentioned it since saying an early creed doesn't mention an empty tomb would help his case.) This is the earliest account we have of the resurrection, but it is not meant to be a Gospel account. It is meant to give the bare facts and does it include an empty tomb? I contend that it does.
Where? It says Jesus was dead, then he was buried, then he was raised. That means the place where he was buried was empty which would mean an empty tomb. I also contend based on the arguments of Licona and Martin and Gundry and Wright and others that Paul believed fully in a bodily resurrection in the passage. SC lives in a world where explicit mention needs to be made. (Yet keep in mind by that standard, SC doesn't have the basic knowledge about this being a creed since he does not explicitly mention it.)
Well what about veneration? Here, I wish for the reader to keep in mind that first off, since Christianity was a shameful cult at the time, it's doubtful the Jewish leaders would allow any homage to be paid to the tomb of Jesus. They would have wanted to silence the cult and they were not above persecution. Thus, one reason for this non-veneration was because of the Jewish leaders.
Second, veneration took place to honor the dead. Jesus's tomb would not be venerated because Jesus was not dead. He was live. You don't go and lay wreaths or such on a tomb when there's no one in it.
Finally, Byron McCane's article on the shamefulness of Jesus's burial is most helpful. McCane contends that the burial of jesus was a shameful burial and one that the followers of Jesus would not want to draw any more attention to than necessary. As McCane says
SC then goes on to say that Romans did not do decent burials. He is correct, if he was talking about anywhere else in the Roman Empire. Not in Palestine. In Palestine, for the most part, Jews were granted tolerance with their religious observances. Part of that included burying the dead. It didn't matter if the person was a saint or a criminal. Burial was mandatory. In peacetime then, the Romans let the Jews observe burial practices.
Why was this? Because if you bury a body in a shallow grave, the land could be polluted by the dead body. Consider also that a dog or a bird could get a part of the body and bring it into the temple and rendering the place unclean. This could not happen. For the purity of the land, all bodies had to be dealt with properly and while Jesus was seen as a wicked blasphemer, He still had a body.
SC says we have no record of a criminal being allowed burial after death. For one thing, not many Jews would write about the burial practices of criminals so why is this a shock? Second, we do in fact have evidence of someone who was crucified being in a tomb. This alone would be enough to render the objection moot.
He also says it would make no sense for Joseph of Arimathea to be involved in the process, but why? Are we to suppose that just everyone in the Sanhedrin automatically agreed with the verdict? Considering this was a kangaroo court, perhaps also not even everyone was there but just the ones available. This wasn't a court interested in truth after all.
So why would Joseph do the job? Because since the Sanhedrin ordered the death of Jesus, they were responsible for what happened to the body. Joseph took advantage of this along with Nicodemus. Note that the family did not do this. The family would not be allowed to approach a criminal and mourn for him. This was to shame. Joseph and Nicodemus both do try to do what they can with spices and such to give some honor to Jesus, but it is like having someone with a gushing wound and thinking a child's band-aid will heal it up.
It's also worth nothing what a Jewish scholar of Jewish burial practices at the time of Jesus has to say about this.
Also, if more is needed, I did do some interviews on this. I interviewed Greg Monette who is doing his Ph.D. on the burial of Jesus. I also interviewed Craig Evans on his book*Jesus and the Remains of His Day and we talked about the burial of Jesus in that. It also hasn't escaped my notice that SC did not cite any scholars in his case.
So let's conclude by looking at the questions SC thinks we need to answer.
Why did Mark need to say that the women told nobody about the tomb?
Why did Paul not mention*an empty tomb in his argument for the resurrection?
Why do the resurrection accounts diverge so wildly after Mark’s account?
Why do we not have any external sources for an empty tomb?
Why was Jesus’ tomb, the location of the resurrection of God Incarnate, not venerated by early Christians when it was otherwise customary to do so?
Why did the Romans allow Jesus to be buried when it would have been historically unprecedented, hurting the Roman legal system and undermining the purpose of the crucifixion as a whole?
Why would*a member of the Sanhedrin, who just voted to have Jesus killed as a blasphemer, request Jesus’ body?
For that matter, how was there a unanimous vote if there were at least two known Jesus-followers on the council?
1. *Because Mark is a writer who prefers shock and awe. It's possible the original ending was lost and it's also possible Mark left it this way because it was the job of the audience to tell the message.
2. Because he didn't need to. If he has a death and a burial and a resurrection, then that means the tomb was empty. The tomb was also shameful and thus not mentioned.
3. Probably because you have different eyewitnesses giving their accounts. This objection relies more on inerrancy.
4. Because it was a shameful event. We also don't have any dispute that Jesus was buried for at least the first 300 years.
5. Because the burial was shameful and Jesus wasn't there anyway.
6. Because toleration was granted to Jewish purity practices in the holy land.
7.Because he was a secret sympathizer and was trying to give some honor to Jesus.
8. Because it doesn't mean everyone was there. It was a kangaroo court after all.
We conclude that SC really doesn't have much of a case. Hopefully, he'll spend more time interacting with scholarship and less time with concerns about inerrancy. He would also be benefitted by learning about the honor-shame culture of the New Testament.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
The link can be found here.
------
Did Jesus leave behind an empty tomb? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
I was alerted recently to a blog by someone known as Schrodinger's Christian (SC from now on) who claims to be a doubting Christian and in this post is arguing against the empty tomb. I looked through and saw more of the same and decided since it was late in the evening that I would write a response to it. Now that that time has come, what can be said to a post like this?
First off, I think it's noteworthy that such an emphasis is placed on an error-free text. I've said before that inerrancy is a secondary issue and while it is no doubt an important one, it is too easy to marry one's Christianity to inerrancy. We see at the start*Defending Inerrnacy cited and I'm not surprised it did not have much effect. SC is right in that we must look when doing history to what is probable, but there will be no need to defend inerrancy here to make the case for the empty tomb. Of course, the writings of the Gospels must be taken into consideration, but we don't need to treat them as inerrant or inspired to make the case.
SC goes on to say that he thought that it was unanimous among historians that there was an empty tomb. I would very much like to know where he got this idea. As someone who knows extremely well both of the main people behind the minimal facts approach, I have never once heard any of them utter such a thing. Is it a majority view? Yes. Is it a unanimous view? Not at all.
He goes on to list a number of points such as Mark is the first mention of an empty tomb, Paul doesn't hold to it, Mark's ending isn't original, no other sources talk about the empty tomb, etc. All of these are of course disputed to some degree, but let's look and see what he does with them. Does he also interact with the scholars in the field on this?
SC starts with Paul asking why Paul doesn't ask where the body went and why he doesn't ask his detractors to explain what happened? The reason is because no one there was doubting that Jesus rose from the dead. Paul is making a classical argument and the start of it is stating what we all agree on. Here's where we agree. Jesus was raised from the dead. The argument in 1 Cor. 15 is on the general resurrection. Gentiles would be able to say Jesus was an exception because of who He was. Paul starts off by giving the agreed statement on Jesus's resurrection, an early Christian creed.
In fact, SC shows no knowledge that this is a creed in this post. (Noteworthy that by that standard that he has given, it is probable that he does not know this since surely he would have mentioned it since saying an early creed doesn't mention an empty tomb would help his case.) This is the earliest account we have of the resurrection, but it is not meant to be a Gospel account. It is meant to give the bare facts and does it include an empty tomb? I contend that it does.
Where? It says Jesus was dead, then he was buried, then he was raised. That means the place where he was buried was empty which would mean an empty tomb. I also contend based on the arguments of Licona and Martin and Gundry and Wright and others that Paul believed fully in a bodily resurrection in the passage. SC lives in a world where explicit mention needs to be made. (Yet keep in mind by that standard, SC doesn't have the basic knowledge about this being a creed since he does not explicitly mention it.)
Well what about veneration? Here, I wish for the reader to keep in mind that first off, since Christianity was a shameful cult at the time, it's doubtful the Jewish leaders would allow any homage to be paid to the tomb of Jesus. They would have wanted to silence the cult and they were not above persecution. Thus, one reason for this non-veneration was because of the Jewish leaders.
Second, veneration took place to honor the dead. Jesus's tomb would not be venerated because Jesus was not dead. He was live. You don't go and lay wreaths or such on a tomb when there's no one in it.
Finally, Byron McCane's article on the shamefulness of Jesus's burial is most helpful. McCane contends that the burial of jesus was a shameful burial and one that the followers of Jesus would not want to draw any more attention to than necessary. As McCane says
The shame of Jesus' burial is not only consistent with the best evidence, but can also help to account for an historical fact which has long been puzzling to historians of early Christianity: why did the primitive church not venerate the tomb of Jesus? Joachim Jeremias, for one, thought it inconceivable (undenkbar) that the primitive community would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion. Yet the earliest hints of Christian veneration of Jesus' tomb do not surface until the early fourth century CE. It is a striking fact--and not at all unthinkable--that the tomb of Jesus was not venerated until it was no longer remembered as a place of shame.
Why was this? Because if you bury a body in a shallow grave, the land could be polluted by the dead body. Consider also that a dog or a bird could get a part of the body and bring it into the temple and rendering the place unclean. This could not happen. For the purity of the land, all bodies had to be dealt with properly and while Jesus was seen as a wicked blasphemer, He still had a body.
SC says we have no record of a criminal being allowed burial after death. For one thing, not many Jews would write about the burial practices of criminals so why is this a shock? Second, we do in fact have evidence of someone who was crucified being in a tomb. This alone would be enough to render the objection moot.
He also says it would make no sense for Joseph of Arimathea to be involved in the process, but why? Are we to suppose that just everyone in the Sanhedrin automatically agreed with the verdict? Considering this was a kangaroo court, perhaps also not even everyone was there but just the ones available. This wasn't a court interested in truth after all.
So why would Joseph do the job? Because since the Sanhedrin ordered the death of Jesus, they were responsible for what happened to the body. Joseph took advantage of this along with Nicodemus. Note that the family did not do this. The family would not be allowed to approach a criminal and mourn for him. This was to shame. Joseph and Nicodemus both do try to do what they can with spices and such to give some honor to Jesus, but it is like having someone with a gushing wound and thinking a child's band-aid will heal it up.
It's also worth nothing what a Jewish scholar of Jewish burial practices at the time of Jesus has to say about this.
“Jesus came from a modest family that presumably could not afford a rock- cut tomb. Had Joseph not offered to accommodate Jesus’ body his tomb (according to the Gospel accounts) Jesus likely would have been disposed in the manner of the lower classes: in a pit grave or trench grave dug into the ground. When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesus’ family did not own a rock- cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave- that is there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock cut tomb(!)—before the Sabbath. It is not surprising that Joseph, who is described as a wealthy and perhaps even a member of the Sanhedrin, had a rock-cut family tomb. The Gospel accounts seem to describe Joseph placing Jesus’ body in one of the loculi in his family’s tomb. (Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, pg 170)
“There is no need to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in this family tomb are legendary or apologetic. The Gospel accounts of Jesus’s burial appear to be largely consistent with the archeological evidence” ( Magness, pg 171)
“There is no need to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in this family tomb are legendary or apologetic. The Gospel accounts of Jesus’s burial appear to be largely consistent with the archeological evidence” ( Magness, pg 171)
So let's conclude by looking at the questions SC thinks we need to answer.
Why did Mark need to say that the women told nobody about the tomb?
Why did Paul not mention*an empty tomb in his argument for the resurrection?
Why do the resurrection accounts diverge so wildly after Mark’s account?
Why do we not have any external sources for an empty tomb?
Why was Jesus’ tomb, the location of the resurrection of God Incarnate, not venerated by early Christians when it was otherwise customary to do so?
Why did the Romans allow Jesus to be buried when it would have been historically unprecedented, hurting the Roman legal system and undermining the purpose of the crucifixion as a whole?
Why would*a member of the Sanhedrin, who just voted to have Jesus killed as a blasphemer, request Jesus’ body?
For that matter, how was there a unanimous vote if there were at least two known Jesus-followers on the council?
1. *Because Mark is a writer who prefers shock and awe. It's possible the original ending was lost and it's also possible Mark left it this way because it was the job of the audience to tell the message.
2. Because he didn't need to. If he has a death and a burial and a resurrection, then that means the tomb was empty. The tomb was also shameful and thus not mentioned.
3. Probably because you have different eyewitnesses giving their accounts. This objection relies more on inerrancy.
4. Because it was a shameful event. We also don't have any dispute that Jesus was buried for at least the first 300 years.
5. Because the burial was shameful and Jesus wasn't there anyway.
6. Because toleration was granted to Jewish purity practices in the holy land.
7.Because he was a secret sympathizer and was trying to give some honor to Jesus.
8. Because it doesn't mean everyone was there. It was a kangaroo court after all.
We conclude that SC really doesn't have much of a case. Hopefully, he'll spend more time interacting with scholarship and less time with concerns about inerrancy. He would also be benefitted by learning about the honor-shame culture of the New Testament.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
Comment