Me2 as well…
Doesn’t John 1 clear this up (sort of) in that it was Mary Magdalene who saw the stone rolled away & she probably left the other women and fled back on her own to the disciples and told them. Maybe that’s why John added this part as a supplement since he must have known what the previous gospel accounts said.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE: HOW MODERN SCHOLARS DISMISS JESUS’ BODILY RESURRECTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEARANCES AS LEGENDS SPARKED BY VAGUE HALLUCINATIONS:
I invite readers to try to rebut the following argument. In my next planned post I will offer my own rebuttal. My point will be that a proper rebuttal requires the use of Higher Criticism…
The standard Roman practice for disposing crucified corpses is to dump them in an open pit or throw then in a field to be devoured by wild dogs. Why should Jesus and the 2 thieves suffer a different fate? Jesus dies unexpectedly soon and is allegedly buried in a NEARBY tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. So the normal expectation would be that, after the Sabbath on Saturday evening, Roman soldiers would gather the corpses of Jesus (from the NEARBY tomb) and the other 2 thieves and dispose of them in the normal disrespectful way. No Christian witnesses were present that Saturday night to say otherwise. So when the women discover the empty tomb, their initial reaction that Jesus’ body has been removed is the natural and doubtless correct inference.
Bear in mind that in the earliest Gospel tradition, Joseph of Arimathea is not identified as a disciple (Mark 1542-47), and even if he were, Jesus’ burial in his tomb may merely have been a temporary measure to prevent a hanging corpse from desecrating the Sabbath.
The President of the Society of Biblical Literature, Dominic Crossan, has dismissed the Gospel resurrection stories as mere parables. These accounts are hopelessly contradictory in at least these 5 ways:
(1) CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF THE WOMEN’S FIRST VISIT TO THE TOMB:
In Matthew 28:2 the women experience an earthquake and see 1 and only 1 angel roll back the stone and sit upon it outside the tomb, who assures them that Jesus has risen. But John 20:1-2 is surely more original, and this version includes no angel, only an anguished Mary Magdalene racing off to tell disciples that someone removed the corpse.
By contrast in Luke 24:2-5, 2 (not 1!) shining angels appear to them only after they discover the empty tomb (Luke 24:2-5). Clearly in the original story, the female reaction is consistent with the standard Roman removal of the corpse, but various angelic embellishments are added in the interest of Christian propaganda.
(2) CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THE WOMEN DO NEXT:
In Mark 16:8 hey flee from the tomb and tell no one what happened. Luke and Matthew use contradictory legends to escape this embarrassment. In Luke 24:9, 23 the women PROMPTLY report a vision of angels (not of Jesus!) to the disciples. In Matthew 28:10, they tell the disciples that they have actually seen Jesus (Matthew 28:10).
(3) CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THE DISCIPLES ARE TO DO NEXT:
In Matthew 28:19, 16 the women relay the instruction of the angel and Jesus to go to Galilee where He will appear to them and the disciples obey by going to Galilee. By contrast, Luke rewords the angel’s instruction to send the disciples to Galilee to remove the command to go there (Luke 24:6). Instead, Luke twice has Jesus tell His disciples to remain in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4). If you just had Luke, you would never know that Jesus appeared to His disciples in Galilee or that they ever returned there. 8 days later, the disciples have still not gone to Galilee in obedience to the risen Lord’s command (John 20:26).
(4) In John, only Thomas remains skeptical about the Resurrection until the 2nd appearance to the disciples 8 days later (20:27-28). But when the disciples finally do travel to Galilee and receive an appearance there, “some” of the disciples still doubt that Jesus is making appearances (Matthew 28:17). This contradiction is best explained by independent legends created without awareness of each other.
(5) THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILING GOSPEL RESURRECTION NARRATIVES WITH PAUL’S SEQUENCE OF APPEARANCES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15:3-8:
Where do the Galilean appearances fit into Paul’s sequence? And how can we fit the appearance to over 500 followers and the one to James into the Gospel sequence? Paul twice claims to have seen the risen Lord (1 Cor 9:1; Galatians 1:11-16). Luke adds 2 details missing from Paul’s accounts: the blinding light and companions who experience the revelation. The impression that Luke’s accounts are legendary embellishments is enhanced by the contradictory reports about his companions: Do they hear the voice, but not see the Light (Acts 9:7) or vice versa (22:9)?
[
I will be interested to see how Higher Criticism ‘solves’ the above riddles. Of course, Crossan et. al. are mostly anti-supernatural in the first place, thus their loaded language: ‘legends’ ‘embellishments’ ‘mere parables’. Pointing out their bias, of course, is not the same as answering them.
Someone has borrowed my TW book on the resurrection, or I might be better prepared to take on some of those arguments.
Looking forward to your post!
The women found Jesus grave clothes neatly folded in the tomb which by itself refutes the idea that his corpse was dumped because his body would still be in the clothes and the clothes wouldn’t be left behind neatly folded. Why was body put in a tomb at all if everyone knew this “Roman practice” , why guards, why seal it? How do we know there were no Christian witnesses that Sat night? Why the messages from the Angels to the women? Why the message “He is Risen” which indicates a physical resurrection? Jesus was Jewish and the Jewish understanding of a resurrection was that it was physical.
The 2 thieves would have been taken from the cross and buried naked. Why wouldn’t the Romans want to bury all 3 naked, especially in view of the stench and odious body fluid that stained the burial garments? Hmmm. The scholarly consensus is that the story of the guards at the tomb is a later apologetic legend created by Christians to refute claims that the body was humanly removed. In the view of critics, this story would surely appear in at least 1 other Gospel if it were true, and besides, how would Christians gain access to conversations between said guards and their superiors? The creation of that conversation is deemed further evidence of fabrication. Of course, you conveniently ignore John’s tradition that the women initially find no one at the tomb–no soldiers, no earthquake, no angels, nada–and reasonably assume that the corpse has been relocated.
In matters of religion, I’m not impressed by scholarly consensus; depending of course on who the scholars are. I would not trust anyone who just off-the-top does not make room for supernatural events. Or for the God of the Bible.
The Devil’s advocate is really reaching at this point. I hope your scenario cleans up these fussy little problems.
The “scholarly consensus” needs to be a default starting point if evangelicals want to do more than preach to the choir. I place no value on this site’s commentary on 1 Timothy because the deutero-Pauline character of the Pastoral Epistles is defended in all my many New Testament Introductions since the 1970s, is often referred to in scholarly literature on the Pastorals, and is assumed at presentations at learned society meetings like The Society of Biblical Literature. The many arguments in its favor cannot be ignored if a writer wants to be taken seriously.
Disagree a bit on your opening line. A believing scholar can be as serious a scholar as anyone else; the believer’s presuppositions will be different, for sure - but imo more realistic than a closed-system materialist (I know I’m painting with a broad brush here).
I don’t take as a given that the unbelieving consensus can specify the playing field and the rules; those will always be determined by established presupp’s. Agreeing on a starting point and a target is difficult across systems that diverge even at the starting point.
I’m totally with you in demanding top-notch, peer-reviewed scholarship; it should be world-class and open to criticism - gladly open to it, hopefully - but unmasking the hidden presupp’s and worldiews should be a part of that ‘from the get-go’. Agreed?
In Christian apologetics, arguments are only as good as their assumptions, but basic assumptions are shaped by experience. So our arguments are ultimately only as sound as our experience. My paranormal and spiritual experiences are immersed In the supernatural. That fact was recognized by my Harvard dissertation committee and they briefly digressed from grilling me on my thesis to discuss this fact. That meant less time for me sweating the details! What scholarship needs are interpretive models in which all underying assumptions are made clear and defended, models that make sense of all the relevant date. For example, at our Harvard doctoral NT Seminar on Colossians I presented a 50 page paper arguing that Paul wrote Colossians and that his opponents were his contemporaries, Jewish Ebionites, who used terminology borrowed by Paul to refute them. My paper was well received, though I had been the only seminar member who thought Paul wrote Colossians. We need conservative and liberal interpretive models; and that model is to be preferred which makes the best sense of ALL the relevant data.
Agreed. Delimiting what is the ‘relevant’ data is of course the rub.
It is hugely disappointing to me, as to others, to observe the politicization of even the hard sciences. The refreshing, clear-eyed days of the ‘enlightenment project’, leading to a modernism that relied on foundationalism, are long gone. I don’t know how far the decay has gotten into the historical/linguistic arena but I’m sure that there has been some encroachment.
We all are subject to the hermeneutic of suspicion, it seems as well. A full disclosure of chosen models and the reasons for choosing them, right down to the worldview/mindset of the individuals, helps with the trust issue. All too often it is hidden.
If you choose to rely on “scholarly consensus and critics” then we have different sources of authority and we will just talk past each other. Everyone has opinions including the “scholarly consensus and critics” who love to speak with authority but when you break it all down, it’s simply another secular opinion. Not that i wouldn’t consider it because i do but i give it a lot less weight then you do.
1 Like
As I previously mentioned, John knew the previous gospel accounts and most likely didn’t see any reason to repeat every detail but wanted to supplement certain points he considered important.
In all four gospels we have Joseph of Arimathea asking Pilate for Jesus body so it could be buried in his tomb which also fulfills a prophecy in Isaiah. Perhaps Joseph paid Pilate since Joseph is apparently a rich man. To have guards by the tomb is logical since both the Romans and the Jews knew about resurrection rumors among the Christians.
1 Like
Critics from California?
Steve: “If you choose to rely on “scholarly consensus and critics” then we have different sources of authority and we will just talk past each other”
The “scholarly consensus” you disparage causes many college students to lose their faith when they take courses on New Testament. For that reason alone, I take it seriously as a starting point for Evangelical apologetics. Plus, this consensus is based on very long arguments that are too technical for presentation here, but which are compelling within the framework of the standard academic presuppositional matrix. I am reacting against discussions I heard in my year at Fuller Seminary about what “we need to keep secret” from evangelical laity. I want them to be better equipped to defend their faith and to evangelize well informed college students who are leaving the church in droves.
Steve: “As I previously mentioned, John knew the previous gospel accounts and most likely didn’t see any reason to repeat every detail but wanted to supplement certain points he considered important.”
First, the scholarly consensus accepts the view that the Fourth Gospel is independent of Synoptic tradition and shows no familiarity with them or their sources. The Gospel has a complex history of editorial modification and is not traceable to authorship by John the son of Zebedee. True, Raymond Brown’s massive 2 volume Commentary on John defends the identification of the Beloved Disciple as John the son of Zebedee, but Brown recants this identification for compelling reasons in his subsequent work on the Fourth Gospel.
Second, it is obvious from John 20:1-2 that Mary Magdalene encounters no shining angel(s) at the tomb, who might correct her sad belief that Jesus’ corpse has been humanly removed and relocated, On the contrary, she hopes that Peter and’/or the Beloved Disciple might help her track down the corpse. Thus, she is found weeping at the tomb on her 2nd visit there and she still believes the corpse has been humanly removed.
By the end of today I will start a new thread that offers the insights of Higher Criticism that allow a reconstruction of post-resurrection events that removes the many contradictions, and yet, identifies in the Gospels all the seemingly inconsistent appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. My new thread will also address the scholarly consensus about the prearranged Roman removal of Jesus’ corpse from Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb (which is conveniently near Golgotha) to transport it with the other 2 crucified corpses to their ignominious dumping ground or hole.
I did read Brown’s book edited by Frances Moloney quite awhile ago. BTW re the Gospel of John, I think Brown believed in a late dating but the concept of Jesus as “The Word” was first brought forward at the end of Revelation (19.13) & then used to open the Gospel of John which suggests that Revelation was written first and then John right after that. I am not a Preterist but I do think Revelation was written early (60s) and then John soon thereafter.