Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Black Eyed Peas]

I will be discussing a naturalistic explanation for why women may have not found Yeshua (transliterated as 'Jesus' in Greek) in the tomb that they thought he was buried in. A feature of this particular hypothesis is that it presumes all of the facts in the Gospel of Mark relating to the death, burial, and women visiting the tomb with the only exception being dialogue in chapter 16 verses 6 and 7, which the author admits is speculation in the subsequent sentence

The empty tomb narrative is the most conflicting story in all of Christian canon and apocrypha: How many women went—one, two, three, or at least five? Was the tomb open or closed when they arrived? Were there guards present? How many men or angels were inside or outside the tomb? Does Joshua appear and do they recognize him? Did the women tell the disciples? etc. To answer these questions, I'll defer to the Gospel of Mark, which is unanimously considered the earliest gospel and was copied by the authors of Matt and Luke (John may have known it as well) according to all modern scholars who have published on the Synoptic Problem. I'm not interested in debating this point, but if you have any peer review from the past 30 years to the contrary, please share it

To summarize the story in Mark ch. 15-16, Joshua is crucified at 9am on Friday and dies at 3pm. With evening approaching, Joseph of Arimathea, 'a prominent member of the council', asks Pilate for the body. This is required by Jewish law (Deut. 21:23) as Shabbot begins at sunset. Pilate is surprised that Josh is already dead—crucifixion is a slow death by suffocation and organ failure (often taking days)—and a centurion confirms that he is. Joe takes the body, wraps it in cloth, and brings it to a large, multi-chambered tomb. Mary of Magdala sees this, and on Sunday morning, she and two other women go to anoint the body. Upon arriving, they find the tomb open with a man inside who tells them:

“Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Yeshua of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

[The End]

Let's first discuss Joseph of Arimathea. The name implies he's from a small town and likely a relative newcomer to Jerusalem. Joe may have chosen to give Josh an honorable burial as he himself was from a rural area and more exposed and perhaps sympathetic to the apocalyptic ideas that Joshua of Nazareth preached. Sadducees, the minority sect who ran the temple, were the only significant group who didn't believe in resurrection—the Essenes and Pharisees (including Paul) practiced some form apocalypticism. Many of them, including Paul, Josh, and John the Dipper, believed that the end of the world was very near, in their lifetime (Mk. ch. 9 and 13)

Joseph may have been appeasing the crowd or perhaps took pity on Joshua, but it was almost certainly not meant to be a permanent resting place. Inside his family tomb was the decaying corpse of a crucified rebel, and Joe would surely feel pressure to move the body as soon as possible. This would've occurred on Saturday evening, or if he employed the help of non-Jews, any time on Saturday; or on Sunday before the women arrived. Joshua's closest followers had already left for Galilee. Wherever the body was moved, it would've been nearly unrecognizable within days if it were ever uncovered. While the guards in Matthew 28 are most likely not historical, it could represent a memory of centurions being present around the tomb

Next, the witnesses (or lack thereof). The women are the epitome of an unreliable narrator in Mark: they flee, frightened, and never tell anyone what they saw. This makes the accuracy of the retelling highly suspicious, and one can presume that when they were questioned by the disciples, their story of seeing a man who scared them wasn't believed, so a story was imagined, which changed over time from a man in Mark to the guards and angel in Matt, two angels in Luke, and Josh appearing to Mary but not being recognized in John. A single, unified story could not have created such discrepancies in the later narratives, and Paul's silence on the topic suggests that he was not aware of the story or didn't believe it was useful for spreading his gospel

Resurrection visions are beyond the scope of the hypothesis, but I'll note that it's very curious that in the earliest description of Joshua's appearance in Matt 28:16-17, not everyone believes: "Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Yeshua had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted". In Luke 24:13-16, Josh appears to two disciples, but they don't recognize him, and Mary doesn't recognize Josh in John's tomb narrative. This suggests traditions that the disciples doubted their own visions of Joshua

[jimwalton]

> Let's first discuss Joseph of Arimathea

Here's where your first stretches occur, and they become part of the foundation of your argument. First, I don't know where you get the idea that he was a relatively newcomer to the council. That he was a prominent member (Mk. 15.43) suggests otherwise. Secondly, you'll have to clarify where you get your idea that it was "almost certainly not meant to be a permanent resting place." It seems you've taken liberties to set a foundation for your point, yet the facts don't support it. Let me see what you have.

> Inside his family tomb was the decaying corpse of a crucified rebel, and Joe would surely feel pressure to move the body as soon as possible.

This goes against the revealed Markan text, which suggests instead that Joseph boldly requested the body of Pilate. To dare to ask boldly of the Roman procurator doesn't suggest any pressure to move the body as soon as is practically possible, even Saturday night or earlier, as you wonder.

I see no pressure or intention to move the body. You'll have to give your evidence on these points.

> Wherever the body was moved

Then you assume the body was moved, but you've built a foundation of sand and then try to assume it's not only true but established.

> While the guards in Matthew 28 are most likely not historical,

Here again you've made a leap without evidence. There are credible, plausible reasons to assume a guard, as the Matthean record indicates.

1. We know there was a reasonable Roman presence in Jerusalem. A contingent of Roman soldiers (about 600) stayed in the Antonia Fortress at the northern end of the Temple Mount. Pilate, a Roman prefect, was there, and would indubitably have had his own personal guard for protection and assignments. We can at least establish the presence of Roman military there.

2. The Roman military was there mostly as a peacekeeping presence and to do the bidding of the Roman government. Interaction between them and the Jewish population was on a need-to-engage basis, which ended up being routinely. Some didn't want trouble (leaders and most people), but the Zealots clearly did. And sometimes Rome did things just to antagonize. But when there was threat of sedition or uprising, the Roman military and crucifixion machine cranked into gear to suppress it. So there was plenty of involvement, but it was tempered.

3. The situation of Jesus's crucifixion was obviously a tense cultural flash point. Rome would be interested to keep the peace.

Is the story made up? There's nothing in the story that smacks of fantasy, mythology, metaphor, symbolism, or fiction. It is written as if historical. Does Matthew have a motive for making it up? Possibly, but not necessarily. He's presenting an apologetic for the resurrection, so he wants to present a case for its truth and significance. That doesn't lead us to necessarily fact or fiction in this case. It could be made up, but there's no particular reason to think so. It isn't in the other Gospel accounts, but we know that each writer selected from a vast amount of data to support their theme. Matthew chose this detail and the others didn't; it's of no consequence.

To me the bottom line is that there is little reason to doubt that guards were assigned to the tomb. Why were they posted there? Matthew 27.63-64 claims (believably) that the Jewish leaders were fearful of a rumor of resurrection stirring up all kinds of trouble, both religious and political.

> The women are the epitome of an unreliable narrator in Mark: they flee, frightened, and never tell anyone what they saw. ... This makes the accuracy of the retelling highly suspicious

Here I think you are flat wrong. Mark is diligent to tell the unreliability of the followers of Jesus throughout his entire Gospel. In the whole book, he speaks favorably of the disciples only once (Mk. 8.29). It is part of Mark's theme and purpose to show how weak, unreliable, and cowardly the followers of Jesus are. The end of his narrative is no exception. It speaks not of an unreliable narrator but rather of a focused one. This is no legendary gloss to show how wonderful these people were. Instead, Mark is brutal in telling the failures of Jesus's followers.

> so a story was imagined, which changed over time from a man in Mark to the guards and angel in Matt, two angels in Luke, and Josh appearing to Mary but not being recognized in John.

The four accounts easily mesh. It was not imagined; rather, each evangelist's telling of it was specific to his purpose. Besides, these differences have nothing to do with your thesis, viz., a reburial hypothesis. You have yet to establish any realistic case for a reburial of Jesus's body beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Black Eyed Peas]

I don't see why however long Joseph had lived in Jerusalem is foundational to the argument (except perhaps whether the body was buried based on pity or appeasement), and I mentioned it because Dale Allison made a similar point in a recent interview. If he was able to take down and transport the body himself, he was likely not elderly, and if the tomb was new as per Mt. 27:59-60, then he was likely a "relative newcomer to Jerusalem". He could've been newer than at least some other council members, and his origin from a small town may have influenced his decision to provide an honorable burial to another rural Jew. Crowd appeasement is another hypothesis that's often brought up, but I prefer an explanation from sympathy

Most scholars including Allison don't think the guards at the tomb are historical—the purpose is to setup a polemic against one particular anti-Christian claim of the disciples stealing the body. And to the contrary, the story absolutely "smacks of fantasy" as the tomb is closed (contrary to the other accounts), an earthquake occurs, and an angel rolls away the stone—all witnessed by the guards and reported to the council. Regardless, if there were guards around the tomb, I argue that's evidence in favor of centurions being involved in a reburial as opposed to someone else

Mark doesn't intend to suggest that the women witnesses are unreliable, unlike the disciples, but that's what the text implies with them fleeing in fear and not telling the disciples. It showing the least amount of legendary development is precisely why I included it
I think the more difficult argument to make 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why the body was intended to stay in the family tomb indefinitely and why there wouldn't have been pressure from social stigma to move it

[jimwalton]

> I don't see why however long Joseph had lived in Jerusalem is foundational to the argument

You're the one who was making a point of it. You seemed to be implying that his brief time in Jerusalem would be a factor in moving the body. I don't see it in the text, and I don't see it logically, but it was your point, so I'm shrugging my shoulders.

> If he was able to take down and transport the body himself

There's no reason to think he took down the body himself. That would be the job of the Roman soldiers. In Mt. 27.58, Pilate ordered his soldiers that the body be given to Joseph. That would imply the soldiers took it down and turned it over. Now, Mark 15.46 says that Joseph took down the body, but there's no way he could do it alone (removed it from the cross, wrapped it in in linen, placed it in the tomb, and rolled the stone into place); it would have had to have been a group effort of some sort. Joseph is likely the one heading up the effort.

According to the Gospel of John, the tomb was in the same vicinity as the crucifixion—not a long walk.

> if the tomb was new as per Mt. 27:59-60, then he was likely a "relative newcomer to Jerusalem".

I can see what you're saying, but this is far from conclusive enough to build a case on.

The real point is: What evidence do you have that the body was likely moved? That's where your case is slim to nonexistent, but that's what your case is.

> Most scholars including Allison don't think the guards at the tomb are historical

Yeah, I really couldn't care less about Allison's view. I have examined the case and found the likelihood plausible enough.

> the purpose is to setup a polemic against one particular anti-Christian claim of the disciples stealing the body

Yeah, people are wont to read all kinds of political mumbo-jumbo into the Gospels accounts and their purposes. In my study, most of that is spurious with an intent to discredit the Gospels. I don't buy it.

> if there were guards around the tomb, I argue that's evidence in favor of centurions being involved in a reburial as opposed to someone else

Evidence? I'd like to see it. Why would Roman soldiers be involved in such a conspiracy when Jesus was crucified for treason?

> Mark doesn't intend to suggest that the women witnesses are unreliable, unlike the disciples, but that's what the text implies with them fleeing in fear and not telling the disciples.

I explained the rational behind it. It's not that the women are unreliable, but that they failed just like all the other disciples. Mark is the Gospel of Discipleship Failure. One of the ways that Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering king is that all of His followers are failures, and His messianic secret, even in the end, is still secret. Mark's is a Gospel filled with irony, right to the very end, even in resurrection.

> It showing the least amount of legendary development is precisely why I included it

To me, as I mentioned, it doesn't show legendary development but rather honest historical narrative. There's no bright paint brush to make everyone look good, or rose-colored glasses to fool the audience. Mark employs the criteria of embarrassment and is not afraid to tell the truth about what really happened.

> I think the more difficult argument to make 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why the body was intended to stay in the family tomb indefinitely and why there wouldn't have been pressure from social stigma to move it

You're the one making the case. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me. You are claiming the body was moved, but I have many reasonable doubts that you are correct about that.

Joseph was a devoted follower. With the courage it took to approach Pilate, in a sense defy his peers, and treat the body with such care, it seems he considered it an honor to have the body of Jesus in his tomb.

[Black Eyed Peas]

> You seemed to be implying that his brief time in Jerusalem would be a factor in moving the body

Not in moving the body, in burying it. A mainstream view, including Ehrman's, is that the body wasn't placed in Joseph's tomb

> it would have had to have been a group effort of some sort. Joseph is likely the one heading up the effort

I agree, hence positing Joseph as the sole agent in reburial is unlikely

> Yeah, I really couldn't care less about Allison's view. I have examined the case and found the likelihood plausible enough.

Very interesting. Have you written any peer review on the topic or know a modern scholar who has?

> Why would Roman soldiers be involved in such a conspiracy when Jesus was crucified for treason?

What's the conspiracy?

> Mark employs the criteria of embarrassment and is not afraid to tell the truth about what really happened

Is the women fleeing in fear and not telling anyone the truth about what actually happened?

> You're the one making the case. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me. You are claiming the body was moved, but I have many reasonable doubts that you are correct about that

Which of those doubts that the tomb was meant as a temporary burial are based solely on Mark?

[jimwalton]

> A mainstream view, including Ehrman's

I love how people who don't want to believe the Gospel accounts just love that they found an advocate in Ehrman while ignoring all the scholarship that his view contrasts. So the go-to boy is now Erhman. His scholarship is not that striking.

> ... is that the body wasn't placed in Joseph's tomb

There is no evidence to this effect. None. If you have it, please let me see it.

> I agree, hence positing Joseph as the sole agent in reburial is unlikely

There is no evidence of reburial, and you have yet to make your case to that effect.

I'm looking for evidence, not a "the majority of scholars" case built on blind faith. "Well, if the majority of scholars believes it, it must be true, right?" No. Trace through history for the geocentric camp, the flat Earth camp, and the "handwashing is of no benefit" camp. There is a myth of public consensus that claims that the truth about a matter is subject to public agreement about that matter. To say so displays a fundamental error of observation and logic. Today's majority can easily be (and has often enough been) tomorrow's embarrassed ones.

> Have you written any peer review on the topic or know a modern scholar who has?

I have written a book on the resurrection, yes, but the scholar who is most published on it is Gary Habermas.

> Is the women fleeing in fear and not telling anyone the truth about what actually happened?

I find no reason to doubt it. The women fled in confusion and fear, afraid to speak. Mary Magdalene, who had lingered behind and actually encountered Jesus, went to the disciples with her message of resurrection, which was met with incredulity but at least curiosity to investigate the evidence.

> Which of those doubts that the tomb was meant as a temporary burial are based solely on Mark?

You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that the tomb was meant as a temporary burial. So far you've given speculation based on straws (Joseph was new in town; he felt pressure to move the body as soon as practically possible [even possibly to the ignoring of Sabbath laws]).

[Black Eyes Peas]

> So the go-go boy every time now is Erhman

He's the most popular NT scholar in the world with highly influential views. And he's not the only scholar who believes it. You missed the point: I was arguing in favor of Joseph burying Jesus and offering speculation as to why. Your explanation is that he was a follower of Jesus, but that's contrived and not supported in Mark

> No. Trace through history for the geocentric camp, the flat Earth camp, and the "handwashing is of no benefit" camp

Do the majority of modern scholars think that the earth is flat with the sun orbiting around it? Do you think the majority of scholars' views have evolved in favor of more falsehoods? Also, wasn't Jesus against handwashing in Mk. 7?

> Gary Habermas

Does he publish peer review on anything let alone the historicity of content only found in Matthew?

> he felt pressure to move the body as soon as practically possible [even possibly to the ignoring of Sabbath laws

A non-Jew (like a Roman soldier) could move it any time on Saturday or a Jew on Saturday evening or Sunday morning. Where did I suggest he ignored Sabbath laws?

> There is no evidence of reburial

The empty tomb is evidence, and you admitted that he would've had to "defy his peers"—doesn't that connote social pressure to not have the body in his tomb?

[jimwalton]

> He's the most popular NT scholar in the world with highly influential views

Of course he's popular and influential. He has given a voice to the contra-traditional view, so everyone or anyone who doesn't want to follow the evidence latches onto Erhman. Even though 2000 scholars say certain things are true, Erhman says they're not, and those who don't want to believe they're true say, "Finally! A real scholar!"

> Your explanation is that he was a follower of Jesus, but that's contrived and not supported in Mark

The remark by Mark that Joseph was "waiting for the kingdom of God" taps into Markan themes of a true follower of Jesus:

• It is Jesus's first message (Mk. 1.15)
• There's a prominent messianic secret in the Gospel, but to the disciples has been given the secret (Mk. 4.11)
• The kingdom of God is the subject of Jesus's parables in Mark 4.
• The kingdom of God belongs to those who will receive it (Mk. 10.15)

Matthew 27.57 confirms that Joseph was a devoted follower of Jesus.

> Do the majority of modern scholars think that the earth is flat with the sun orbiting around it? Do you think the majority of scholars' views have evolved in favor of more falsehoods?

Of course not, but at one time, they did. My point is that subscription by a majority of scholars is no guarantee of truth.

> Also, wasn't Jesus against handwashing in Mk. 7

No, he was not. The core meaning of the passage is that Jesus is trying to teach them the true meaning of sin and the true meaning of salvation (hearts attuned, v. 6). It is not external “impurities” that defile, but the sin that is in you, and it is not washing that saves you. The core of the passage is found in vv. 14-15: Nothing outside a person is able to defile a person.

Jesus in the passage never spoke against handwashing. He spoke against hypocrisy (Mk. 7.6) and against valuing traditions over God's commands (Mk. 7.9).

> Does he publish peer review on anything let alone the historicity of content only found in Matthew?

You must not be familiar with Habermas. At least take a glance at http://www.garyhabermas.com/publications.htm

> Where did I suggest he ignored Sabbath laws?

"Joe would surely feel pressure to move the body as soon as possible. This would've occurred on Saturday evening, or if he employed the help of non-Jews, any time on Saturday." Your statement implies that he could have been involved in moving the body with the help of non-Jews any time on Saturday, ignoring Sabbath laws.

> The empty tomb is evidence

It's not evidence of reburial, but instead that the body is not there. The empty tomb itself doesn't imply what happened, only that something did.

You still have not given me evidence that the body was likely moved. You've just asserted that Joe was new in town (speculation) and that he felt pressure to get the corpse out of his tomb (unfounded). Neither of these are evidence. Your "naturalistic explanation" fails to carry the case.

[Black Eyed Peas]

> The remark by Mark that Joseph was "waiting for the kingdom of God" taps into Markan themes of a true follower of Jesus

Nonsense. This suggests that he was an apocalypticist, which I argued in favor of in the post. Not all apocalypticists were followers of Jesus, in fact, practically none of them were: apocalypticism was the most popular view that only the Sadducees didn't share. This only indicates that he held a minority view among the council but a majority view in the general public

> Matthew 27.57 confirms that Joseph was a devoted follower of Jesus.

It also doesn't mention that he's a council member, despite the author copying from Mark. I'm not interested in arguing a fringe view of the least-reliable Synoptic

> Of course not, but at one time, they did. My point is that subscription by a majority of scholars is no guarantee of truth

That's not a good argument. Views in the past are generally less sophisticated and veritable than they are now, and you'd need to argue that there's a trend of consensuses getting worse

I agree that it's not specifically about washing hands (I couldn't help bringing it up), but he does include the metaphor "since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer", which could lead readers to believe that washing hands isn't necessary (and many have based on it). The most interesting part of the passage is the end of 7:19 where the author adds "Thus he declared all foods clean", which Jesus doesn't say. This indicates it was likely historical

> Your statement implies that he could have been involved in moving the body with the help of non-Jews any time on Saturday, ignoring Sabbath laws

Could he not have asked non-Jews to move it without breaking Sabbath? Why couldn't Roman soldiers take initiative themselves?

> that he felt pressure to get the corpse out of his tomb (unfounded)

You said that he would've had to defy his peers. How does that not connote social pressure?

> Your "naturalistic explanation" fails to carry the case

Please enlighten me: what's your most probable naturalistic case?

[jimwalton]

> This suggests that he was an apocalypticist
Nonsense. If you can say it, I can. Mt. 27.57 and Jn. 19.38 explain to us that he was a disciple of Christ. Mark uses his own theme of "kingdom of God" to say the same thing. The Synoptics and John are in agreement that Joe was a devoted follower of Christ.

> It also doesn't mention that he's a council member, despite the author copying from Mark

We know that the 4 Gospel writers are selective about which factors to include and exclude. It's of no consequence.

As far as copying from Mark, I've done a detailed study of the two Gospels (Mark and Matthew). The amount of alleged copying is vastly overrated. It's FAR more accurate to say they are unique accounts of the same narrative.

For instance, I couldn't get a reliable figure of how much of Matthew was from Mark off the Internet. I started reading through, comparing the two. Eighteen verses of Mark 1, for instance (out of 45), are in Matthew. Twenty-four (of 28) verses of Mark 2 are in Matthew. Twenty-five (of 35) of Mark 3. The two accounts are quite different, though, I noticed when I read them in parallel. Though it was the same thought, it was rarely the same words. Sometimes I had a hard time figuring out if the verse from Mark was actually in Matthew, they were worded so differently. I had to make some judgment calls.

I would say that though much of Mark is in Matthew (Internet sources said in the vicinity of 90%), it's untrue that a large percentage of Matthew is from Mark. If it's true that 600 verses of Mark are in Matthew (I have my doubts, but let's just go with that), that means 56% of Matthew is also in Mark, leaving 44% of Matthew unique from Mark. I would not consider that "a very large percentage...taken word for word." It's not even close to word for word, and 44% of Matthew is unique from Mark.

And when we get to the death and burial accounts, there is little case to be made for copying.

Mt. 27.45; Mk. 15.33. Same thought, expressed differently. They have 7 words in common, but in a different order.

Mt. 27.46; Mk. 15.34. “Jesus cried in a loud voice” is the same, but his words have a grammatical variant, so even they aren’t identical. Then the translation or explanation of His words, though in English they are translated the same, the Greek is totally different.

Mt. 27.47; Mk. 15.35. Both writers express the same thought but in completely different Greek.

Mt. 27.48-49; Mk. 15.36. Both writers express the same thought but in completely different Greek.

Mt. 27.50; Mk. 15.37. They both mention his loud cry, but Matthew says he gave up his spirit whereas Mark says he breathed his last. They both mention the temple curtain torn in two (using different Greek), but then Matthew goes in a completely unique direction for vv. 51-53.

Mt. 27.54; Mk. 15.39. Both include the exclamation of the centurion, but in completely different Greek.

I have to seriously question whether Matthew copied from Mark. Both are obviously giving accounts of the same events, but in very different language. I don't see evidence of copying at all.

> Why couldn't Roman soldiers take initiative themselves?

Rome would have no interest in perpetrating treason. If they moved the body, and then the disciples started preaching resurrection, that would be an easy hoax to shut down. Rome soldiers would not have spent their time emptying a grave for a Jewish official, doing something that would cause problems in Jerusalem for Rome.

> You said that he would've had to defy his peers. How does that not connote social pressure?

John mentions that Joe feared the Jews. It must have taken some courage at this time to stand against the council when they had voted to kill Jesus and the other disciples had deserted Jesus. But since he had the courage to take the body and prepare it for burial, and since he found a compatriot in Nicodemus, it's unlikely that the very next day he would feel compelled to remove the body from his tomb. The Sanhedrin didn't seem to care that Jesus was buried; their concern is that He was finally dead.

> what's your most probable naturalistic case?

I don't think any naturalistic case is probable. The resurrection is clearly portrayed as supernatural and there is nothing natural or naturalistic possible.