Hi John, more helpful material for my debate! Thanks.
Many of the arguments you report rely on JoA being a real person, but surely if there was a tomb burial he'd need to be invented (how else could Jesus be placed in a tomb without such a benefactor figure?). I didn't see you confronting this possibility. Your point on the development of the JoA narrative in the 4 accounts do suggest that he may have been invented when we stretch the development back to the stage before Mark wrote. But there's more. First, his name is suspicious. Why is there no place Arimathea? Scholars have to scrape about to find a place with a similar name, but a simpler explanation is that it's made up. Have you heard that 'Arimathea' in Greek has the meaning 'best disciple town'? That indicates a made up name surely? Second, why does JoA come into the Christian story from nowhere and then immediately disappear again? Finally, there seems to be a discrepancy between how, on the one hand, he is described as being supportive of Jesus but, on the other hand, he was a “prominent member of the Council” on which “all condemned him as worthy of death” (Mark 15v43 and 14v64 respectively).
The burial that I've considered the most likely is in a Roman communal grave. My reasons are that for an insurrectionist claiming to be 'King of the Jews' any compromise on normal Roman crucifixion practice would be minimal. Releasing the body to others, especially one individual, would be a step too far (Philo mentions releasing bodies to families only on the Emperor's birthday, and those are criminals, not insurrectionists). The unlikelihood of the Romans releasing an insurrectionist’s body is shown by Mark 15v43, Joseph had to ask Pilate for Jesus’ body, so the normal procedure would have been for the Roman’s to keep it. That Joseph had to go “boldly” to Pilate suggests that it was a very unusual request. I do hear the arguments that the Romans might compromise with Jewish sensibilities against leaving bodies on crosses overnight, which would defile the land. But that wouldn't require anything more than a Roman controlled communal grave. (And I agree with the 1Cor15 point which indicates burial). What do you make of this option?
Sorry to go on, but another whole area for discussion is the absence of tomb veneration. Both sides of the Resurrection debate agree that there is no record in early Christian documents of veneration of Jesus' tomb and, when Constantine sent people to find the tomb in about 325AD, it seems that they just had to guess its location. Modern apologists argue that the lack of veneration is actually further evidence for an empty tomb because reverence was given, not to the tomb but, instead, to he who had lain within it and who still exists. Sceptics, however, suggest that there having been no tomb at all is a vastly better explanation. It is deep in our human nature to venerate the locations of significant events and it was part of Hebrew culture .
From a theological perspective, what is the point of the rolled-away stone? That is, let's assume Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Still, why have the stone rolled away by, presumably, some kind of divine intervention? To me, this is even stranger in Matthew (Mt 28:2) where the angel rolls the stone away and then sits on it. It does not mention that the stone was moved because it enabled Jesus to walk out (and high-five the sitting angel on the way). In some gospel traditions, Jesus can pass through walls so why the need to have the stone rolled away? Maybe it has some evidentiary function? If the stone was not rolled away, the women/apostles would still have found Jesus' body missing. Would such a scenario have changed anything about the early Christian proclamation or reconstruction of what happened? No need to answer these questions; just sharing some that popped into my mind. (Pehaps someone has already written on this?)
I think the one area of scholarship I would consider adding to the mix is the apparent fact that the "empty tomb" was a motif used ubiquitously in Roman-Greco literature. Scholards Richard C. Miller and Rachel Faith Walsh have deep studies and analysis showing this. Plus the writers of the gospels were likely well educated and part of a literary tradition informed by Greco-Roman practices and education, not just Judaic. There is evidence that many Gospel stories in general were engaged with Homer, Virgil, etc. in a typical of the time, mimetic way (MacDonald). This all makes even more plausible the idea that the empty tomb was actually to some extent a device used by whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark, and then later the other adopted and embellished by other gospel writers, for the purpose of indicating the deification of the story's hero (as you indicate). This reddit thread (specifically, nightshadetwine) cuts and pastes some of the relevant passages from RFW's book on the subject in a recent thread discussing Allison's book.
Thank you, I do recognise the missing body motif and think that the meaning of Mark's narrative (that Jesus is a divine figure in heaven) should be understood against it. The difficulty is knowing whether the story is myth all the way down, or whether some historical kernel inspired this particular literary packaging, since bodies do sometimes go missing from tombs! Generally speaking, missing tomb narratives in historiography are attached to figures who were long dead, not the recently deceased (per Jesus). This gives me some pause in going all the way (with Richard Miller) to think that the stories were created to be read *as* fiction.
Regarding MacDonald, with the vast majority of Gospels scholars, I have not been persuaded by his perspective that there is widespread imitation of the classical epics in the Gospels/Acts, although I do think the sort of mimesis/imatatio in the Graeco-Roman world (e.g. Virgil's imitation of Homer) are instructive for understanding the Gospels' literary practice in other ways.
Hi John, with respect to “the vast majority” of NT scholars not going along with MacDonald, would you have a book or article that I could use to be better informed as to the basis for objections/skepticism? Specifically MacDonald’s comparisons of the sea stories in Acts to Odysseus and Aeneas seem to show uncanny parallels that support at least the idea that the writer of Acts/Luke was educated in the Homeric stories and was using them as some degree as an archetypical reference or template. I would like to review any scholarship that pressure tests this idea. Thanks.
I would recommend Adam Winn's treatment in his 2010 monograph, Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the Search for Markan Source Material.
Thanks for the great summary! I hope I'll look at some of the links too. I would just add that the gospels nowhere mention that Joseph owned (!) the tomb and thus this seems to be just an assumption (or am I missing something?). The naturalistic explanation I'm tempted by, and which seems to me the best from those available, is that Joseph did indeed bury Jesus, but then, he might as well removed him after the Sabbath ended (and before the women came). If I recall correctly, I saw this position for the first time in James Tabor and don't recall scholars arguing against this possibility. But maybe you do and could point me to some responses to this. Also, this option is compatible with other explanations such as grief hallucinations.
On your first point, Matthew does mention that the tomb was his own (Mt. 27:60); this might be part of Matthew's apologetic strategy or perhaps it was a mere inference from Mark?
On your second, there are indeed some classic advocates of this view; quite a few Germans (e.g. Holtzmann, Klausner, Baldensperger) and a host of polemicists. I am inclined to agree with Dale Allison that it is very unlikely, for a number of reasons: (1) Joseph could have spoken up after the disciples proclaimed the resurrection; (2) if he was a sympathiser he could have spoken up; and perhaps more significantly, if the Gospels are to be trusted, (3) he would have moved the stone back; and (4) he would have had to have done this under the cover of darkness, which would have been totally superfluous (Allison; 2021, 339).
Thanks, John. I indeed missed Matthew's comment (Mt 27:60) when looking at these passages now that the tomb belonged to Joseph. It's interesting why he says that since Mark didn't. It's also curious that John's reason is that "the tomb was nearby" and not that it belonged to Joseph (Jn 19:42), but doesn't, of course, necesarily contradict Matthew.
I've looked at Dale Allison (again) and what he says about Joseph. While he doesn't at first reply to the scenario with Joseph of Arimatea (Allison; 2021, 10) he does indeed provide a reply on the page you've noted. While I think it might be possible to respond to some of Allison's rejoinders, one could respond skeptically to anything. And while that it possible, I think we should admit that the ad-hocness increases with every such skeptical rejoinder. So where does one stop saying "But what if...?" That's a good question every skeptic should face.
Hi John, more helpful material for my debate! Thanks.
Many of the arguments you report rely on JoA being a real person, but surely if there was a tomb burial he'd need to be invented (how else could Jesus be placed in a tomb without such a benefactor figure?). I didn't see you confronting this possibility. Your point on the development of the JoA narrative in the 4 accounts do suggest that he may have been invented when we stretch the development back to the stage before Mark wrote. But there's more. First, his name is suspicious. Why is there no place Arimathea? Scholars have to scrape about to find a place with a similar name, but a simpler explanation is that it's made up. Have you heard that 'Arimathea' in Greek has the meaning 'best disciple town'? That indicates a made up name surely? Second, why does JoA come into the Christian story from nowhere and then immediately disappear again? Finally, there seems to be a discrepancy between how, on the one hand, he is described as being supportive of Jesus but, on the other hand, he was a “prominent member of the Council” on which “all condemned him as worthy of death” (Mark 15v43 and 14v64 respectively).
The burial that I've considered the most likely is in a Roman communal grave. My reasons are that for an insurrectionist claiming to be 'King of the Jews' any compromise on normal Roman crucifixion practice would be minimal. Releasing the body to others, especially one individual, would be a step too far (Philo mentions releasing bodies to families only on the Emperor's birthday, and those are criminals, not insurrectionists). The unlikelihood of the Romans releasing an insurrectionist’s body is shown by Mark 15v43, Joseph had to ask Pilate for Jesus’ body, so the normal procedure would have been for the Roman’s to keep it. That Joseph had to go “boldly” to Pilate suggests that it was a very unusual request. I do hear the arguments that the Romans might compromise with Jewish sensibilities against leaving bodies on crosses overnight, which would defile the land. But that wouldn't require anything more than a Roman controlled communal grave. (And I agree with the 1Cor15 point which indicates burial). What do you make of this option?
Sorry to go on, but another whole area for discussion is the absence of tomb veneration. Both sides of the Resurrection debate agree that there is no record in early Christian documents of veneration of Jesus' tomb and, when Constantine sent people to find the tomb in about 325AD, it seems that they just had to guess its location. Modern apologists argue that the lack of veneration is actually further evidence for an empty tomb because reverence was given, not to the tomb but, instead, to he who had lain within it and who still exists. Sceptics, however, suggest that there having been no tomb at all is a vastly better explanation. It is deep in our human nature to venerate the locations of significant events and it was part of Hebrew culture .
Some of my questions about the stone:
From a theological perspective, what is the point of the rolled-away stone? That is, let's assume Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Still, why have the stone rolled away by, presumably, some kind of divine intervention? To me, this is even stranger in Matthew (Mt 28:2) where the angel rolls the stone away and then sits on it. It does not mention that the stone was moved because it enabled Jesus to walk out (and high-five the sitting angel on the way). In some gospel traditions, Jesus can pass through walls so why the need to have the stone rolled away? Maybe it has some evidentiary function? If the stone was not rolled away, the women/apostles would still have found Jesus' body missing. Would such a scenario have changed anything about the early Christian proclamation or reconstruction of what happened? No need to answer these questions; just sharing some that popped into my mind. (Pehaps someone has already written on this?)
I think the one area of scholarship I would consider adding to the mix is the apparent fact that the "empty tomb" was a motif used ubiquitously in Roman-Greco literature. Scholards Richard C. Miller and Rachel Faith Walsh have deep studies and analysis showing this. Plus the writers of the gospels were likely well educated and part of a literary tradition informed by Greco-Roman practices and education, not just Judaic. There is evidence that many Gospel stories in general were engaged with Homer, Virgil, etc. in a typical of the time, mimetic way (MacDonald). This all makes even more plausible the idea that the empty tomb was actually to some extent a device used by whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark, and then later the other adopted and embellished by other gospel writers, for the purpose of indicating the deification of the story's hero (as you indicate). This reddit thread (specifically, nightshadetwine) cuts and pastes some of the relevant passages from RFW's book on the subject in a recent thread discussing Allison's book.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1bpz9ne/any_thoughts_on_dale_allisons_defense_of_the/
Dear Maytree,
Thank you, I do recognise the missing body motif and think that the meaning of Mark's narrative (that Jesus is a divine figure in heaven) should be understood against it. The difficulty is knowing whether the story is myth all the way down, or whether some historical kernel inspired this particular literary packaging, since bodies do sometimes go missing from tombs! Generally speaking, missing tomb narratives in historiography are attached to figures who were long dead, not the recently deceased (per Jesus). This gives me some pause in going all the way (with Richard Miller) to think that the stories were created to be read *as* fiction.
Regarding MacDonald, with the vast majority of Gospels scholars, I have not been persuaded by his perspective that there is widespread imitation of the classical epics in the Gospels/Acts, although I do think the sort of mimesis/imatatio in the Graeco-Roman world (e.g. Virgil's imitation of Homer) are instructive for understanding the Gospels' literary practice in other ways.
Hi John, with respect to “the vast majority” of NT scholars not going along with MacDonald, would you have a book or article that I could use to be better informed as to the basis for objections/skepticism? Specifically MacDonald’s comparisons of the sea stories in Acts to Odysseus and Aeneas seem to show uncanny parallels that support at least the idea that the writer of Acts/Luke was educated in the Homeric stories and was using them as some degree as an archetypical reference or template. I would like to review any scholarship that pressure tests this idea. Thanks.
I would recommend Adam Winn's treatment in his 2010 monograph, Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative: Considering the Practice of Greco-Roman Imitation in the Search for Markan Source Material.
Thanks for the great summary! I hope I'll look at some of the links too. I would just add that the gospels nowhere mention that Joseph owned (!) the tomb and thus this seems to be just an assumption (or am I missing something?). The naturalistic explanation I'm tempted by, and which seems to me the best from those available, is that Joseph did indeed bury Jesus, but then, he might as well removed him after the Sabbath ended (and before the women came). If I recall correctly, I saw this position for the first time in James Tabor and don't recall scholars arguing against this possibility. But maybe you do and could point me to some responses to this. Also, this option is compatible with other explanations such as grief hallucinations.
Thank you, Andrej.
On your first point, Matthew does mention that the tomb was his own (Mt. 27:60); this might be part of Matthew's apologetic strategy or perhaps it was a mere inference from Mark?
On your second, there are indeed some classic advocates of this view; quite a few Germans (e.g. Holtzmann, Klausner, Baldensperger) and a host of polemicists. I am inclined to agree with Dale Allison that it is very unlikely, for a number of reasons: (1) Joseph could have spoken up after the disciples proclaimed the resurrection; (2) if he was a sympathiser he could have spoken up; and perhaps more significantly, if the Gospels are to be trusted, (3) he would have moved the stone back; and (4) he would have had to have done this under the cover of darkness, which would have been totally superfluous (Allison; 2021, 339).
Thanks, John. I indeed missed Matthew's comment (Mt 27:60) when looking at these passages now that the tomb belonged to Joseph. It's interesting why he says that since Mark didn't. It's also curious that John's reason is that "the tomb was nearby" and not that it belonged to Joseph (Jn 19:42), but doesn't, of course, necesarily contradict Matthew.
I've looked at Dale Allison (again) and what he says about Joseph. While he doesn't at first reply to the scenario with Joseph of Arimatea (Allison; 2021, 10) he does indeed provide a reply on the page you've noted. While I think it might be possible to respond to some of Allison's rejoinders, one could respond skeptically to anything. And while that it possible, I think we should admit that the ad-hocness increases with every such skeptical rejoinder. So where does one stop saying "But what if...?" That's a good question every skeptic should face.
Tabor provides, to my mind, an interesting reconstruction you could take a look here: https://jamestabor.com/how-faith-in-jesus-resurrection-originated-and-developed-a-newold-hypothesis/ (quite long and; I don't buy it wholesale, and he would need to deal with some of Allison's points)