For
The Post-Resurrection Scene
McDowell quotes Winfried Cordian
who writes that if there is ever a fact of ancient history that is
indisputable, it should be the empty tomb. He then asserts that the fact that a
church centering on the risen Christ could come about demonstrates that there
must have been an empty tomb.
This argument begs the question
and it’s unclear how the author links existence of a tomb to the Christian
church. Unlike Muslims who make pilgrimages to Mecca, Christians do not make
any pilgrimage to any Nazareth or to any tomb; this shows there is absolutely
no association between the church and any tomb or place.
William Lane Craig is then
quoted as saying that "The empty tomb is a sine qua non of the
resurrection" and asserts further that Jesus' resurrection could not have
been accepted had there been no empty tomb and the Jewish authorities could not
have failed to check whether the tomb was empty.
E.H. Day comments, "If it
be asserted that the tomb was in fact not found to be empty, several
difficulties confront the critic. He has to meet, for example, the example of
the rapid rise of the very definite tradition, the circumstantial nature of the
accounts in which the tradition is embodied, the problem of the failure of the
Jews to prove that the resurrection had not taken place by producing the body
of Christ, or by an official examination of the sepulchre, a proof which it was
to their greatest interest to exhibit (McDowell J., ETDAV, 244)
English barrister Frank Morisson
comments that no responsible person asserted that the body of Christ was still
in the tomb and that we have only got reasons why it was not there. He then
asks "Can we fly in the face of this cumulative and mutually corroborative
evidence?" Then he concludes: "Personally, I do not think we can. The
sequence of coincidences is too strong" (McDowell J., ETDAV, 244)
J.P. Moreland is then quoted to
have said that "In sum, the absence of explicit mention of the empty tomb
in the speeches in Acts is best explained by noting that the fact of the empty
tomb was not in dispute and thus it was not an issue. The main debate was over
why it was empty, not whether it was empty.
Michael Green is also quoted to
have said the Nazareth inscription was a secular evidence of Jesus' empty tomb.
Michael Green says that the Nazareth Inscription is an imperial edict belonging
to either the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) or of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) He
adds that it is an invective, backed with heavy sanctions, against meddling
around with tombs or graves. He concludes that the inscription was the imperial
reaction against the empty tomb. (McDowell J., ETDAV, 245)
McDowell then quotes Frank
Morison arguing that the fact that no one went to pay homage to the shrine of
Jesus Christ must produce a profound feeling of disquiet to a critic. This is
an opinion and is not relevant to establishing whether the resurrection took
place.
McDowell then quotes other
"scholars" who argue that because the grave clothes were
"lying" in a manner to suggest that Jesus' body had resurrected and
left them without Jesus removing them. And that when John saw how they lay, he
needed no further testimony and believed.
Latham is quoted to have said
that the clothes seemed to be saying, "All that was Jesus of Nazareth has
suffered its change and is gone. We, - grave clothes, and spices, and napkin, -
belong to the earth and remain"
(McDowell J., ETDAV, 247)
McDowell observes from Matt 28:4
that the sight, which coincided with Jesus’ resurrection, was frightening enough
to cause rugged soldiers to "become like dead men".
C. S. Lewis, is quoted to have
said that the first fact in history of Christianity is that of a number of
people who said they saw the resurrection, and that if those people had died
without making anyone else believe the resurrection, no gospel would ever have
been written.
Its important to note the
following facts:
So then, how can we reach the
conclusion that he resurrected without these two facts? With these two facts in
mind, one has very strong grounds for dismissing the claim that Jesus rose from
the dead.
Luke 24:36-44 has Jesus “proving” to his disciples that he
is still a physical being (they expected him to be “spiritual”); he even asks
for food and shows his scars and urges them to touch him. If we are to argue
that Jesus had resurrected physically, and had wounds and felt hungry, we must
also ask ourselves:
Since the clothes he was buried
in were found in the tomb, where did he get the clothes he was wearing? Did God
provide them? If God provided them how come Jesus was asking the disciples for
food? Couldn’t God provide food too?
Did it (his asking for food and
eating) mean that even Moses and Elijah (who stood beside him in the
transfiguration) also eat in heaven? And if they do, what are the implications?
What kind of food do they eat? Meat? Vegetables? Are there plants in heaven? Do
they use tables? Plates? If one argues that Jesus ate the food to demonstrate
that he was physical, and not for nourishment, one must also account for what
happened to the food if it wasn’t digested.
In short, it’s ridiculous to
believe that Jesus resurrected physically because it creates a “ridiculous”
scenario. It is also an invalid “theory” because it leaves too many questions
unanswered.
McDowell argues that there was
no refutation to Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost because the evidence
was such that no one could disclaim it. And adds that enemies of Jesus were
reduced to personal attacks against Paul and avoided discussing the silent
witness of the empty grave.
McDowell also argues that the transformed lives of the
disciples is psychological evidence of the resurrection. He provides the
example of James, the brother of Jesus, as one life that got transformed by the
resurrection.
McDowell also presents the
Christian church as evidence of the resurrection alongside the Christian Sunday
and the communion.
Transformed lives, and the
Christian church are evidence of a belief, not evidence of the resurrection.
Even witchcraft and occultism have transformed lives. Does that mean the basis
of witchcraft and occultism is factual?
Lack of refutation to Peter’s
sermon on the day of Pentecost is not evidence that the resurrection could not
be disclaimed: it is just absence of refutation. In any case, going by the
gullibility of the people then (in Acts 28:6, after Paul survives a snake bite,
the people of Malta want to worship him thinking he is a god – they called Paul
Hermes’ manifestation and Barnabas Zeus’ manifestation because a man with bad
feet walked in Acts 14:8-18), it’s likely that even the Jews bought the story
that Jesus had indeed resurrected. And even that does not prove that the
resurrection took place.
Peter’s sermon is in Acts
2:14-36. The part McDowell could be referring to must be Acts 2:24 which says:
“But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it
was impossible for Him to be held in its power.”
First of all, this just shows
that Peter believed Jesus resurrected, not that Jesus actually resurrected.
Secondly, Dasyd Ministry’s website (which is Jewish) tells us:
“…In
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), 10 out of 27 verses are Old
Testament quotations. Acts 2:17-21 has in it verses from Joel 3:1-5. Acts
2:25-28 has in it verses from Psalms 16:8-11. Acts 2:34-35 has a verse from Ps.
110:1. In Paul's sermon in Antioch (Acts 13:16-41), 9 of the 26 verses go back
to the Old Testament.”
What does this tell us? That
those were Peter’s words? It’s clear that the “sermon” was copied from the Old
Testament and then embellished to create a “new” story. This Jewish practice of
copying, interpreting and enlarging from older religious text to draw new
meanings is commonly known as midrash. As I have indicated before, so many New
Testament elements are simply a reworking of the Old Testament stories. We
cannot rely on a story that was obviously copied from another as evidence.
Concerning Latham’s argument that
Jesus’ clothes said: “We, - grave clothes, and spices, and napkin, - belong
to the earth and remain", his argument would only make sense if Jesus
appeared naked after allegedly resurrecting (when Mary Magdalene mistook him
for a gardener in John 20:15, we are not told the gardener was naked). Jesus
still wore clothes. He also had a physical body, about which Genesis 3: 19
says: “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” but he allegedly rose
with his physical body too, so Latham’s “persuasion” that the clothes were
evidence that Christ rose from the dead fails.
William Lane Craig’s argument
that that "The empty tomb is a sine qua non of the
resurrection" fails simply because Paul also believed Jesus resurrected,
but did not believe that there was an empty tomb to accompany the resurrection.
Paul’s account is in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9
'For I
delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died
for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was
raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared
to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at
one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he
appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely
born, he appeared also to me.'
(Note that it has been demonstrated clearly that this
passage was interpolated this has been competently argued by Robert M. Price
who used philological reasons among others to argue the interpolation, but
those aside, who saw the 500 brethren, why 500 and not 504? Who counted them?
Did they buy tickets? And they were not 12 because Judas was dead)
Steven Carr, in The
Resurrection explains that despite the fact that Paul was explaining to
people who doubted the resurrection, Paul did not mention that Jesus was buried
in a tomb near or in Jerusalem, that there was a guard at a tomb, that women
visited the tomb early, that there were earthquakes, angels, burial shrouds
left behind, that Jesus was touched and ate bread (and fish) etc. It’s very
likely that Paul did not know them, its also possible that he did not think
they were important.
He adds:
“In turn the Gospel writers leave out such
convincing evidences as an appearance to 500 brethren or an appearance to
James, the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. The appearances
described by Paul clash head-on with the appearances in the Gospels. Remember
that Jesus could not have appeared to the 'twelve' as Paul said, as Judas was
dead.”
Concerning the phrase “that
he was buried” Carr explains: “Paul uses the word 'etaphe'. This is just
the normal word for burial. It is used in the Gospels in such phrases as 'Let
the dead bury the dead', or 'The rich man died and was also buried' (Luke
16:23). There is no meaning of 'entombed' in the word Paul uses. There is a
word for 'entombed', and it is used in the Gospels, but not by Paul.”
What about the phrase “according
to the scriptures”? Carr explains: “Hosea 6:2 is probably what Paul had in
mind, but it is not about a Messiah. In context, it is about Israel repenting
and being restored. Note that Paul never states that Jesus was 'raised on the
third day in accordance with eye-witness testimony'. He gives no hint that any
of these appearances took place on the third day.”
About “he appeared to Cephas” Carr says:
“The word for 'appeared' is 'ophthe'. This is used a few times in the New
Testament and it is used for other 'appearances' to Paul and Peter. If we look
at those other appearances to Paul and Peter, we can see what Paul meant by
'appeared', which he uses so many times in 1 Cor. 15.
As I mentioned earlier in 1 Corinthians 15:50, Paul
says outright that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'. This is
the best phrase that indicates he did not believe in a physical resurrection.
In summary, Paul’s resurrection concept did not entail an empty tomb so William
Lain Craig’s argument that an empty tomb is the sine qua non of the
resurrection is invalid.
About E.H. Day’s comments that the resurrection is proved
by the failure of the Jews to prove that the resurrection had not taken place
by producing the body of Christ, according to the Gospel accounts, no one other
than Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus and Joseph Arimathea (and perhaps
John’s Nicodemus) knew which tomb Jesus was buried in. It is clear that the
Jews did not know where Jesus’ body was allegedly entombed. Even the disciples
themselves had to be led to the tomb by the women to be shown Jesus’ body.
There is no reason to believe that the Jews were
interested in refuting the resurrection claims because at the time, Jesus’
followers was a small group bound by secrecy; the New Testament indicates that
the apostles only started proclaiming that Jesus resurrected forty days after
Jesus’ alleged death.
Concerning English barrister Frank Morison’s
rhetoric question: “can we fly in the face of this cumulative and mutually
corroborative evidence?” The answer is yes and there is no cumulative evidence.
Besides the important links (whether Jesus was confirmed dead and whether Jesus
was seen resurrecting) are missing and as such this “evidence” cannot be
claimed to be cumulative. It’s not corroborative either because what we have
essentially is one Gospel (Mark), being copied by Luke, Matthew, and John plus
Old Testament elements. Hardly corroborative.
J.P. Moreland’s argument that the absence of
explicit mention of the empty tomb in the speeches in Acts indicates that the
resurrection was accepted as a fact is a weak argument since it can be turned on
its head and one can make the argument that the empty tomb was not mentioned
because no one knew where it was (which has more explanatory power) or that it
was not mentioned because Paul was not aware of it or did not recognize it.
About the Nazareth Inscription, does an invective
prove a resurrection took place? Does the inscription even mention the
resurrection? It doesn’t at all. In fact, it mentions no specific event at all.
The inscription warns people against moving or destroying tombs, moving bodies
or tombs. From Richard Carrier’s The Nazareth Inscription (2000) (a
website), the Inscription had the following words:
Edict of Caesar: [4]
It satisfies me that the graves and tombs
[that] whoever, for the cult worship of ancestors,
makes, or [for the cult worship] of children or household members,
that those [graves and tombs] remain unmoved
throughout their existence. And if anyone charges that
anyone has either destroyed them, or in some other
way made off with what was buried in them, or to another
place with knavish malice
took [these things], for the purpose of doing injury to
the buried, or [had] the door stone or [5]
[other] stones switched, against that
man [who is accused] I order that a trial
occur, just like [a trial] concerning the [cult worship of] gods,
for the cult worship of men.
For it shall be much more necessary
to honor the buried:
[so] let no one at all move them.
Otherwise, that man I
want condemned to death for the charge [6]
of digging through tombs
This edict essentially discourages grave robbing,
ancestral worship and moving/switching graves and door stones. It is general
and does not refer to any specific event.
Even the accounts of Jesus’ post resurrection appearances
in the New Testament clash head on. For example in Acts 1:1-3, the
author says Jesus still appeared to the apostles 40 days after his resurrection
while the Gospel narratives have him appearing to them only a few days after
his death then ascending to heaven.
Send
your comments to jaliet_2000@yahoo.com
