CADRE Comments

PART 9: IS ANY STICK GOOD ENOUGH TO BEAT AN EMPTY TOMB? Part 1 introduces the question back here, "Did GosMark's author possibly invent the empty tomb?" While acknowledging that the idea isn't metaphysically impossible, I said I would be showing why I would answer no, the author did not possibly invent it, even if I was an atheist. Part 2 refers back to a previous series which (in a systematic argument, starting from extreme scepticism about the sources) decisively indicated that Jesus of Nazareth existed, had disciples, had made enemies of the Sanhedrin, was buried somewhere tomb-like after death and guarded by his enemies, shortly after which his body mysteriously disappeared, and the guards (for a brief period) publicly testified with Sanhedrin support that they all fell asleep allowing Jesus' disciples to steal the body. (Whether their claim about body theft was correct or not was outside the scope of the argument, so far.) Thus the idea equivalent to a...

PART 8: LIKE ONE UNTIMELY BORN Starting from back here , I've been arguing that Mark (the GosMark author) didn't invent the tomb of Jesus Christ or even the emptiness of the tomb: the hypothesis doesn't fit the actual facts of the textual characteristics, and the implications of those textual characteristics, and so I would regard that theory as historically impossible (even though not metaphysically impossible) even if I was an atheist. But as tomb sceptics are well aware, the only earliest texts that mention a tomb are the four canonical Gospels -- and Acts, which people are sometimes less aware of, since the tomb and its emptiness are only mentioned by heavy implication once (in Simon Peter's first sermon) and only mentioned once explicitly in the first main report of a sermon from Paul of Tarsus. Some sceptics, not only Jesus Myth proponents (though naturally them, too), like to appeal to an argument from silence in the epistles (and RevJohn) about the tomb, ...

PART 7: DISAPPEARING ACTS OF THE TOMB Part 1 of this series is way back here. Recently I've been looking at curious problems surrounding the empty tomb narratives in the Gospels and how they point away , in one or two categories I think quite decisively, from GosMark's having invented the empty tomb. But enough about the Gospel accounts. How about some disappearing Acts? No, not the Ascension account in Acts. I'm talking about the tomb! 7.) The canonical book of Acts is quite notable, not only for having some seriously primitive(-seeming) language in talking about the risen Jesus, but in a lack of detail during reported preaching about the empty tomb. And by a lack of detail, I mean almost no mention of the tomb at all! To begin with, it's important to notice, and to keep in mind, that regardless of whether Acts and GosLuke were written by the same guy, and regardless of any redactional theories of Acts' composition; whoever put Acts together in its fina...

PART 6: SPECIAL AUTHORITATIVE SNOWFLAKES SHATTERING ON A TOMB In recent parts of this series (which starts back here) , I've been looking at how various subtle problems around the empty tomb in the Gospel narratives, just don't mesh well with the idea that GosMark's author invented the empty tomb. I've passed by the topic of today's entry a couple of times already, but now I'm going to focus a squinty eye on it more closely. (If I sound not that reverent to some parts of the topic, that's because per Part 1 I'm talking about why I would think GosMark's author did not invent the empty tomb even if I was an atheist.) 6.) The canonicals, including GosMark, jump through hoops to make the blundering apostles relevant authorities to their readers, especially thanks to being eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus who posthumously reaffirms their authority, gives them spiritual power, etc. But in none of the accounts, including GosMark, and even including t...

PART 5: OBLIVION-GUSHING DOES NOT HELP We've been doing this a while, starting back here at Part 1. Currently I'm looking at a number of problems that tend to cluster around the Gospel tomb accounts, and how their existence as problems doesn't follow cleanly from the proposal that GosMark's author simply invented the tomb (or even its emptiness). In the previous Part, that problem was women being the first witnesses to the tomb, in the sense of them being women at all. But there are more subtle problems associated with those women: 4.) GosMark's invention of the tomb, and so of the women being at the tomb (or even his invention of the women, too), does not fit the embarrassing GosLuke material of the apostles deriding the women's report as "oblivion-gush". Peter is a partial exception in GosLuke; but the brief verse about him rushing out to check the tomb is late (and meant to clarify something in the Emmaus story itself about people, plural...

PART 4: LOVE A TOMB At this point rather than providing a summary, it's probably better to just start back at Part 1 with the introduction of the question, or Part 2 with the first decisive reason why I answer, "Nope, I don't think it's possible that GosMark's author did invent the empty tomb," and why I would argue that even if I was an atheist. But in Part 3 , I ended by pointing out that even though the tomb story was clearly accepted by Christian groups broadly without any known early competition against it and without any evident problems in itself, tomb stories did still tend to come with associated problems. And those associated problems, I'll be arguing, add to the evaluation. One such problem, mentioned back in Part 1, is that, whenever GosMatt was written, at least some Jewish opponents were appealing to a very early accusation, with authoritative force, of disciples having stolen the body; an explanation that, despite its own associate...

PART 3: A FLOCK OF TOMBS In Part 1 , I introduced the question of whether it's possible the GosMark author invented the empty tomb; and in Part 2 I referred back to a detailed analysis of options, concerning a remnant of Christian vs Jewish polemic in GosMatt, that answers a decisive and sepulchral "NO!" But that evidence doesn't stand alone, out on the edge of a pond in the mist. There's a substantial amount of unquiet quacking going on around the pond! Thus we come to: 2.) At no point in any layer of early tradition is there any alternative proposed to an empty tomb. That includes Paul, who is at worst only neutral on the topic of how Jesus was buried. Where the topic isn't neutral, though, the tomb is the only option in view. This might not seem like a major piece of evidence; and I admit it usually isn't treated as such. As I said in Part 1, my list is topical in order, not in order of importance; and so I acknowledge this isn't anywhere...

PART 2: IF IT WADDLES LIKE A TOMB AND IT QUACKS LIKE A TOMB... In Part 1 , I introduced the question, "Is it possible that the author of GosMark invented the empty tomb?" After circling the question to get a bead on it, I said I would be answering with a (sepulchral) "NO!" -- and that I would still answer this, even if I was an atheist or some other relevantly similar non-Christian. But I didn't start giving any reasons yet for why I myself would answer that way regardless of my religious beliefs or lack of them. So where will I actually start? Where I said I had already started as a procedural test, several years ago: 1.) After a ridiculously exhaustive multi-part analysis of various hypothetical options , starting from extreme scepticism about the source material (as in, everything is totally being made up by the author), I concluded that the only historically plausible theory explaining the resulting polemic exchange concerning the tomb guards in G...