CADRE Comments

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 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...

PART 1: A SEPULCHRAL NO GosMark's author sheerly invented the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth! {/clickbait} This has long been an article of faith for fringe sceptical theories; the most recent wave of which was kicked off back in the 90s by Burton Mack popularizing the theory during the heydey of the Jesus Seminar. Ideas that Mark invented the empty tomb tend to be associated with developmental theories of John Dominic Crossan as well, although he actually argues (somewhat notoriously in how he goes about it and what he tries to make of it) that someone else invented the empty tomb tradition much earlier than Mark did! (For sake of expediency I'm using "Mark" as a shorthand for "the author", without intending an assumption of author identity. More on this qualification soon.) JDC essentially argues that Mark borrowed written material, much later also found in GosPeter. The actual argument for pre-Markan written tomb material (even from Cross...

With the recent school shooting in Connecticut, I wouldn't be surprised if Christmas sermons leaned a little more than usual this year on the incident of Herod slaughtering the baby boys in Bethlehem. I would however be surprised if many Christian sermons bothered to talk about the Old Testament verses being referenced by Matthew (or whoever authored/compiled/redacted/whatever the Greek text of The Gospel According to Matthew --but for ease of reference I'll go with Matthean authorship hereafter). That's because many Christian preachers would have good reason to be nervous about looking into why Matthew cites this incident as fulfilling a prophecy from Jeremiah. I on the other hand think Matthew's reference is hugely important and relevant, not only in regard to Christian hope for innocent victims, but also in regard to Christian hope for those who slaughter the innocent! ...what? Hope in Christ, and in the grace of God, for Herod and for his murderous thugs?! ...

Back in 2006, I was working on an analysis of the Guard Story at the end of the Gospel According to Matthew during Easter season (naturally), when I became involved in an exchange on Victor Reppert's "Dangerous Idea" web journal with his friend the atheistic apologist Dr. Keith Parsons on hallucination theories and visions of Jesus by the first disciples. Along the way, the topic of a missing body logically came up, and aside from the usual points of discussion I provided some hints at what I was analyzing (but was not yet ready to publish anywhere); and also (somewhat more vaguely still!) hinted that this would also help provide an answer to a peculiar question often overlooked in apologetics for or against the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth: why didn't the Sanhedrin fake providing a body?! It was this exchange which led directly to me being invited here to the Cadre as a guest author, and I eventually posted a series of articles on the Adventure of the Gu...

Appendix 1: Wouldn't It Be Equally Plausible For Both Sides To Have Been Ignorantly Inventing Details Against Each Other, Leading Over A Sufficiently Long Period Of Such Invention, Never Corrected On Either Side By Any Actual Facts, To The Shape Of The Data In GosMatt's Guard Story? {inhale} I realize that this question almost answers itself, when put that way. But bear with me--this is an example of the practical importance of checking the details of a theory, which isn't always easy to do. Besides, it gives me a welcome opportunity to cover an angle I didn't discuss directly in my original composition! Recently, “Brap Gronk” ( possibly not his or her real name {g}) contributed the following comment to Part 2 of the series (because that is where I was listing a number of possibilities for consideration of plausibility): I have read all nine parts of this series, although perhaps not all in great detail. So there may be an easy argument against the possibility I propo...

New to the series? I recommend tracing back through previous entries to catch up. Part 8 is here. Part 9: Some Body, Give Us A Summary! I have covered plenty of ground since I began discussing the Key (GosMatt 28:11b-15); so a reminder and summary of developed positions may be handy. I have arranged the positions in a rough combination of evident chronology and topicality. 1.) A man named Jesus existed--the same man whom GosMatt's writer (and his sources, if any) wrote about (and more importantly, for this study, were talking about to some Jews): i.e., Yeshua bar-Yosef, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Nazarene, who came to be called by some: Kristos, Hamaschia, Messiah, the Anointed One. (The Jewish opposition to GosMatt's writer and his audience, or the ones our author had in mind anyway, were not saying "This guy never existed" or "You've got the wrong guy, you should be talking about..." They were saying "Yeah, and his disciples stole his body!...

New to the series? I recommend tracing back through previous entries to catch up. Part 7 is here. Part 8: So Why a Theft? On top of everything else so far, I can build some more inferences from the fact that the counter-Christian report (being addressed by the author of GosMatt in the Key) was "the •disciples• •stole• the body". I will present the most remote and tenuous inference first. If the disciples had to "steal" the body, then by implication the disciples had no legal right to its possession. This (if I am not inferring too far) would be an indication that whoever did have the body, was not one of the people commonly recognized to be Jesus' disciples. Yet neither (certainly) did any of the State Departments have total possession of the body. Yet (again) whoever controlled the body was someone who had enough clout to keep one of the State Departments (namely the Sanhedrin, who set the guards over the body) from simply taking the body themselves and putti...