Many New Testament scholars do not consider the empty tomb story historical, for several reasons.
The earliest and most prolific New Testament writer, Paul, says nothing about it. Craig, of course, claims that Paul implies the empty tomb story in two places.
Craig also claims that the expression `on the third day' points to the discovery of the empty tomb, but as New Testament scholar Reginald Fuller points out, the phrase "on the third day" is tied to the expression "he was raised," and not to the discovery of the empty tomb. Moreover, there are good reasons to doubt that Jesus was ever buried in a tomb at all. the Romans usually denied burial to victims of crucifixion, as the last means of humiliation. Jesus may have been buried in a common grave.
The disciples never appeal to the evidence of the empty tomb in order to strengthen the faith of the Church or to refute and convince opponents. If the disciples did not consider the empty tomb as evidence for the resurrection, it is therefore unclear why anyone else should, either.
"The simple fact of the empty tomb provides no proof of the truth of the resurrection. As an argument it would beg the question. All that is conveyed by the empty tomb is: `He is not here.' We have to add: `He is risen.' And this is by no means self-evident." At any rate, we may reasonably conclude that Craig is wrong, and that one can object to the empty tomb purely on historical grounds.
The Contemporary Debate on the Resurrection
Secular Objections to the Resurrection
Assessment
Craig's Arguments
So much for McDowell's arguments. But are there any historical grounds on which a rational person can disagree with a heavy-weight like Craig? Let's consider each of his three alleged facts - the empty tomb, the appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith - in turn.
The Empty Tomb
Many New Testament scholars (for example Borg, Crossan, Fuller, K�ng, Marxsen, et al) do not consider the empty tomb story historical, for several reasons. First, the earliest and most prolific New Testament writer, Paul, says nothing about it. Paul, of course, does refer to the resurrection - he makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that it is central to his teaching - but he never mentions an empty tomb. Even in 1 Corinthians, when he is trying to convince people of the resurrection, he "never mentions either the witnesses of the empty tomb or the empty tomb itself" (K�ng, p. 363).
Craig, of course, claims that Paul implies the empty tomb story in two places. According to Craig (1988, p. 274), the phrase `he was buried' followed by the expression `he was raised' implies the empty tomb, but this assumes that Paul believed the burial tradition of the gospels. Unless Craig can prove that Paul believed that Jesus was buried in a tomb, there is no reason to assume the phrase "he was buried" implies an empty tomb. Craig also claims (Ibid.) that the expression `on the third day' points to the discovery of the empty tomb, but as New Testament scholar Reginald Fuller points out (p. 23), the phrase "on the third day" is tied to the expression "he was raised," and not to the discovery of the empty tomb. Moreover, there are good reasons to doubt that Jesus was ever buried in a tomb at all. According to John Dominic Crossan, the Romans usually denied burial to victims of crucifixion, as the last means of humiliation. Crossan suggests that Jesus may have been buried in a common grave.
In addition, the earliest reference to the empty tomb, which was written in Mark around 70 CE, tells us that some women discovered the empty tomb but told "no one." Thus, presumably "no one" heard the tale of the empty tomb until some time had passed. Some scholars (Borg, p. 15) think this suggests that the empty tomb story arose after a belief in the resurrection rather than vice versa. Since Mark ended his gospel at verse 8 with the women running away and telling no one what they had seen, this could easily be interpreted as an attempt on Mark's part to present a plausible reason why there had been no early tradition of an empty tomb. The women were so afraid that they didn't tell anyone what they had seen; hence, that would be why the early tradition didn't develop. No one knew about it because of the silence of the women who had seen the empty tomb. And even if one could show that the women claimed the tomb was empty, one would still need to prove that the women were reliable witnesses. It is unclear how this is possible given what little we know of them.
Finally, as K�ng notes, "The disciples never appeal to the evidence of the empty tomb in order to strengthen the faith of the Church or to refute and convince opponents" (p. 366). If the disciples did not consider the empty tomb as evidence for the resurrection, it is therefore unclear why anyone else should, either.
Because of these reasons (and others), serious Christian scholars like Borg, Bostock, and Crossan have been forced to dismiss the empty tomb story, while still trying to affirm the Easter event. As Christian philosopher James A. Keller wrote (p. 48), "Given this diversity of expert opinion, we cannot with any confidence use the empty tomb stories as a basis for concluding how those involved in the Easter event understood the resurrection."
However, even if the above reasoning is incorrect and the empty tomb is historical, an empty tomb does not prove that a resurrection has occurred (Ranke-Heineman, p. 134; Kung, p. 365; et al). As K�ng so eloquently writes (Ibid.), "The simple fact of the empty tomb provides no proof of the truth of the resurrection. As an argument it would beg the question. All that is conveyed by the empty tomb is: `He is not here.' We have to add: `He is risen.' And this is by no means self-evident." At any rate, we may reasonably conclude that Craig (1995, p. 9) is wrong, and that one can object to the empty tomb purely on historical grounds.
Page 15
Go to Page 16
These files, and many more are available at the Secular Web: http://www.infidels.org/. For more information send mail to [email protected]
- Go back to The Rock Temple
NOVO's Library