Finding Jesus's Empty Tomb

[Logicman]

Passages that Matthew and Luke share that are not found in Mark are commonly attributed to a primitive gospel that is called "Q" for "Quelle," which is "source" in German.

Q is nothing more than a liberal hypothesis that has a whole lot of warts.

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

 

[Logicman]

The most enlighten thing here is it seems that none of Biblical enthusiasts can seem to answer the question. I too would be very interested in a cohesive, easy to understand report that ties the "viewpoints together" in way that tells one story of the resurrection: one witness may say that the tomb was 6x6, one may say it was 10x8, one may say that the sun was in his eyes, all those differing accounts notwithstanding, there has to be a scholarly interpretation ties ties all together that says, 1+1+2+1+4 = 9. Every account should equal 9. They apparently do not and that is the conundrum of the OP and the question that I ask.

We're trying to get a full picture. Can any of you assist in that?

None of the Gospels questions whether Jesus was resurrected. They all confirm it, as do various epistles. So don't miss the forest for the trees.

 

[jet57]

None of the Gospels questions whether Jesus was resurrected. They all confirm it, as do various epistles. So don't miss the forest for the trees.

You're not getting my question, or ignoring it. Please read the question and if you can, answer it.

 

[FluffyNinja]

The most enlighten thing here is it seems that none of Biblical enthusiasts can seem to answer the question. I too would be very interested in a cohesive, easy to understand report that ties the "viewpoints together" in way that tells one story of the resurrection: one witness may say that the tomb was 6x6, one may say it was 10x8, one may say that the sun was in his eyes, all those differing accounts notwithstanding, there has to be a scholarly interpretation ties ties all together that says, 1+1+2+1+4 = 9. Every account should equal 9. They apparently do not and that is the conundrum of the OP and the question that I ask.

We're trying to get a full picture. Can any of you assist in that?

Why are you holding this event of ancient history to higher evidentiary standards than any other event of ancient history? Why must all eyewitness accounts align perfectly down to the most minute detail? We don't require this much of other events in ancient history in order to call them credible. I mean, really? Do we honestly expect that every witness at the tomb would carry with them a measuring rope to define the exact cubit dimensions of the burial chamber???

 

[jet57]

Why are you holding this event of ancient history to higher evidentiary standards than any other event of ancient history? Why must all eyewitness accounts align perfectly down to the most minute detail? We don't require this much of other events in ancient history in order to call them credible. I mean, really? Do we honestly expect that every witness at the tomb would carry with them a measuring rope to define the exact cubit dimensions of the burial chamber???

Oh sure we hold other events to a higher standard: archaeological evidence goes along with written accounts in order to verify what is recorded. Helen of Troy and the wars that followed are only written by Homer, but there is nothing else to confirm or deny any of it, so - it's really only a guess. We THINK that The Illiad and The Odyssey were the first real novels, but nobody knows for sure, and there's no evidence for the Trojan Horse...

That said -

All the OP is attempting get, which I am following up on, is concise and cohesive trail of events that be made into one story from all of the Gospel writings. If anything, it's an educational venture, certainly not a denial.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I have often head the empty tomb used as evidence that Jesus is God. This is based on multiple accounts of the experience of multiple eye witnesses in the four gospels. So I would like to hear a consistent account from someone on this forum of what exactly happened with the finding of the empty tomb by the women close to Jesus and the apostles. That is what I really want to hear, a consistent account from all four gospels.

This debate is only about the consistency of the four gospels that is it. So lets try to make an honest effort to tell a story of the finding of the empty tomb from all four gospels that does not contradict any of the four and brings their accounts together. I am asking for someone to do so because I tried and failed to do this. I looked online and could not find anyone who had done this to my satisfaction.

To make this easy, here are the chapters that talk about the finding of the empty tomb:
Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 24
John 20

I hope to have an interesting conversation!

This shows an absence of understanding that is almost stunning!

First, a simple search on Bing or Google will explain that the four gospels were written by four different people for at least four different audiences. What is belabored in Matthew can be ignored in Mark simply because it would likely have little significance to Mark's people. For instance the story of the woman at the well is significant as modern scholars see Jesus deliberately violating the snobby customs of the day to not only engage a woman of ill repute, but tol send her away with the words "Now go, and tell them I have come."

It's importance to non-Jews is the fact the woman is a Samaritan, outcasts from the nation of Israel. So He is establishing that His salvation is available to all.

To comprehend that, you need to understand the various cultures of the times and the influence of Roman occupation. To view the stories of the Bible through our modern lens is to make one of the greatest mistakes in understanding the message.

I propose you do some research and learn what Jesus has to say to those who demand proof. The most astonishing irony in the universe is to have a God who asks for faith and faith alone but is called on by those with no faith to prove Himself.

 

[Fearandloathing]

while the resurrection accounts may seem to be inconsistent, it cannot be proven that the accounts are contradictory.


Here is a possible harmony of the narratives of the resurrection of Christ and His post-resurrection appearances, in chronological order:


Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).

The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (Matthew 27:62-66).

At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).

An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4).

The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2).

The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).

The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8).

The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15).

Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10).

The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11).

Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10).

Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18).

Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).

Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32).

That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35).

Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25).

Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31).

Jesus appears to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25).

Jesus appears to about 500 disciples in Galilee (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7).

Jesus commissions His disciples (Matthew 28:16-20).

Jesus teaches His disciples the Scriptures and promises to send the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-5).

Jesus ascends into heaven (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-12).


Can the various resurrection accounts from the four Gospels be harmonized?

Awesome! Well done!

 

[FluffyNinja]

Oh sure we hold other events to a higher standard: archaeological evidence goes along with written accounts in order to verify what is recorded. Helen of Troy and the wars that followed are only written by Homer, but there is nothing else to confirm or deny any of it, so - it's really only a guess. We THINK that The Illiad and The Odyssey were the first real novels, but nobody knows for sure, and there's no evidence for the Trojan Horse...

That said -

All the OP is attempting get, which I am following up on, is concise and cohesive trail of events that be made into one story from all of the Gospel writings. If anything, it's an educational venture, certainly not a denial.

But you seem to be dodging my question.......Why must this event require such cohesiveness when other events (which are extra-biblical) obviously do not require that level of cohesiveness in order to be deemed credible??

Take the Battle of Hastings for instance....there are hundreds of anecdotal side-stories revolving around the event which cannot be corroborated in such a cohesive way, and yet we consider them to be "credible accounts" because they are found in one significant piece of archaeological evidence or the other, like the Bayeux Tapestry. For example....was William actually shot in the eye by an arrow as the tapestry depicts.....or was this simply symbolism of the "fate of a perjurer" as was tradition of the time? We teach in History courses that it was a factual event, however, there is no real corroborating eyewitness account of it occurring.

Did William actually have three horses killed from under him and did he ride around the battlefield with his "head bared" to instill confidence in his troops? There is much conflicting evidence to these events....and yet we don't hold them to the same evidentiary standards to which the OP holds the events of the tomb (which has at least 3 corroborating eyewitness accounts....which incidentally differ primarily only in minor details).

Are you starting to catch my drift here?

 

[Fearandloathing]

That is interesting but this debate is not about the guards, it is about the consistency of the gospels concerning the empty tomb.

You asked for consistency and then posted yourself that all four accounts mention angels. Now you are given what anyone should consider a brilliant account of logic and you completely dismiss it as though you didn't read it. I suspect you're the kind of guy tat would see Jesus walking on water and demand "why can't he swim?"

 

[Visbek]

Why are you holding this event of ancient history to higher evidentiary standards than any other event of ancient history?

For one thing, we don't take the supernatural claims made by ancient historical sources to be absolutely true, and inerrant reportage of facts.

There are some fundamentalist Christians who proclaim that everything in the New Testament is utterly true, but that is effectively impossible. There are too many inconsistencies for that to be the case; you have to tie your brain into a pretzel to explain them all away (unsuccessfully). The stories of the tomb are a particularly blatant example.

Why must all eyewitness accounts align perfectly down to the most minute detail? We don't require this much of other events in ancient history in order to call them credible.

Does this mean that you accept that Poseidon and Athena were actively involved in the Trojan War? That Xerxes invaded Greece with 1 million soldiers? That Prester John was real?

The reality is that we are often skeptical of historical claims, especially when the claims themselves are incredible. Historians often need to synthesize multiple accounts, including ignoring selected claims, in order to produce an estimate of the truth.

Similarly, divergent descriptions of a single event often provides more information than a mere factual report of events. The story of the tomb becomes increasingly elaborate as time goes on, including later authors adding material to the description in Mark. It suggests the growing importance of the resurrection to the subsequent Jesus movement, and/or a need to bolster those claims to legitimize that movement. It also makes more sense when considering that much of the material in the Synoptic Gospels and John were based at some point on oral traditions. And of course, it is one of many indicators that attributions of apostolic authorship are not historically accurate.

 

[Fearandloathing]

But you seem to be dodging my question.......Why must this event require such cohesiveness when other events (which are extra-biblical) obviously do not require that level of cohesiveness in order to be deemed credible??

Take the Battle of Hastings for instance....there are hundreds of anecdotal side-stories revolving around the event which cannot be corroborated in such a cohesive way, and yet we consider them to be "credible accounts" because they are found in one significant piece of archaeological evidence or the other, like the Bayeux Tapestry. For example....was William actually shot in the eye by an arrow as the tapestry depicts.....or was this simply symbolism of the "fate of a perjurer" as was tradition of the time? We teach in History courses that it was a factual event, however, there is no real corroborating eyewitness account of it occurring.

Did William actually have three horses killed from under him and did he ride around the battlefield with his "head bared" to instill confidence in his troops? There is much conflicting evidence to these events....and yet we don't hold them to the same evidentiary standards to which the OP holds the events of the tomb (which has at least 3 corroborating eyewitness accounts....which incidentally differ primarily only in minor details).

Are you starting to catch my drift here?

Because its about the most controversial, most studied, talked about, hated and loved personality in the universe: God.

No matter what, even when 100% of us all agree to the Apostle's Creed, there will be discord and bitterness of one degree or another; two churches in the same building, both Baptist, one is 'come as you are and sings from lyrics on an overhead. The other likes suits and robes and singing from hymnals....but TWO churches with two administrations etc.

The disbelievers must find holes or "inconsistencies" otherwise God is proven. The great irony is that God asks that we come to Him in faith and faith alone; requiring proof is without faith. Those who know God have no doubts, especially those who have come from hell on earth.

 

[FluffyNinja]

For one thing, we don't take the supernatural claims made by ancient historical sources to be absolutely true, and inerrant reportage of facts.

But this is not what the OP is asking. It's asking for "consistency" in the accounts.....not "proof" that "supernatural" accounts either did or did not occur. Stop trying to derail this thread.

There are some fundamentalist Christians who proclaim that everything in the New Testament is utterly true, but that is effectively impossible. There are too many inconsistencies for that to be the case; you have to tie your brain into a pretzel to explain them all away (unsuccessfully). The stories of the tomb are a particularly blatant example.

Again.....address the OP, as I did. This is a question of evidentiary consistency not a debate on God's "supernatural" nature. Why are you trying to make it one?

 

[FluffyNinja]

Because its about the most controversial, most studied, talked about, hated and loved personality in the universe: God.

No matter what, even when 100% of us all agree to the Apostle's Creed, there will be discord and bitterness of one degree or another; two churches in the same building, both Baptist, one is 'come as you are and sings from lyrics on an overhead. The other likes suits and robes and singing from hymnals....but TWO churches with two administrations etc.

The disbelievers must find holes or "inconsistencies" otherwise God is proven. The great irony is that God asks that we come to Him in faith and faith alone; requiring proof is without faith. Those who know God have no doubts, especially those who have come from hell on earth.

Agreed. I was simply attempting to point out the evidentiary double-standard to which detractors hold nearly EVERY historic account which is Biblical in nature.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Agreed. I was simply attempting to point out the evidentiary double-standard to which detractors hold nearly EVERY historic account which is Biblical in nature.

And did a very credible job!

While reading it, I recalled the film "Troy" with Braaaaad Pitt as Achilles who is portrayed as a petulant womanizing alcoholic. I will venture that you will get more agreement with that account of the Trojan war than any ONE of the many different accounts.

The other, and more fantastic is that despite an entire lack of concrete evidence, a character first portrayed as a hero-idiot, is King Arthur. Just where was that great castle Camelot and what about the dragon and Merlin....nevertheless there are those who accept Arthur as an historical who figure Jesus is the myth.

Then we have good old Robin Hood, a character created out of several ballads of the day in whom many believe.

As CS Lewis [I think] said in the Screwtape Letters "what a strange creature is man."

Now there's an author who should be required reading in high school!

 

[Fearandloathing]

For one thing, we don't take the supernatural claims made by ancient historical sources to be absolutely true, and inerrant reportage of facts.

There are some fundamentalist Christians who proclaim that everything in the New Testament is utterly true, but that is effectively impossible. There are too many inconsistencies for that to be the case; you have to tie your brain into a pretzel to explain them all away (unsuccessfully). The stories of the tomb are a particularly blatant example.



Does this mean that you accept that Poseidon and Athena were actively involved in the Trojan War? That Xerxes invaded Greece with 1 million soldiers? That Prester John was real?

The reality is that we are often skeptical of historical claims, especially when the claims themselves are incredible. Historians often need to synthesize multiple accounts, including ignoring selected claims, in order to produce an estimate of the truth.

Similarly, divergent descriptions of a single event often provides more information than a mere factual report of events. The story of the tomb becomes increasingly elaborate as time goes on, including later authors adding material to the description in Mark. It suggests the growing importance of the resurrection to the subsequent Jesus movement, and/or a need to bolster those claims to legitimize that movement. It also makes more sense when considering that much of the material in the Synoptic Gospels and John were based at some point on oral traditions. And of course, it is one of many indicators that attributions of apostolic authorship are not historically accurate.

Name three.

Be sure to place the quotes in context of the social norms of the day, taking into account when it was written, who wrote it, and who was the intended audience. In some 20 years of study on the Bible the only inconsistency I have found is placing too much importance on one phrase or taking it out of context. There are those, for example, that use ONE LINE in one of Paul's letters to deny women the preacher's podium. Meanwhile, more modern interpretations show that Jesus recruited a Samaritan woman as his first preacher, and who went out of his way to break the stringent and hypocritical treatment of women in that day. That is a matter of interpretation of intent.

So have at it. Give us your examples of "too many" inconsistencies and let us see through the combined study of all of us whether there is any inconsistency in the first place and whether you are simply parroting bull**** you've picked up in a bar

 

[Logicman]

You're not getting my question, or ignoring it. Please read the question and if you can, answer it.

Well first, you're not getting or wanting to admit there is a unanimous consensus regarding confirmation of the resurrection in the Gospels.

Second, there's no passages on the size of the tomb. If you want to try to nitpick alleged contradictions involving the number of angels at the tomb, which women showed up first, etc., then do the smart thing like a forensic policeman and put each passage on a timeline. Then the discrepancies disappear. In fact, this was already done - see link below.

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Of course, when there is no contradiction (the resurrection), you don't believe it anyway, right? So why try to beat to death the minor points when you're kicking to the curb the MAIN EVENT? Or are you?

 

[jet57]

But you seem to be dodging my question.......Why must this event require such cohesiveness when other events (which are extra-biblical) obviously do not require that level of cohesiveness in order to be deemed credible??

Take the Battle of Hastings for instance....there are hundreds of anecdotal side-stories revolving around the event which cannot be corroborated in such a cohesive way, and yet we consider them to be "credible accounts" because they are found in one significant piece of archaeological evidence or the other, like the Bayeux Tapestry. For example....was William actually shot in the eye by an arrow as the tapestry depicts.....or was this simply symbolism of the "fate of a perjurer" as was tradition of the time? We teach in History courses that it was a factual event, however, there is no real corroborating eyewitness account of it occurring.

Did William actually have three horses killed from under him and did he ride around the battlefield with his "head bared" to instill confidence in his troops? There is much conflicting evidence to these events....and yet we don't hold them to the same evidentiary standards to which the OP holds the events of the tomb (which has at least 3 corroborating eyewitness accounts....which incidentally differ primarily only in minor details).

Are you starting to catch my drift here?

I think that you've been missing the point.

An historian, who wants to write a book about a certain period or event in history, will compile different accounts and weave them into one in order to communicate the thesis.

As for Hastings for instance, and Guillaume le Bâtard, the Bayeux Tapestry is a Norman chronicler's version of the invasion. Embellished to be sure, maybe not as accurate as we'd like, but none the less a beautiful display of art that tells the story. We know eh story as whole is true, because we have the chronicles of the marshaling of over seven hundred ships on record, Duke William's rise after his father Robert's disappearance on pilgrimage, William's recognition as the second Duke of Normandy, all the chronicles on the battle of Hastings; whether or not Harold was killed on the beach or further inland we don't know. But we do have William coronated as king William I of England, The Domesday Book, etc etc etc. We know it happened, archaeological record and writings on in two countries over his lifetime tell us that he and his invasion and victory were in fact real.

But you now all that.

So - the Biblical account of the Resurrection: the question is, is there an "historian", a knowledgeable Biblical follower - on this forum - who can take all of the accountings of the Resurrection in total, solve the contradictions, and weave them into one easy to follow report?

Thus far, the answer seems to be - no there isn't. So, no one, particularly me, is giving such a belief a hard time, or denying it. We're just asking for a clarification.

 

[jet57]

Well first, you're not getting or wanting to admit there is a unanimous consensus regarding confirmation of the resurrection in the Gospels.

Second, there's no passages on the size of the tomb. If you want to try to nitpick alleged contradictions involving the number of angels at the tomb, which women showed up first, etc., then do the smart thing like a forensic policeman and put each passage on a timeline. Then the discrepancies disappear. In fact, this was already done - see link below.

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Of course, when there is no contradiction (the resurrection), you don't believe it anyway, right? So why try to beat to death the minor points when you're kicking to the curb the MAIN EVENT? Or are you?

Well, you're going off into verboten territory in the "religious forum". What you believe with reference to the resurrection is the issue. The question is Can YOU summarize all of the accountings and resolve the contradictions?

 

[Logicman]

Well, you're going off into verboten territory in the "religious forum". What you believe with reference to the resurrection is the issue. The question is Can YOU summarize all of the accountings and resolve the contradictions?

I just showed you that they disappear when placed on a timeline. Did your dog eat that?

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

And what about you not getting or wanting to admit there is a unanimous consensus regarding confirmation of the resurrection in the Gospels?

 

[jet57]

I just showed you that they disappear when placed on a timeline. Did your dog eat that?

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

And what about you not getting or wanting to admit there is a unanimous consensus regarding confirmation of the resurrection in the Gospels?

So, you can't do it. Googling it is easy, I was under the impression that someone could do it based on their own Biblical knowledge and expertise, but maybe not.

Unanimous consensus exists with the theological community I'm sure. But that is not the subject. Here is the OP for you. It should clear up your understanding of the subject of the topic:

I have often head the empty tomb used as evidence that Jesus is God. This is based on multiple accounts of the experience of multiple eye witnesses in the four gospels. So I would like to hear a consistent account from someone on this forum of what exactly happened with the finding of the empty tomb by the women close to Jesus and the apostles. That is what I really want to hear, a consistent account from all four gospels.

This debate is only about the consistency of the four gospels that is it. So lets try to make an honest effort to tell a story of the finding of the empty tomb from all four gospels that does not contradict any of the four and brings their accounts together. I am asking for someone to do so because I tried and failed to do this. I looked online and could not find anyone who had done this to my satisfaction.

To make this easy, here are the chapters that talk about the finding of the empty tomb:
Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 24
John 20

I hope to have an interesting conversation!

 

[Logicman]

So, you can't do it. Googling it is easy, I was under the impression that someone could do it based on their own Biblical knowledge and expertise, but maybe not.

Unanimous consensus exists with the theological community I'm sure. But that is not the subject. Here is the OP for you. It should clear up your understanding of the subject of the topic:

Why reinvent the wheel? It's already been done for you.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/redir.../www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm

 

[Visbek]

But this is not what the OP is asking. It's asking for "consistency" in the accounts.....not "proof" that "supernatural" accounts either did or did not occur. Stop trying to derail this thread.

lol... I'm not derailing anything. I'm responding to your post.

You asked the OP why he's holding this event to higher standards, and there are some obvious answers:

• It's a description of a supernatural event, which for some people triggers higher standards of scrutiny
• Some vocal Christians assert that the text is both absolutely true and consistent, which is not the case (and obviously what the OP is trying to call out)
• Some vocal Christians assert various textural claims (such as apostolic authorship, or the absence of an oral tradition) which are undercut by inconsistencies in the text

By the way, I already pointed out to the OP that his standards are a bit too high. I also pointed out to you that we don't necessarily presume that accounts are accurate, merely because they were written down.

Again.....address the OP, as I did. This is a question of evidentiary consistency not a debate on God's "supernatural" nature. Why are you trying to make it one?

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because it's a claim about a supernatural event? We aren't talking about conflicting accounts of the final days of Masada, or the burning of Rome in 64 CE.

 

[Visbek]

Well, you're going off into verboten territory in the "religious forum". What you believe with reference to the resurrection is the issue. The question is Can YOU summarize all of the accountings and resolve the contradictions?

To be fair, Greenleaf has done that work. I don't think Logicman is required to cite it all from memory.

If you look at it, of course, you'll see how many gaps there are in the different versions, and how much work it takes to shoe-horn it into a single narrative. Seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me....

 

[Red_Dave]

But they all have one thing in common: the tomb is empty, Jesus had risen from the dead, and He was seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_sightings

Not to mention the 20 odd gospels that were not in the bible, many of which would contract that statement

 

[jet57]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_sightings

Not to mention the 20 odd gospels that were not in the bible, many of which would contract that statement

I don't know Greenleaf and haven't see the post.

It's not required to recite by rote. I was just curious if anybody knew the material well enough to answer the questions.