TS: In today's dialogue, I'd like to discuss the evidence for the empty tomb.
NA: Interesting.
Liberal: I'm skeptical of the historicity of the empty tomb. I think it was an invention of the early Church.
TS: What evidence can you offer in favour of such claim?
Liberal: Basically, 3 lines of evidence support my skepticism:
1-In Paul's earliest tradition, there is no mention of the empty tomb.
2-The stories of the empty tomb in the Gospels are full of holes and hopeless contradictions.
3-(Suppoting point 2): There is an alternative burial story in Acts which contradicts the burial stories in the Gospels.
TS: Let's discuss each of these objections to the empty tomb story and let's begin with your first one:
It is true that in the very early material handed down by Paul, not explicit mention of the empty tomb is done. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-9, Paul writes:
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9
Now, how exactly the above text refutes or undermines the historicity of the empty tomb?
Liberal: Because the empty tomb is not mentioned there.
TS: Jesus' death specifically by crucifixion is not mentioned there either. Does it make the crucifixion non-historical and an invention of the Church?
Liberal: Surely not, but in the case of the empty tomb it is improbable that Paul would have omitted it.
TS: Why?
Liberal: Because he's trying to defend the historicity of the resurrection and the empty tomb is key in such defense if it were a defense of the physicality of the resurrection.
It suggests that Paul's view of the resurrection was not physical, but purely spiritual, that is, non-physical.
It suggests that Paul's view of the resurrection was not physical, but purely spiritual, that is, non-physical.
TS: But Paul mentions that Jesus was "raised".
Liberal: So what?
TS: That for Jews, specially for pharisees like Paul, the resurrection is a resurrection of the body. This is what resurrection means in a literal sense. And if Jesus was "raised", Paul is implying that an empty tomb was left, because you cannot have a resurrection with the dead body still in the tomb (it would be a contradiction in terms).
Liberal: But Paul doesn't mention it.
TS: But he's implying it. How could Jesus be raised from the death "on the third day" if his body was still in the tomb?
Liberal: Perhaps because Paul doesn't have in mind a physical resurrection, just a spiritual (non-material) resurrection.
TS: Your "perhaps" attributes to Paul an unJewish view about the resurrection. Claiming that a resurrection was purely spiritual (=inmaterial) but not physical is like arguing that, for political libertarians, capitalism is "perhaps" a system based on the destruction of the private property and personal freedom.
By resurrection, Jews meant physical or bodily resurrection, not simply the inmortality of the soul.
According to liberal scholar Dale Allison:
there is no good evidence for belief in a non-physical resurrection in Paul, much less within the primitive Jerusalem community....(Resurrecting Jesus, p. 317)
Liberal: But in 1 Cor 15, Paul defends that the risen body is a "spiritual body", when he writes:
So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.
TS: Right, but you're assuming that by "spiritual" Paul means "immaterial". This is not Paul's point.
He's teaching that the purely natural body which is buried is raised trasnformed into a supernatural, powerfully spiritual body like Jesus'.
This is why Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body" (note that what is sown is the physical body, not the soul).
Such physical body is, after the resurrection by God, transformed into a new, spiritual, supernatural body which is adequate for immortality and entering God's kingdom.
This is why Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body" (note that what is sown is the physical body, not the soul).
Such physical body is, after the resurrection by God, transformed into a new, spiritual, supernatural body which is adequate for immortality and entering God's kingdom.
As Dale Allison comments:
Even Paul, in 1 Cor 15, when defending the notion of a "spiritual body", teaches -like Bar 51:10- the transformation of corpses, not their abandonment" (ibid)
If Paul were teaching simply the soul's immortality in a inmaterial sense, then his expression "it is sown" make no sense since the soul is never "sown". What is "sown" is the DEAD BODY. How do you "sown" an inmaterial soul (specially in the moment of death, in which the soul becomes "free" of the body)?
When Paul says that it is "sown perishable", clearly he's referring to the DEAD BODY which biologically is decaying, not to the soul which is immortal. How could an immortal soul to be perishable before the resurrection? What is perishable is the body when the soul separates from it in the moment of death.
Liberal: It is a matter of interpretation.
TS: Right, but your interpretation is an implausible one.
In order to make plausible your interpretation, we have to assume:
1-That a Pharisee like Paul conflated, contrary to everyone else (including the rest of Pharisees), the resurrection of the body with the Greek notion of the immortality of the soul. We have not evidence for such un-Jewish confusion in a Jew like Paul.
2-That by "spiritual body", Paul is referring to the immaterial soul (which is a contradition in terms, since the soul is not a body in the Jewish thinking).
3-That an immaterial soul can be "sown", which makes less sense (in the context of a resurrection) when compared with "sowing" a dead body.
4-That Jesus died, but his soul only left the body 3 days after his death (which is a contradiction in terms, since the death is precisely the soul leaving the body). Otherwise, if Paul had in mind purely the immortality of the soul, how could you explain his claim that Jesus was "raised on the third day" (after his death and burial)?
5-That Paul egregiously misunderstood Jesus' disicples claim that Jesus was risen in a bodily resurrection, and that the post-Pauline disciples of the Church, were stupid and morons who misunderstood Paul's own teaching about the immortality of the soul and then thought of the physical resurrection (as seen in the Gospels). This assumes that both Paul and the post-Pauline disciples were stupid who misuderstood and conflated the experiences of the risen Jesus in a physical body with a ghost-like apparitions and viceversa).
When you see a ghost, you conclude that you're seeing the spirit of a dead person, not that such person came to life again in his own body. Nobody seeing a "ghost" of his mother would tell "Wow, my mom was risen from the dead. I guess her tomb is empty too, like Jesus'!". Most likely, you would conclude that you saw the spirit of your dead mother (which confirms the fact that she's dead, in a physical-biological sense).
And this is not just the conclusion of "modern men" like us, but of first century Jews too.
Like any other culture, Jews were familiar with afterlife phenomena and stories, and they knew what "ghosts" were.
We find evidence in the Gospels of this distinction. For example in Luke 24:36-46:
While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”[a] 37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.[b] 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.
The disciples were familiar with "ghosts" (i.e. afterlife apparitions of the spirits of dead people) and, like it is common in many cultures, they were terrified with such experiences (i.e. they feared ghosts). Jesus had to make an explicit his effort to clarify to the disciples that they weren't seeing a ghost, but himself in his own physical body.
The disciples' disbelief was so strong, that Jesus even was forced to EAT in order to provide irrefutable evidence of the physicality of his apparition and refute their misguided skepticism about the nature of it.
More evidence that the first century Jews, like any other culture, were aware of "ghosts", is found in Mark 6: 45-56:
When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. 48 When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. 49 But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; 50 for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” 51 Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, 52 for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
Here, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea, they misidentified him and thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus had to clarify that it was himself ("It is I"), not a ghost of a dead person.
Liberal: Now you're a believer in ghosts! What an amazing scientific truth-seeker are you!.
TS (used to the liberal's sophistry, simplistic rejoinders and tendency to misrepresentation, TS clarifies): I'm showing evidence that the first century Jews KNEW what ghosts were. This evidence is crucial, because what the early disciples claimed was that Jesus was RISEN from the death in his earthly physical body, not that Jesus appeared to them in ghostly form.
Liberal: This is not evidence at all, all of such miracle stories are fictional and mythological, created after Jesus was exalted and seen as divine by his disciples.
TS (realizing that it is a waste of time to challenge him AGAIN to provide evidence for his claims, TS presses another point): This is irrelevant. Even if such stories were false, it is clear that the first century Judaism's conceptual framework discerned between "ghosts" and resurrections.
This is the point that I'm making right now.
In conclusion, ALL the above 5 unlikely and ad hoc assumptions are necessary to provide plausibility to the liberal position that Paul was teaching the immortality of the soul alone.
But all the 5 assumptions become unnecesary if, like everyone else, we think that Paul referred to the physical body when talking about the resurrection of the dead, which fit better the evidence.
Liberal: I'm unpersuaded by your argumentation.
TS: Fine, but it is clear that your view rests on assumptions which are arbitrary, contrived, ad hoc and in tension with the evidence.
At most, your interpretation is possible, but it is unlikely given the overall available evidence.
This is typical in liberal scholarship: Its prejudice against the Christian view of Jesus is so intense, so powerful, that such liberals try to arrive to anti-Christian conclusions whenever they see a little room for it (even if such room is in tension with the overall evidence and make no sense in the light of it).
We'll see another dramatic example of such liberal prejudice when addresing my liberal friend's objection 3 regarding a supposed "alternative burial story" in Acts.
This is typical in liberal scholarship: Its prejudice against the Christian view of Jesus is so intense, so powerful, that such liberals try to arrive to anti-Christian conclusions whenever they see a little room for it (even if such room is in tension with the overall evidence and make no sense in the light of it).
We'll see another dramatic example of such liberal prejudice when addresing my liberal friend's objection 3 regarding a supposed "alternative burial story" in Acts.
Liberal: I disagree.
TS: Hypothetical readers of these dialogues will have to draw their own conclusions.
I've addressed your first objection to the historicity of the empty tomb. In future dialogues, I'll address your other 2 objections and provide independent, positive evidence for the empty tomb traditions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment