How many entities in Jesus' tomb: 0, 1, or 2?

[Mike_from_NJ]

You are being disingenuous when you claim A means not-A in the text. Your difficulty comes from imposing your view of A on the passage, when it doesn’t specifically have to be A.

My concern is getting at the actual event through the details provided in the four accounts. Those accounts don’t claim to give the full story, so provided none of the accounts are falsified or contradicted, the actual story behind the accounts can be pieced together.

Your concern seems to be simply to discredit the accounts by holding each to a standard that you impose on it In order to find issues with the event itself.

While I am not convinced there ever was an “actual event” I’m certainly not ruling it out. The idea of going into the texts with the intent of proving the event is true is – well I wouldn’t use the word disingenuous, but I question whether this is the best way to find the truth. A great many logical difficulties are being brushed aside that I am certain would not be if the topic was the logical diffifculties of, say, Mormonism.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The very reason I made sure to add in the word “scholar” was to specify it was of individuals who study the field. Of course it’s not of historians in general else you’d have persons speaking on an issue that they’re not completely qualified to speak on. There are different fields of history historians are trained in including Roman history, Egyptian history, Chinese history, etc. Sure, they overlap, but expertise is what really counts. Habermas is taking into account the scholars of this field and their research.

Now, Habermas admits he is using the term “moderately conservative” very loosely. He indicates this by defining it as individuals who in some way shape or form believe something happened to Jesus. This should then include scholars like, say, E.P. Sanders, who denies the virgin birth and thinks Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, yet admits an empty tomb and resurrection appearances. It may also include someone like Dale Allison, a skeptical scholar who also admits of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances. And again, it may include someone like the late Geza Vermes (died 2013), a liberal Jewish scholar who admitted of the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. Habermas is showing us that moderate conservationism is the “direction of current research trends.” This is why the entire article is about specific research trends on the whole. It’s not only about where research has lead, but also about where current research on the resurrection is heading.

Thank you for this. Of the gentlemen you mentioned I’m only familiar with Geza Vermes. But even with a majority of scholars saying there was likely an empty tomb this doesn’t mean that there was an empty tomb, and it most certainly doesn’t mean there was even one supernatural event associated with an empty tomb. More on topic even if there was an empty tomb the Bible’s significally conflicting reports are not in way evidence of any of them being accurate as to a risen savior. Just because there are several stories revolving around an event doesn’t mean that any of them are true. Sure there could be a nugget of truth in them. As I noted it’s believed by some that characters like Heracles are based on real people. But without evidence – real evidence – it’s reasonable to fall anywhere on the scale between believing and skeptical.

And still we can’t say with any certainty how many entities were in the tomb.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

History has its own domain, and I’m certainly not saying with a definite that the resurrection can be proved or disproved; I am only laying down facts best I can. You have to decide how you want to interpret it.

I agree. I would have liked this post if you’d hadn’t said I was being intellectually dishonest

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There is a difference between saying there were 0 people in a tomb and neglecting to mention who were there. Similarly, saying an angel was there is not the same as saying there was only 1.

It doesn’t help to treat language like taffy, where it can be pulled in any direction to suit our needs. I’ve already gone over the various contradictions a few times now, so I won’t rehash it, but I’ll give a quick example on language. They way it’s being used, undercut to try (and fail) to smooth away significant inconsistencies is like a parent speaking to his or her disobedient child.

A mother tells her daughter not to go to a party and to go to the library. When the daughter comes home late smelling of beer she explains to her mother, “I did go to the library. There I meant Janey and we went to the party. I assumed you said not to go to the party that you meant don’t go to the party without first going to the libray, which I did.”

Remember, the women were who were there for the tomb, the apostles weren’t eyewitnesses to the first time they went to the tomb.

But according to the Bible the women spoke to the Eleven and told them what happened to them. The apostles would all know the same information from the women, thus there should be no variance.

Also, to answer, there was one who rolled back the stone and one who was inside telling them Jesus was not there.

In the detailed attempt at a harmonization earlier in the thread I was told there were 3 angels inside (first 1, then after bowing their heads there were 2 different ones) and 1 outside. If there is a definite answer on this there should be a single agreed-upon answer.

 

[Kei]

It really depends on the emphasis.

Imagine I was ordering a pizza.

A couple days later, I am telling the story of my ordering this pizza to a friend.

Well, around 5 at night, I was getting really hungry, so I was wondering about what it is I could eat, and I looked in my wallet and found 10 dollars. I then realized that the local Pizarus place was having this bang-on deal, something to the effect of 2 pizzas for $9.95. So, I got it, but get this: they gave me diarrhea.

And then contrast it to another time I tell this story,
I ordered pizza from Pizarus just the other day, and it gave me diahhrea.

And then contrast it to
I was so, so hungry because I hadn’t eaten in a couple days because I was fasting, and, stupid I know, I decided to buy some pizza from Pizarus. It was $9.95, but I only found $10 so for the tax I scoured through the house to find some change, and then after looking for 15 minutes I finally had enough to get two pizzas, a Canadian bacon and a pepperoni, but as I ate it, I noticed something tasted weird. I then had some really bad diahhrea, and I am certain that pizza is the reason.

The facts of the thing are a little different depending on my emphasis or purpose, though they are all true.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Oh no, you’re 100% correct. Consensus doesn’t automatically validate a position, and solely using consensus to validate a position would be a logical fallacy. But I think it does speak to something, namely, that scholars in a post-enlightenment world recognize a core historicity to this event, no matter what you think that was or how you interpret it. It points to the Christian view on Jesus’s resurrection being more than just a myth or legend later Christians made up,

Gary Habermas sums it all up in the paper I cited to you by saying,

"But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.
…

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul’s eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul’s second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul’s knowledge of the other apostles’ teachings about Jesus’ appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

I think it has to be acknowledge that something mysterious did indeed happen on that first Easter morning that can’t be 100% explained by purely historical standards; it was something that radically changed the apostles and outcome of Jesus’ message. But again, what that was is up to you. For me, when I put all the evidence together, I can’t see any other way of explaining it but resurrection, but that is theological and goes beyond the explanation of history. History can only give us the best reconstruction possible, and for me, the reconstruction surrounding the historicity of the first Easter only points to the theological without explicitly confirming or denying it.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Harsh words I admit, it was nothing personal though.

 

[James817]

This is my understanding:

Mary M and co. go to tomb. Unknown to them, an angel has rolled away the stone and the guards have fallen like dead men. The women arrive to find the stone rolled away. On entering the tomb, they find out that Jesus’s body is missing. Suddenly two men in dazzling apparel appear before them and tell them the news. Mary M and co return to the disciples scared, yet overjoyed, and tell them the news but they scoff at them. Peter and John run to the tomb and return, utterly amazed by what they see. (Some are inclined to think that the disciple John came to believe in the resurrection. I’m not gonna comment on this.)

The rest of the story is true. Mary is gifted with the honor of being the first person Christ meets after rising from the grave. She meets up with the others sometime later and they see Christ as well.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

it seems like even if reading the Bible doesn’t automatically bring one to the faith it shouldn’t provide repeated stumbling blocks to the faith.

I don’t see how trying to impose your own expectations on the Bible is productive. It’s not like the original authors are going to revise it just to make it better for you.

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s see what Matthew 28 says:
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women…

Let’s take a parallel story…
I tell you:

1. Late Saturday afternoon, my brother John and I went to the hockey game.
2. While we were there a big fight broke out and the referee had to eject 7 players from the game.
3. The coach from the visiting team was so angry at the refs that his face turned as red as a cherry.
4. The refs cowered when he attacked them with a hockey stick.
5. The announcer told us the game would be suspended until things got into control.

Later, you find out from my brother that he went to the game with his friends and I went with my friends.
Does that fact nullify 1. or 2. above?

Would the fact that the announcer spoke to everyone in the arena contradict 5. because I said the announcer “told us” the game would be suspended?
Isn’t the real problem that you presumed what was meant by each point and your presumption gave you the wrong impression?

A contradiction is when two things could not possibly have occurred together as stated. If legitimate possibilities exist to demonstrate that the two supposedly contradictory events could have occurred together there is no contradiction.

There is nothing in the reading of the Resurrection accounts that the women could not have started out separately or together, and thereafter separated, joined together and separated, even numerous times. That kind of thing happens all the time. Maybe the other women got there first, entered the tomb after witnessing the Angels moving the stone, and were joined shortly after by Mary Magdalene who didn’t see how the tomb was opened but heard the Angel. All kinds of alternative possibilities exist. No one could possibly hold the position of omnipresent observer.

The Gospel writers were concerned to tell the story from one or several different accounts. The details may differ depending upon whose account is being related.

None of your issues are actual contradictions because there are numerous ways to reconcile the supposedly discrepant details. You just won’t allow those because you have a vested interest in depicting the accounts as inherently discordant.

The accounts are all limited versions of the actual events which occurred that morning. Precisely because they are limited retellings, not all the details are present in each account. We CANNOT treat them as if they were complete accounts. That is unreasonable. Not even modern newspaper reports on some event capture all of the details. Not even when a videotape is made because camera angles will miss peripheral details and activity.