On Jesus' Resurrection

[prodigalson2011]

Yes, we’ve all heard this old chestnut, but I don’t think anyone should (nor does) accept this. See, there is a species of inference known as ‘noseeum’ inferences that this precludes. Th noseeum inference goes: 1. I don’t see X. 2. Therefore, there is no X. We make this inference, for instance, when before crossing the street, we form the belief that there are no cars and infer from this that there are none, proceeding to cross. As the skeptical theists weren’t shy to point out though, this isn’t always reasonable. E.g., i can’t look up at the sky and infer there is no galaxy X simply because i can’t see it. They suggested that this inference, which we make all the time, is only reasonable if we should expect to see X if it was there. Thus, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when we should expect there to be something where there is not.

I don’t agree that the “noseeum” inference applies here. The example you cite pertains to inferences drawn from immediate experience, not from rather brief ancient texts that by no means present an exhaustive account of the author’s beliefs. Apples and oranges would be an understatement in this case.

The only way this can address my argument is if you could show these reasons make it unlikely that Paul would mention the empty tomb, but they don’t. These reasons didn’t deter Paul frommaking any of those points helpful to his purpose of writing.

Well, to be honest, I think this is a case of nitpicking on yours and other critics’ parts. To many, present author included, implicit in the discourse of 1 Cor. 15 is the empty tomb. Paul’s insistence that Jesus was raised and appeared to over 500 witnesses doesn’t seem to mesh with the idea that Paul believes that Jesus is still lying about in a tomb.

Now, I’ll offer you a perfectly sound reason for Paul to have omitted this argument from his discourse. It is important to remember that in dealing with historical events, you are not dealing in abstract philosophical principles and hypothetical incidents. There are a wealth of factors to consider, and there’s one of particular importance that you fail to take into account: Geography.

Are you aware that Corinth is about 830 miles away from Jerusalem, where Jesus was buried? Tell me, in those days, what good arguing about an empty tomb 830 miles away would have done to convince anybody? It’s not like they could go and investigate it for themselves and refute it.

It seems glaringly obvious that Paul would have had to use subtler arguments for a society so far separated from the source of its faith. You can’t hold an ancient society nor its system of social discourse to the standards of a world endowed with high speed transit and numerous means of instantaneous global communications.

Not only is this precisely what’s in dispute, so it begs the question, but you’ve given no reason to agree.

Not only would I say it’s not in dispute, I would have to say I was being generous in stating it so hypothetically. The entire spread of Christianity was predicated on the belief of the resurrection of Jesus. Necessarily implicit in this is an empty tomb. The alternatives proposed are desperate reaches.

Granted, but how is this relevant? Paul is pulling every trick out of the bag…except one of his strongest arguments?

Just to reiterate: In that time and location, it was NOT a strong argument. In fact, in that historical/geographical context, it would have been his WEAKEST argument.

Unlike you or I, the Corinthians could not have hopped a flight to Jerusalem and gone to visit the tomb or interrogate the locals. Any explicitly physical arguments in that time and place would have been null and void. They refer to a place that was, to the average Corinthian, totally inaccessible and, thus, argumentatively irrelevant.

You didn’t really support your objections and claimed there were many fallacies in my argument but only mentioned a few. Unless you list them, I can’t interact with your claim.

No, my words were that the argument was riddled with fallacies, but this doesn’t necessarily mean there are many different fallacies present. A single fallacy can appear in more than one statement. There were four which I found, all of which I named in my previous post:

The fallacy of assumption
The argument from ignorance
The argument from silence
The psychologist’s fallacy

 

[Perplexity]

I don’t agree that the “noseeum” inference applies here. The example you cite pertains to inferences drawn from immediate experience, not from rather brief ancient texts that by no means present an exhaustive account of the author’s beliefs. Apples and oranges would be an understatement in this case.

Rather than disagree that the noseeum inference is a good defeater to the principle that ‘absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence’, you’ve chosen instead to argue that the noseeum inference isn’t applicable to ancient history, or at least 1 Cor. 15. So, I take it that you’ve abandoned this principle to pursue another objection.

It’s important to note that rejecting this principle deprives us of the right to say, a priori, that an argument from silence is fallacious (since it’s essentially the claim that the absence of evidence (silence) is evidence of absence). In order to salvage these two objections (the principle, and the claim that my argument from silence is fallacious) you must reject the noseeum inference altogether. Given the wealth of absurdities that flow from that, I’ll assume we’ll just cut our losses at this point.

Now, should we accept your new objection? Well, it appears you try to support your claim that the inference isn’t applicable here because the examples I provided are of immediate experience and not of texts like 1 Cor. 15. This is simply non-sequitur though. It doesn’t follow that the noseeum inference can’t be made with 1 Cor. 15 simply because the examples I’ve used to explain what the noseeum inference was, involved direct experience.

Well, to be honest, I think this is a case of nitpicking on yours and other critics’ parts. To many, present author included, implicit in the discourse of 1 Cor. 15 is the empty tomb. Paul’s insistence that Jesus was raised and appeared to over 500 witnesses doesn’t seem to mesh with the idea that Paul believes that Jesus is still lying about in a tomb.

Paul’s proclamation of the kerygma is only at odds with Jesus’ corpse remaining a corpse (despite where it was) on the assumption that resurrection involves transformation of the corpse itself and not the transference of the person to an entirely new body. Since my argument is that it’s very unlikely 1 Cor. 15 would appear as it does (without mention of the empty tomb) given that Paul held this assumption, your point here merely begs the question.

Are you aware that Corinth is about 830 miles away from Jerusalem, where Jesus was buried? Tell me, in those days, what good arguing about an empty tomb 830 miles away would have done to convince anybody? It’s not like they could go and investigate it for themselves and refute it.

I’ll concede that this is a good response to my claim that Paul would demand of the Corinthians to produce the body. But, does this mean that Paul couldn’t have employed the empty tomb as a powerful argument for his purposes in 1 Cor. 15, indeed as a stronger argument than other things he appealed to? Not at all. The reasoning involved in arguments from the empty tomb nowadays (i.e., was the body stolen? Swoon? Invented? etc.) would carry no less force in Paul’s day.

Not only would I say it’s not in dispute, I would have to say I was being generous in stating it so hypothetically.

How can you possibly believe it’s not in dispute when it’s what we’re currently disputing?

Your accusation of fallacies confuses me:

The fallacy of assumption

What is the fallacy of assumption? I’ve never heard of it. You simply said I was assuming x, y and z and claimed that this was fallacious. How is it?

The argument from ignorance

An argument from ignorance is one that claims a proposition is true because it hasn’t been shown false, or vice versa. How have I done this?

The argument from silence

As I’ve shown, arguments from silence aren’t necessarily fallacious. They can be, but they needn’t be. For example, is the following bad reasoning?

1. I do not see a physical rhinoceros right next to me at this very moment.
2. Therefore, there is no physical rhinoceros next to me at this very moment.

(The assumption is that if there was one, I’d see it, but since I don’t, it’s not there).

The psychologist’s fallacy

While you accused me of committing this, you didn’t give me any reason to agree with you.

 

[danserr]

danserr: Let’s start with the empty tomb.

…

1. If Paul probably did not believe in the empty tomb, then the empty tomb is improbable.
2. Paul probably did not believe in the empty tomb.
3. Therefore, the empty tomb is improbable.

.

I am inclined to agree with your first point. If Paul did not believe in the empty tomb, then it seems highly improbable that there would be an empty tomb. Of course, the flip side is that if Paul believed in the empty tomb, then there probable was one.

Now for your claim that Paul did not believe in the empty tomb to be probable, you need two things to be true:

1. That Paul did not mention the empty tomb explicitly indicates that he did not believe in it.
2. Resurrection did not imply an empty tomb; God would give the person a new body while his old corpse lay behind in the tomb.

• As a subset of 2., you need it to be probable that Paul himself believed this (ie. this may have been what some people believed, (though I very much doubt it for reasons below), but unless you can show that Paul himself believed it, it does not help you all that much.

Now neither of these seem to me to be at all probable. I will list a few reasons for so thinking:

1. The idea of Resurrection implies an empty tomb. In 1 Cor. 15:3-5, Paul writes that Jesus “died…and that he was buried… and that he was raised on the third day according to scriptures, and that he appeared to Kephas…”

• As N.T. Wright points out, Resurrection implied an empty tomb. Without the empty tomb, the disciples would have simply believed the appearances of Jesus to be hallucinations or seeing a ghost. They had a language for such things. It was called seeing ghosts. This is why when the early Christians believed Peter to have been executed and then he knocked on a door. The woman who answered the door was simply dismissed by the others in the house who said “It’s just his angel (spirit/ghost)” (Acts 12:15). Without the empty tomb, people, including Paul would have assumed the same about Jesus. They would have said they saw his ghost, not that he had been resurrected.
• E.E. Ellis comments: “It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive any distinction between resurrection and a physical grave-emptying resurrection. To them, anastasis (Resurrection), without an empty tomb would have been just as meaningful as a square circle.”

1. Paul’s own letter to the Corinthians implies that he thought the risen body was the transformed old body, not a totally new one.
   In 1 Cor. 15:36-58, Paul implies that the risen body will be the same as the body that dies, but will be that body transformed.
   a). “What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies” (36).
   b). “So also the Resurrection of the dead, it is sown corruptible, it is raised incorruptible. It is sown dishonorable, it is raised glorious. It is sown weak, it is raised powerful. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (42-44)”
   c). " We shall not all fall asleep, but all will be changed… for the trumpet will sound, the dead be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility.

You can see in these passages that Paul always speaks as if Resurrection does not mean getting a new body wholly separate from the old one. Instead, for him, Resurrection obviously means that the old body will be changed. This is implied by the imagery in a, made clearer in b, and stated explicitly in c when he says that "what is corruptible (which he already indicated in *b *referred to the body), must put on incorruptibility.

Hence, if Paul believed in the Resurrection (as he certainly did), then he certainly believed in the empty tomb.

B. 1 Cor. 15:3-5 indicates Paul’s belief in the empty tomb. Here Paul is quoting an old Christian saying: “died…and that he was buried… and that he was raised on the third day according to scriptures, and that he appeared to Kephas…”

• repeated use of “and that” before each line was unnecessary from a literary view. Taken to refer to very early material that lines up with burial and resurrection accounts in Mark 15:37-16:8. The third line in Paul “and he was raised” corresponds to the discovery of the empty tomb in this account. Hence, in this formula, Paul was including a reference to the empty tomb.

1. Our knowledge about Jewish burial practice supports that Resurrection implied an empty tomb.

• from Thiede, Jesus: Man or Myth (p.113). “In those days, Jews practiced second burial-- after several months when the flesh had decayed, the tomb was reopened and the bones were placed in a bone casket, an “ossuary”, awaiting the bodily resurrection according to Ezechiel 37:7-14 when new pure flesh and skin would be put on them.”
• Hence, Jewish burial practice indicates that it was commonly believed that Resurrection implied that the risen body would be the same body as that that died.

1. Jewish Texts from the period, indicate common belief that the risen body would be the same body that died: From the caves at Qumran

• 4Q 521, “For he shall heal the pierced, revive the dead, and bring good news to the poor.” Quoting Thiede 109: “the final fragment implies the bodily resurrection: “and he will open the tombs.””
• 1 QH 19, “… and share the lot of your holy ones, so that bodies gnawed by worms may be raised from the dust to the counsel of your truth.”
  This implied the body raised will be the same one “gnawed by worms.” Hence, supports the idea that the risen body would the the same body that died, transformed.

 

[danserr]

What better way to disprove the Corinthian error than saying, if Jesus didn’t bodily resurrect, why was his tomb empty? Produce the body!

The odd thing is that he does not mention it. And this is all the stranger given that he enlists weaker arguments than the empty tomb would’ve been. e.g., check out his reductio in v. 29.

Some try to argue that he strongly implies it, but this isn’t enough, especially given the amount of time he devoted to weak-sauce arguments (by comparison) like that of v. 29.
.

So, it should be apparent that it is very clear that Paul did indeed believe that the risen body was the same as the dead body, hence to him, the Resurrection of Jesus implied an empty tomb. Frankly, it is like that by saying “Jesus was died and buried and risen” itself was a direct reference to a well known story that contained the empty tomb.

Now your main argument that Paul did not believe in the empty tomb, is really an argument from silence: “Paul did not mention the empty tomb, so he did not believe in it.”
It should be apparent why I disagree. He may have mentioned it explicitly, and he certainly strongly implied it, such that if you assume Paul did not believe the empty tomb, then we cannot make sense of his words.

Now, I don’t reject all arguments from silence. The are legit and historians use them, but they are also among the weakest form we use. For instance, for your argument to hold, you need it to be true that there are no good reasons that Paul would have refrained from explicitly saying “see, his tomb was found empty, explain that pagan-jerk!” (or some such)

1. It might have been so obvious it was unnecessary to state: From Thiede (112), “For someone like Paul… the resurrection… was of course, a bodily resurrection… Since, all Jewish documents from the prophets down to the Qumran scrolls, talk of a resurrection exclusively in terms of risen bodies and open tombs, he does not…mention the empty tomb of Christ. To him it was self-evident, as to his readers.”
2. It might have been so undisputed as to not be worth stating (as it seems to have been). You and I rightly regard the empty tomb as an important piece of evidence and spend a lot of time arguing about it. But at this historical distance, we are more likely to doubt it.
3. The empty tomb alone proved nothing. Like the Jews, his listeners might have siply explained the empty tomb by grave robbery. For him and his audience, the appearances witnessed were the key point.

These considerations, taken with other evidence (above) indicate that Paul certainly believed in the empty tomb; given this, the argument from silence here is not a very good one, especially when weighed against positive evidence that Paul believed in the empty tomb.

Other Evidence for the Empty Tomb:

1. The discovery of the empty tomb in multiply attested in early, independent sources. The pre-marken passion source, Paul’s letter to Corinthians mentions it, Matthew is an independent source since he includes the guard at the tomb, which is not in Mark.
2. Mark’s burial story is simple and lacks significant legendary development. (esp. compared to later Gnostic gospels which are real legends.
3. The empty tomb was discovered by women. Women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, so their presence indicates the account is probably legit, since no one would invent women as discovers of the empty tomb.
4. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The only reason to put that story there was if the Jews were really claiming that Jesus’s followers stole his body, by which they admitted the tomb was empty.
5. The disciples could never have preached the resurrection unless the tomb were really empty.

• For these and at least 3 other reasons, Gary Habermas found in a survey that 75% of scholars admit the empty tomb. “Experience of the Risen Jesus” Dialog 45 (2006):292.

In the context of your last point, consider especially 3. The Jewish leaders, when confronted with the claim of the Resurrection did not deny the empty tomb; rather, they tried to claim that the disciples stole it, by which the earliest enemies of Christianity admitted that the tomb was empty.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Rather than disagree that the noseeum inference is a good defeater to the principle that ‘absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence’, you’ve chosen instead to argue that the noseeum inference isn’t applicable to ancient history, or at least 1 Cor. 15. So, I take it that you’ve abandoned this principle to pursue another objection.

It’s important to note that rejecting this principle deprives us of the right to say, a priori, that an argument from silence is fallacious (since it’s essentially the claim that the absence of evidence (silence) is evidence of absence). In order to salvage these two objections (the principle, and the claim that my argument from silence is fallacious) you must reject the noseeum inference altogether. Given the wealth of absurdities that flow from that, I’ll assume we’ll just cut our losses at this point.

This “noseeum” clause you are invoking can, prima facie, be seen to be applicable only in cases where the entirety of its subject is within observation. To expound upon the example you cited, if one does not see any cars on the stretch of street visible to them, then they can certainly infer that there are probably no cars on that stretch of street. However, let’s say there is a sharp curve in the road, and the street becomes obscured around that bend. You can no longer say, with any degree of certainty, that there are probably no cars on that part of the street. Noseeum inferences are clearly restricted to the immediate experience of the observer. The entirety of Paul’s beliefs and the common knowledge of the Corinthian people is not just a street around a bend, but an interstate beyond the woods.

Now, should we accept your new objection? Well, it appears you try to support your claim that the inference isn’t applicable here because the examples I provided are of immediate experience and not of texts like 1 Cor. 15. This is simply non-sequitur though. It doesn’t follow that the noseeum inference can’t be made with 1 Cor. 15 simply because the examples I’ve used to explain what the noseeum inference was, involved direct experience.

No, but the dilemma I outlined above demonstrates exactly why it can’t.

Paul’s proclamation of the kerygma is only at odds with Jesus’ corpse remaining a corpse (despite where it was) on the assumption that resurrection involves transformation of the corpse itself and not the transference of the person to an entirely new body. Since my argument is that it’s very unlikely 1 Cor. 15 would appear as it does (without mention of the empty tomb) given that Paul held this assumption, your point here merely begs the question.

This is one of those “desperate reaches” I was talking about. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 15 clearly suggests the transformation of the corpse itself, numerous times over: “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.” “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” The comparisons of the body to a seed (reflecting Christ’s own) are plain enough: the plant is not something separate from the seed, it is the growth of the seed. Likewise, in his description of the pre- and post-resurrection bodies, Paul draws no fundamental distinction between the two, but suggests a transformation of a single body’s qualities.

I’ll concede that this is a good response to my claim that Paul would demand of the Corinthians to produce the body. But, does this mean that Paul couldn’t have employed the empty tomb as a powerful argument for his purposes in 1 Cor. 15, indeed as a stronger argument than other things he appealed to? Not at all. The reasoning involved in arguments from the empty tomb nowadays (i.e., was the body stolen? Swoon? Invented? etc.) would carry no less force in Paul’s day.

Yes, I believe they would. Today, we can examine scholarship, archaeological studies, historical records, etc. to examine the veracity of such an argument. The Corinthians had no access to public records or personal testimony of anyone other than Paul and the other disciples who accompanied him. The reasoning is irrelevant if the facts are inaccesible. Yes, the argument is still perfectly reasonable but to a people with no way of ascertaining the truth of the argument’s primary assertion, it carries no force. What would be the difference if Paul were to say that the Sea of Galilee had disappeared and asked the Corinthians to explain it? None. They are both claims that could not be proved or disproved by the given audience.

How can you possibly believe it’s not in dispute when it’s what we’re currently disputing?

Let me rephrase: it is not in reasonable dispute. Any denial thereof requires some very desperate interpretation.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your accusation of fallacies confuses me:

What is the fallacy of assumption? I’ve never heard of it. You simply said I was assuming x, y and z and claimed that this was fallacious. How is it?

The fallacy of assumption includes the conclusion of the argument in the premises. Here’s an example:

P1: Fairies exist
P2: Only fairies can make gardens that are extremely beautiful
P3: My garden is extremely beautiful
Therefore
C1: My garden was made extremely beautiful by fairies
Therefore
C2: Fairies Exist

Now, let’s redress it with one of your arguments:

P1: If there was an empty tomb, Paul probably would have believed in it.
P2: If Paul believed in the empty tomb, he probably would have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians
P3: Paul did not mention the the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians
Therefore
C1: Paul probably did not believe in the empty tomb.
Therefore
C2: There probably was no empty tomb.

The problem is that your conclusions are drawn from uncertain claims whose truth is assumed implicitly in your arguments and present a form of circular reasoning. You assert speculative opinions as truth in your premise and thus conclude that they are true based on nothing other than your own opinion.

An argument from ignorance is one that claims a proposition is true because it hasn’t been shown false, or vice versa. How have I done this?

The entire gist of your argument here seems to be: “There is no proof that Paul ever mentioned the empty tomb outside of 1 Corinthians, therefore he probably didn’t.”

Sounds like a classic case of the argument from ignorance to me.

As I’ve shown, arguments from silence aren’t necessarily fallacious. They can be, but they needn’t be. For example, is the following bad reasoning?

1. I do not see a physical rhinoceros right next to me at this very moment.
2. Therefore, there is no physical rhinoceros next to me at this very moment.

Again, your example illustrates the necessity of the presence of all the necessary data to draw arguments from silence. If you were to expand this argument to say, “I do not see a physical rhinoceros behind the wall in front of me, therefore there is no physical rhinoceros behind the wall in front of me,” the argument becomes fallacious, because you do not possess the necessary information to draw such a conclusion. You would have to look on the other side of the wall and gather data about what IS there first. And likewise, you would need to know exactly every detail of Paul’s beliefs and interactions with the Corinthian people to reach your desired conclusions.

While you accused me of committing this, you didn’t give me any reason to agree with you.

Any time you say, “X probably would have done this…” or “X probably would have said this…” in the context of a logical argument, you are committing this fallacy. You cannot speak for the actions or lack thereof of another person on a logical level. It is purely speculative and necessarily biased to the speaker’s own cognitive processes.

 

[Perplexity]

This “noseeum” clause you are invoking can, prima facie, be seen to be applicable only in cases where the entirety of its subject is within observation. To expound upon the example you cited, if one does not see any cars on the stretch of street visible to them, then they can certainly infer that there are probably no cars on that stretch of street. However, let’s say there is a sharp curve in the road, and the street becomes obscured around that bend. You can no longer say, with any degree of certainty, that there are probably no cars on that part of the street. Noseeum inferences are clearly restricted to the immediate experience of the observer. The entirety of Paul’s beliefs and the common knowledge of the Corinthian people is not just a street around a bend, but an interstate beyond the woods.

But, why think noseeum inferences are restricted to the immediate experience of the observer? You’ve given no reason to think that, yet.

Further, no one else thinks that. Daniel Howard-Snyder’s suggestion has been accepted:

“A noseeum inference is reasonable only if it is reasonable to believe that we would very likely see (grasp, comprehend, understand) the item in question if it existed.”

This is one of those “desperate reaches” I was talking about. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 15 clearly suggests the transformation of the corpse itself, numerous times over: “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.” “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” The comparisons of the body to a seed (reflecting Christ’s own) are plain enough: the plant is not something separate from the seed, it is the growth of the seed. Likewise, in his description of the pre- and post-resurrection bodies, Paul draws no fundamental distinction between the two, but suggests a transformation of a single body’s qualities.

Well, I guess I don’t feel so bad since so many distinguished scholars don’t agree with you including: Moule, N.T. Wright, Peter Lampe, Adela Collins, etc.

“Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” - N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003. p. 367.

Yes, I believe they would. Today, we can examine scholarship, archaeological studies, historical records, etc. to examine the veracity of such an argument. The Corinthians had no access to public records or personal testimony of anyone other than Paul and the other disciples who accompanied him. The reasoning is irrelevant if the facts are inaccesible. Yes, the argument is still perfectly reasonable but to a people with no way of ascertaining the truth of the argument’s primary assertion, it carries no force. What would be the difference if Paul were to say that the Sea of Galilee had disappeared and asked the Corinthians to explain it? None. They are both claims that could not be proved or disproved by the given audience.

Paul would appeal to the same texts that we do nowadays. In the language of his day, he could’ve argued that the empty tomb was multiply and independently attested in multiple early sources, that Jesus’ closest followers, whom he was well acquainted with, bear testimony to this event etc.

Besides, Paul exhibited no difficulty elsewhere claiming things that his audience couldn’t possibly verify: “My friends, I want you to know that no one made up the message I preach. 12 It wasn’t given or taught to me by some mere human. My message came directly from Jesus Christ when he appeared to me.” - Gal. 1:11. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:2.

The fallacy of assumption includes the conclusion of the argument in the premises.

Ah, this is either circular reasoning or begging the question depending on whether it’s syntactic or semantic.

P1: If there was an empty tomb, Paul probably -]would have/-] believed in it.
P2: If Paul [probably] believed in the empty tomb, he probably would have mentioned it in 1 Corinthians
P3: Paul did not mention the the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians
Therefore
C1: Paul probably did not believe in the empty tomb.
Therefore
C2: There probably was no empty tomb.

This is a logically valid argument. C1 follows from P2 and P3 by Modus Tollens, and C2 follows from P1 and C1 by Modus Tollens. Further, there is no epistemic circularity. This is not fallacious

The entire gist of your argument here seems to be: “There is no proof that Paul ever mentioned the empty tomb outside of 1 Corinthians, therefore he probably didn’t.”

I’m not sure how you can get this from anything I’ve said.

Any time you say, “X probably would have done this…” or “X probably would have said this…” in the context of a logical argument, you are committing this fallacy. You cannot speak for the actions or lack thereof of another person on a logical level. It is purely speculative and necessarily biased to the speaker’s own cognitive processes.

 

[Perplexity]

1. The idea of Resurrection implies an empty tomb.

The early Christians’ descriptions of Jesus isn’t necessarily relevant to whether Jesus’ body was made of ordinary matter or of some celestial stuff, only to what his body appeared like. I am not aware of any reason to suppose a body composed of spiritual stuff would look like a ghost to them, especially as they thought his physical body was ghost on other occasions. e.g., Mk. 14:26.

1. Paul’s own letter to the Corinthians implies that he thought the risen body was the transformed old body, not a totally new one.

Speaking of N.T. Wright, he concedes that we could interpret 1 Cor.15 as I do:

“Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” - N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003. p. 367.

In 1 Cor. 15:36-58, Paul implies that the risen body will be the same as the body that dies, but will be that body transformed. a). “What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies” (36).

And what do we sow? “that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.” (37) So what is not brought to life unless it dies? A bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. A bare grain? This naked grain is given different kinds of shells (i.e., bodies) by God. “God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.” (38)

b). “So also the Resurrection of the dead, it is sown corruptible, it is raised incorruptible. It is sown dishonorable, it is raised glorious. It is sown weak, it is raised powerful. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (42-44)”

richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#it

c). " We shall not all fall asleep, but all will be changed… for the trumpet will sound, the dead be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility.

The first thing to note is that the word “body” is no where found in these verses. Second, as Carrier said in his debate with O’Connell:

“*f flesh cannot inherent incorruptibility (1 Corinthians 15:50), then it cannot inherent it by putting on a cloak of incorruptibility. There would then also be two bodies, one of flesh and one of higher material, walking around together one on top of the other. That is certainly not what Paul is proposing. Not only does he say we “get out of” our old bodies, he never says our old body “gets into” another, much less stays there.”

He further concludes: “Accordingly, I conclude (with Jean Héring) that the grammatical subject in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 is more likely our present condition in the abstract, not our bodies.”

This is the position I adopt, but whatever else, for the reasons given above, I don’t think we should interpret 1 Cor. 15:53-54 as you have.

B

. 1 Cor. 15:3-5 indicates Paul’s belief in the empty tomb. Here Paul is quoting an old Christian saying: “died…and that he was buried… and that he was raised on the third day according to scriptures, and that he appeared to Kephas…”

• repeated use of “and that” before each line was unnecessary from a literary view. Taken to refer to very early material that lines up with burial and resurrection accounts in Mark 15:37-16:8. The third line in Paul “and he was raised” corresponds to the discovery of the empty tomb in this account. Hence, in this formula, Paul was including a reference to the empty tomb.

I don’t understand this argument I guess. What lines up with the accounts in Mark? The repeated use of “and that”?

Your 3 and 4 are arguments that the empty tomb is supported by Jewish practices and other texts, but I’m not sure how these are intended to show that Paul probably believed in the empty tomb. He said in Philippians 3:7-8 that he rejected the Pharisaic sect calling their teachings rubbish. Plus, Josephus, a Pharisee, advocated a transference view of resurrection. e.g., Jewish War 2.163 and 3.372-75, Against Apion 2.218.

1. It might have been so obvious it was unnecessary to state:

Look at all the other obvious things Paul stated though, like when he says “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received”. They’d already heard it, and accepted it, yet Paul repeats it.

1. It might have been so undisputed as to not be worth stating (as it seems to have been).

They were denying the resurrection of the dead (v. 12), how could they at the same time have accepted the empty tomb?

1. The empty tomb alone proved nothing.

That’s true, but, we could use this reasoning against almost everything else he said in the text. E.g., his baptism points prove nothing alone.

Other Evidence for the Empty Tomb:

If Paul didn’t believe in the empty tomb, it wouldn’t matter that it’s multiply and independently attested in early sources, that it was alleged to have been discovered by women, etc. etc. as you conceded: “If Paul did not believe in the empty tomb, then it seems highly improbable that there would be an empty tomb”

Since whether Paul did believe in the empty tomb (and thus mentioned it in 1 Cor. 15) is what’s under dispute, these points beg the question.*

 

[mdcpensive1]

so “dangerous” statements are censored?

Bible has many strange inconsistancies. like who was at the tomb, etc.

Since I know a little on Jewish thought I can give two cents worth. Here goes.
The authorities wanted Jesus dead so they had to accuse Him of “blasphemy”. This amounts to lying using your own words. IE, “He claimed to be God” is what they tried to use on Jesus. This is something that Jews of the time did not want to do or be accused of. So if the apostles wrote something that was false, they could be accused of “blasphemy” also because there were witnesses to the activities that could attest to the happenings. If this were the case, then the Gospels would be of no value to us because they contained falsehoods. Jesus would not let this happen.
mdcpensive1

 

[prodigalson2011]

But, why think noseeum inferences are restricted to the immediate experience of the observer? You’ve given no reason to think that, yet.

Further, no one else thinks that. Daniel Howard-Snyder’s suggestion has been accepted:

“A noseeum inference is reasonable only if it is reasonable to believe that we would very likely see (grasp, comprehend, understand) the item in question if it existed.”

It is reasonable to believe that if something were within direct eyesight, you would see it. It is not reasonable to believe that your estimation of the best approach to a 2,000 year old problem, the circumstances of which we have fairly limited data concerning, is the only valid one.

Well, I guess I don’t feel so bad since so many distinguished scholars don’t agree with you including: Moule, N.T. Wright, Peter Lampe, Adela Collins, etc.

“Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” - N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003. p. 367.

We can’t all be as smart as me. Just kidding. Nevertheless, there is no lack of disagreement even among distinguished scholars, so this doesn’t bother me much.

Paul would appeal to the same texts that we do nowadays. In the language of his day, he could’ve argued that the empty tomb was multiply and independently attested in multiple early sources, that Jesus’ closest followers, whom he was well acquainted with, bear testimony to this event etc.

Now, here I must say I’m shocked that you would make such a faulty claim. Paul would not have appealed to the same texts, because his own texts predated most, if not all, of them, and even then they were not widely available. Transcription was a very pricey business in those days. Again, you’re holding ancient society to the standards of a post-printing press world.

Besides, Paul exhibited no difficulty elsewhere claiming things that his audience couldn’t possibly verify: “My friends, I want you to know that no one made up the message I preach. 12 It wasn’t given or taught to me by some mere human. My message came directly from Jesus Christ when he appeared to me.” - Gal. 1:11. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:2.

True enough, but this is a testimony of personal experience, not distant occurence. Paul also performed healings, etc. to bear witness to the truth of that experience.

This is a logically valid argument. C1 follows from P2 and P3 by Modus Tollens, and C2 follows from P1 and C1 by Modus Tollens. Further, there is no epistemic circularity. This is not fallacious

I don’t think so, even in a Modus Tollens argument, some degree of certainty is, I think, required of the premises. In your case, it does not seem that “P” necessarily implies “Q”. It is an entirely speculative assumption on your part.

I’m not sure how you can get this from anything I’ve said.

“If Paul held this assumption (as apologists need him to), it’s shocking that he doesn’t mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor. 15 (I’ll come back to this).”

“Would the empty tomb have served this end? I think we can all agree that it would. It seems easy to imagine the Paul of Gal. 1 (in his scathing manner) ridiculing the dissenters of Corinth by challenging them to explain where Jesus’ body went, since there is no resurrection of the dead.”

The implication being that if Paul held this assumption, he should’ve mentioned it in 1 Corinthians. And since he doesn’t, you seem to think this gives you reason to believe he didn’t believe it at all. I’ll conclude with the following quote, which, again, demonstrates the faulty logic at play:

“What better way to disprove the Corinthian error than saying, if Jesus didn’t bodily resurrect, why was his tomb empty? Produce the body!”

Again, how were a people nearly 1000 miles away from Jesus’ tomb and any account independent of Paul supposed to answer such an argument, much less produce the body?

Well, do you disagree? Is it logically valid to base an argument on assumptions of what you think someone else would or should have said? Especially when your picture of the scene in question is limited to a very small frame, as much more was probably spoken in person?

 

[danserr]

Now, I gave roughly four considerations for thinking that Paul believed in the empty tomb. I seem to have done a poor job explaining three of them, since you suggested that they were irrelevant, and you only really tackled Paul in Corinthians directly. I will defend again my 4 considerations and add at least one that I found from skimming the Carrier/Connel debate that you linked me to.

In post 83, I said:

1. Our knowledge about Jewish burial practice supports that Resurrection implied an empty tomb…

1. Jewish Texts from the period, indicate common belief that the risen body would be the same body that died: From the caves at Qumran…

You replied that you don’t see how this is evidence that Paul himself believed the empty tomb. On the contrary, it is good evidence that he did. Since, it is clear that the vast majority of Jewish texts (Thiede says all) from second temple Jerusalem and the Old Testament as well as Jewish burial practice indicate the Resurrection implies an empty tomb, it is probable that Paul (a Jew of the time) shared those views. If someone thought otherwise, there would be an enormous burden of proof on them to show that Paul thought otherwise. Without this compelling evidence, the claim that Paul thought differently from all of his people seems to be just special pleading.

Second, suppose there is ambiguous evidence that suggests maybe Paul thought otherwise and maybe he didn’t. (I do not think Corinthians is ambiguous at all, but let us suppose for the sake of argument it is). Well, in this case, we should interpret this evidence in light of what we know from other sources. If Paul’ people and specific sect believed that Resurrection implied empty tomb, then it is most probable that Paul did as well. Hence, historians interpret documents in light of their contemporaries, not as Carrier does, in light of Origen 2 centuries later, which is hopelessly anachronistic.

Now you answer by trying to claim that

**perplexity:**He said in Philippians 3:7-8 that he rejected the Pharisaic sect calling their teachings rubbish. Plus, Josephus, a Pharisee, advocated a transference view of resurrection. e.g., Jewish War 2.163 and 3.372-75, Against Apion 2.218

Now, Connell points out that Josephus is widely considered ambiguous, so as an example of a Jew who holds a contrary view, he does not work. Second, I can’t see how Paul in Philippians can be read as rejecting all beliefs that he had as a pharisee. Actually, this would be absurd since the early Christians didn’t abandon all Jewish beliefs. “Whatever gains I had I consider as a loss because of Christ… For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish.” Paul seems to be referring to his loss of prestige and position.

Lastly, let us suppose for the sake of argument that Paul is rejecting Phariseeic beliefs on the continuity of the risen body with the dead body. As a pharisee persecuting Christians (before his conversion), he would have shared their beliefs. Hence, he would have thought that Resurrection would have implied an empty tomb. But then, why, when he was persecuting Christians, did he not produce a body?! It would have been easy, and with his Pharisaic brothers he would have seen this an an easy way to squash Christianity. Certainly, he had the motivation. But he did not. This implies that he could not. So, it seems that as a pharisee persecuting Christians, Paul himself believed in an empty tomb. On the contrary, the pharisaic propaganda admitted the empty tomb, but tried to explain it as the result of disciples stealing the body.

Even if he later adopted a two body resurrection theory (very doubtful), this would not cause him to renounce his views on the empty tomb of Jesus. So, Paul himself probably believed in the empty tomb.

The early Christians’ descriptions of Jesus isn’t necessarily relevant to whether Jesus’ body was made of ordinary matter or of some celestial stuff, only to what his body appeared like. I am not aware of any reason to suppose a body composed of spiritual stuff would look like a ghost to them, especially as they thought his physical body was ghost on other occasions. e.g., Mk. 14:26.
.

I may have been unclear, since this isn’t what I was talking about. What I mean is that the language of “Resurrection” implies an empty tomb. If there was no empty tomb, no one would say Jesus was raised. Even appearances alone would have lead disciples to say “we saw his ghost.” Appearances alone would not suffice for Resurrection. By way of example:

Peter the apostle was thrown in prison and sentenced to execution. He escaped and made his way to a house of Christians. They were all sure he was dead. A woman answered the door and freaked out. She ran into the house to tell everyone that she had seen Peter. They all dismissed her “you have seen a ghost.”

My point is that belief is Resurrection is hard to explain without an empty tomb. If Jesus’ tomb were not empty, but there were appearances, people would not believe he rose, but that they saw Jesus’ ghost. Hence they never would have described Jesus as resurrected. But they did, this suggests the tomb was empty. It is most probable that Paul shared the beliefs of his fellow Jews.

 

[danserr]

I don’t understand this argument I guess. What lines up with the accounts in Mark? The repeated use of “and that”?

Another case of me being too unclear. The problem is typing the whole thing up briefly.
Compare Paul in 1 Cor. 3-5 to Mark 15:37-16:7 and to Acts 13:28-31.

Start with Acts: “… Yet they asked Pilate to have him killed, they took him down from a tree and laid him in a tomb, but God raised him from the dead… and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him.”

Now, you could make the same claim here that Luke doesn’t explicitly mention the empty tomb even though it would have been useful, hence he didn’t believe in it. But, of course, this would be absurd since he clearly referred to it in his gospel. So, this should weaken your confidence in your argument from silence as regarding Paul.

More importantly compare Luke to Paul: “and that Christ died… and that he was buried… and that he was raised… and that he appeared.”

or Mark:
"And Jesus’ uttered a loud cry and breathed his last… and Joseph wrapped him in linen and laid him in a tomb… his is risen, he is not here… he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him.

Here the form of Paul’s statement is similar to the sermons in the book of Acts. This suggests that Paul’s statement, like those sermons, is quite old (The Son Rises (47). For other reasons, this Christian saying, quoted by Paul is from within 5 years of the crucifixion. Here, Paul is referring to the same event as that described in acts and the gospels, but these accounts included the empty tomb. So by referring to this old formula in Cor. 15:3-5, Paul was probably intentionally referring to accounts that included the finding of the empty tomb. As you can see from comparison to Mark, it is directly implied by correlation of Paul saying “and that he was raised” and Mark “He is risen, he is not here.” Hence, by saying this, Paul was probably referring to accounts that included the empty tomb.

I also gave as an argument:

1. Paul’s own letter to the Corinthians implies that he thought the risen body was the transformed old body, not a totally new one.
   In 1 Cor. 15:36-58, Paul implies that the risen body will be the same as the body that dies, but will be that body transformed.
   a). “What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies” (36).
   b). “So also the Resurrection of the dead, it is sown corruptible, it is raised incorruptible. It is sown dishonorable, it is raised glorious. It is sown weak, it is raised powerful. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (42-44)”
   c). " We shall not all fall asleep, but all will be changed… for the trumpet will sound, the dead be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility.

Now, I see that you and Carrier seem to object to this on two grounds:

1. a hyper-literal interpretation of the seed analogy shows that it can support the two body theory.
2. In c, the word body is not explicitly used
   2a. a hyper-literal reading of Paul’s talk of putting on a new body is just absurd if a whole new body is not implied.

• First, as I imply above, here Carrier is making a ridiculously literal reading of the seed analogy. As John Dickson says in his assesment of their debate:

Carrier’s literal approach to Paul’s seed-plant metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15 was striking from the opening lines. Metaphors in highly charged rhetorical contexts rarely mean exactly what they say at a surface level. Paul explains in what sense resurrection bodies are ‘new’ in vv. 42-44, as O’Connell stressed. Carrier’s constant reference to this passage as ‘clearly’ teaching 2BT left the impression of protesting too much.

 

[danserr]

• First the passage says "what you sow is not brought to life unless it dies, implying that the same thing that dies is that brought to life. Second, people typically consider the numerical identity of a seed with a plant that springs from it.

Now Paul clarifies in passage b what he means by the “new” body. “So also the Resurrection of the dead, it is sown corruptible, it is raised incorruptible. It is sown dishonorable, it is raised glorious. It is sown weak, it is raised powerful. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (42-44)”

And this is important for c. You want to make a lot of the fact that *c *never mentions “body.” Yet, 1 Cor. 15:53-54 is clearly meant to go with 1 Cor. 42-44, which does mention “body.”

The later passages says “that which is corruptible must put on incorruptibility.”
The earlier compares the old body to the new by saying the old is corruptible, the new will be incorruptible. So, it seems clear that though the word body is not used (yet another argument from silence) in the later passage, that body is clearly meant.

Next, it says that which is corruptible must “put on” incorruptibility. But what was incorruptible in the previous passage? The body! So, it suggests the corruptible thing must become incorruptible.

The difficulty you try to raise about how a corruptible body could put on an incorruptible body is another case of a hyper-literal and tortured reading of the text. Actually, I am not sure this is a problem even on this hyper-literal reading. It doesn’t say “a corruptible body must must on an incorruptible body.” It says "a corruptible [body] must put on incorruptibility. This could easily, even if taken very literally, simply indicate that the corruptible body must put on/attain the trait of incorruptibility.

Now, I want to add another argument:
5. In Romans 8:23, Paul refers to the redemption of our bodies. Dickson points to the weakness of Carrier’s reply here.

Other considerations: That forms the central part of my case, but you raise some other considerations to answer:

“Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” - N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003. p. 367.

Yet, here and in other places, Wright indicates that he believes that belief in Resurrection implies an empty tomb.

Since whether Paul did believe in the empty tomb (and thus mentioned it in 1 Cor. 15) is what’s under dispute, these points beg the question.

No. It is certainly not question begging to consider other arguments until we can solve Paul. It may be the Paul is ambiguous (though I don’t think he is), in which case, we must table him and rely on other arguments. Second, other arguments may shed light on Paul (as does the one I mention about early Jewish polemic admitting the empty tomb.

You arguments from silence and my considerations:

1. It might have been so obvious it was unnecessary to state:
Look at all the other obvious things Paul stated though, like when he says “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received”. They’d already heard it, and accepted it, yet Paul repeats it.

Quote:
2. It might have been so undisputed as to not be worth stating (as it seems to have been).
They were denying the resurrection of the dead (v. 12), how could they at the same time have accepted the empty tomb?

3.** The empty tomb alone proved nothing.**
That’s true, but, we could use this reasoning against almost everything else he said in the text. E.g., his baptism points prove nothing alone.

1. Your reply is not persuassive. Consider that WLC regularly gives a case for the Resurrection, but he does not give all the evidence. it would be absurd to conclude because in one debate Craig does not mention a certain piece of evidence, he does not believe it. And it would not help to reply "but Craig mentions so much other stuff, why not this too?

• To Paul, Resurrection implied empty tomb. If it did, then simply saying Jesus rose meant that the empty tomb was directly implied and so was unnecessary.

1. Well, of course, they could have admitted the tomb was empty and claimed that it was the result of grave robbery (as the early Jews did).
2. But in terms of prioritizing arguments, since the empty tomb was implied (and possibly directly referred to in Mark or Luke), it was not necessary to state. As Thiede says:

From Thiede (112), “For someone like Paul… the resurrection… was of course, a bodily resurrection… Since, all Jewish documents from the prophets down to the Qumran scrolls, talk of a resurrection exclusively in terms of risen bodies and open tombs, he does not…mention the empty tomb of Christ. To him it was self-evident, as to his readers.”

 

[Perplexity]

It is reasonable to believe that if something were within direct eyesight, you would see it. It is not reasonable to believe that your estimation of the best approach to a 2,000 year old problem, the circumstances of which we have fairly limited data concerning, is the only valid one.

Given what we know of Paul, we can form numerous expectations of what he would do. Your argument implies we shouldn’t be surprised if we learned that Paul was a ravenous murderer even after his conversion. We reason like this all the time. This is how we’re able to surprise each other, and predict each other’s behavior. His temporal distance from us doesn’t change this fact. If you want to suggest that these expectations are unreasonable because we don’t know how much information about him we don’t have, and thus how accurate our information of him is, then you need to give us reason to think our portrait of Paul is inadequate. Note, this would only shoot Christianity in the foot.

Now, here I must say I’m shocked that you would make such a faulty claim. Paul would not have appealed to the same texts, because his own texts predated most, if not all, of them, and even then they were not widely available. Transcription was a very pricey business in those days. Again, you’re holding ancient society to the standards of a post-printing press world.

No you’re right, that was a silly claim. Yet, this objection doesn’t strike me as substantive. So what he didn’t have the texts? Are we to believe those texts didn’t report earlier tradition able to be traced back to actual events? He would have had access to this information. Note also that Luke learned much from Paul, and Luke tells us the following:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

True enough, but this is a testimony of personal experience, not distant occurence. Paul also performed healings, etc. to bear witness to the truth of that experience.

He’s not alleged to have performed any miracles to establish his claim that he received the gospel from Jesusl.

I don’t think so, even in a Modus Tollens argument, some degree of certainty is, I think, required of the premises. In your case, it does not seem that “P” necessarily implies “Q”. It is an entirely speculative assumption on your part.

An argument remains Modus Tollens regardless of the truth of its premises. But, in any case, I feel confident that each premise is more plausibly true than its contradictory.

The implication being that if Paul held this assumption, he should’ve mentioned it in 1 Corinthians. And since he doesn’t, you seem to think this gives you reason to believe he didn’t believe it at all.

This is an argument from silence, but as danserr rightly noted, historians use arguments from silence sometimes. It’s perfectly legitimate.

Again, how were a people nearly 1000 miles away from Jesus’ tomb and any account independent of Paul supposed to answer such an argument, much less produce the body?

The distance is irrelevant. Paul would’ve carried sufficient authority to attest that the other Apostle’s believed as he did, and the Corinthians probably would’ve already known about the empty tomb given Paul had already preached the gospel there. As danserr has been arguing, it’s unthinkable that [given Paul held a certain assumption] Paul believed in resurrection without believing in the empty tomb.

The earliest Christian churches were very interconnected as it is: information traveled fast.

“Clearly already in the third decade of the Christian movement, many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7-9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-5; 9:2-4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14-16) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9). Urban Christians traveled (1 Cor 16:10, 12, 17; Phil 2:30; 4:18), carrying letters (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:25). They also relocated to other places (Rom 16:3, 5; perhaps 16:6-15 passim) and sent greetings to other churches (Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10-15).” - Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 92-93

Well, do you disagree? Is it logically valid to base an argument on assumptions of what you think someone else would or should have said? Especially when your picture of the scene in question is limited to a very small frame, as much more was probably spoken in person?

Of course it is. It’s a fundamental aspect of our thinking that we can expect certain behaviors of other agents given certain information about them. If all I know about billy bob is that he’s morally outstanding, and in good physical and mental health, I can reasonably say it’d be surprising to learn that billy bob has committed some heinous crime.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Given what we know of Paul, we can form numerous expectations of what he would do. Your argument implies we shouldn’t be surprised if we learned that Paul was a ravenous murderer even after his conversion. We reason like this all the time. This is how we’re able to surprise each other, and predict each other’s behavior. His temporal distance from us doesn’t change this fact. If you want to suggest that these expectations are unreasonable because we don’t know how much information about him we don’t have, and thus how accurate our information of him is, then you need to give us reason to think our portrait of Paul is inadequate. Note, this would only shoot Christianity in the foot.

My argument does not imply what you say. If Paul were, today, charged with murder, your line of reasoning would not stand in a court of law. Sure, it would be surprising, to say the least, but to argue his innocence based on expectations formed by previous behavior would hardly be substantial. Ultimately, I think the evidence for an empty tomb far outweighs that of your proposal.

No you’re right, that was a silly claim. Yet, this objection doesn’t strike me as substantive. So what he didn’t have the texts? Are we to believe those texts didn’t report earlier tradition able to be traced back to actual events? He would have had access to this information. Note also that Luke learned much from Paul, and Luke tells us the following:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Not in the least. Of course I believe that those texts were based on earlier tradition, and of course I believe Paul was well aware of said traditions. My point is that there is no reason to expect Paul to make this argument to any Corinthians who may have denied the resurrection. Now, it is strange that you would bring up the connection between Luke and Paul, as Luke very clearly states belief in an empty tomb:

“On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.” (Luke 24:1-3)

Knowing, as we do, that Luke and Paul were contemporaries and disciples in the very earliest days of Christianity, this seems to suggest that Paul would have very likely indeed believed in the empty tomb.

He’s not alleged to have performed any miracles to establish his claim that he received the gospel from Jesusl.

I think you’d better tell that to 2 Corinthians:

“When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you.” (2 Cor. 12:12)

“God did extraordinary miracles through Paul,” (Acts 19:11)

"In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, “Stand up on your feet!” At that, the man jumped up and began to walk. When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” (Acts 14:8-17)

 

[prodigalson2011]

An argument remains Modus Tollens regardless of the truth of its premises. But, in any case, I feel confident that each premise is more plausibly true than its contradictory.

Well, it may remain Modus Tollens, but it doesn’t remain right. If the premises aren’t true, the conclusions aren’t true. You may feel confident that each premise is more plausibly true but you have failed to demonstrate why anyone else should think so.

This is an argument from silence, but as danserr rightly noted, historians use arguments from silence sometimes. It’s perfectly legitimate.

True, but as danserr also rightly noted, even at its best, it is the weakest form of argument, and in this case the support seems to be very thin.

The distance is irrelevant. Paul would’ve carried sufficient authority to attest that the other Apostle’s believed as he did, and the Corinthians probably would’ve already known about the empty tomb given Paul had already preached the gospel there. As danserr has been arguing, it’s unthinkable that [given Paul held a certain assumption] Paul believed in resurrection without believing in the empty tomb.

Indeed, but regardless of his authority, people were already apparently questioning it, so it becomes a matter of appealing to arguments which the audience can actually engage in intellectual consideration. The empty tomb argument is simply not such an argument; it did not pertain to anything they could reflect upon.

The earliest Christian churches were very interconnected as it is: information traveled fast.

“Clearly already in the third decade of the Christian movement, many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7-9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-5; 9:2-4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14-16) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9). Urban Christians traveled (1 Cor 16:10, 12, 17; Phil 2:30; 4:18), carrying letters (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:25). They also relocated to other places (Rom 16:3, 5; perhaps 16:6-15 passim) and sent greetings to other churches (Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10-15).” - Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 92-93

I have not denied this, and I’m not sure why you are using this as an argument. I have not denied that the Church at Corinth would not have heard about the empty tomb. In fact, I made clear that I thought they probably had heard about the empty tomb. The point is that, regardless of their being informed, it serves no use in debate. Without access to the tomb or witnesses beyond the missionaries, it amounts to asking, “If Jesus was not resurrected, then why was he resurrected?” Circular argument par excellence.

Of course it is. It’s a fundamental aspect of our thinking that we can expect certain behaviors of other agents given certain information about them. If all I know about billy bob is that he’s morally outstanding, and in good physical and mental health, I can reasonably say it’d be surprising to learn that billy bob has committed some heinous crime.

You could be surprised, but your surprise and previous knowledge of him alone would not justify you in denying it. Many criminals and murderers lived otherwise normal, upstanding lives. Again, if this were a truly reasonable argument, many murderers would slip easily through the cracks of our judicial system.

 

[chosen_people]

Since I know a little on Jewish thought I can give two cents worth. Here goes.
The authorities wanted Jesus dead so they had to accuse Him of “blasphemy”. This amounts to lying using your own words. IE, “He claimed to be God” is what they tried to use on Jesus. This is something that Jews of the time did not want to do or be accused of. So if the apostles wrote something that was false, they could be accused of “blasphemy” also because there were witnesses to the activities that could attest to the happenings. If this were the case, then the Gospels would be of no value to us because they contained falsehoods. Jesus would not let this happen.
mdcpensive1

While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John 18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. Whoever wrote these two descriptions of the alleged trial, obviously did not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. However the epitome is in claiming that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy. The crime of blasphemy is cursing God or His name (see Leviticus 24:10-16). Jesus allegedly said that he was “christ” (anointed) which in a Jewish messianic context means anointed king. In other words he was making a claim to the throne of King David. A claim to kingship is not blasphemy however it is sedition under Roman law. Jesus was tried and convicted by the Romans for claiming kingship, for sedition, and for telling Jews not to pay Roman taxes (Luke 23:2).

Now it is also alleged that Jesus claimed to be “son of God” or “son of the blessed”. This also is not blasphemy under Jewish law. In the Jewish scriptures God refers to the Jewish people as the “son of God”. The term “son of God” is also a royal title applied to every Jewish king of Israel descended from king David. In Psalm 2:7, David was anointed king and referred to as God’s “son” as an announcement of “adoption” by God. Subsequently, the second Psalm was recited at the coronation of every Jewish king descended from King David. As a result the term “son of God” became a royal title for kings of Israel.

However, if by the use of this term Jesus meant that he was a “deity” then this claim constituted idolatry under Jewish Law (see Talmud Moed Kattan 18a) and significantly Jesus was not accused of idolatry, he was accused of blasphemy.

Lastly, there is no lack of evidence both in the Christian scriptures and in Josephus that the Sanhedrin could perform executions during the Roman occupation contradicting the claim in Mark and Matthew that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans because they wished to kill him but were prohibited from performing executions.

 

[danserr]

While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John 18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. Whoever wrote these two descriptions of the alleged trial, obviously did not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. However the epitome is in claiming that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy. The crime of blasphemy is cursing God or His name (see Leviticus 24:10-16). Jesus allegedly said that he was “christ” (anointed) which in a Jewish messianic context means anointed king. In other words he was making a claim to the throne of King David. A claim to kingship is not blasphemy however it is sedition under Roman law. Jesus was tried and convicted by the Romans for claiming kingship, for sedition, and for telling Jews not to pay Roman taxes (Luke 23:2).

Now it is also alleged that Jesus claimed to be “son of God” or “son of the blessed”. This also is not blasphemy under Jewish law. In the Jewish scriptures God refers to the Jewish people as the “son of God”. The term “son of God” is also a royal title applied to every Jewish king of Israel descended from king David. In Psalm 2:7, David was anointed king and referred to as God’s “son” as an announcement of “adoption” by God. Subsequently, the second Psalm was recited at the coronation of every Jewish king descended from King David. As a result the term “son of God” became a royal title for kings of Israel.

However, if by the use of this term Jesus meant that he was a “deity” then this claim constituted idolatry under Jewish Law (see Talmud Moed Kattan 18a) and significantly Jesus was not accused of idolatry, he was accused of blasphemy.

Lastly, there is no lack of evidence both in the Christian scriptures and in Josephus that the Sanhedrin could perform executions during the Roman occupation contradicting the claim in Mark and Matthew that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans because they wished to kill him but were prohibited from performing executions.

Actually, the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial fit very well with what we know of Jewish procedure. Second, Jesus did not only call himself a son of God, but the son of God. (the use of the definite article is consistent in the gospels, but very rare in Hebrew expressions. Lastly, condemnation for blasphemy is more likely than idolatry.

60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.

Mark 14:60-64.

Mark Gundry, in his commentary on Mark gives reasons for thinking Jesus’ words are authentic, but I pass over them for now to point to the trial itself.

Rules for dealing with capital blasphemy cases in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7.5) concern cases of which a person is accused of having pronounced on some previous occasion the name Yahweh so as to dishonor God. During the trial, the alleged blasphemy is not repeated, rather a substitute (like The Power) is used. At the close, the lead witness is finally told “say expressly what you heard.” He repeats the blasphemy and the judges stand and rend their robes.

Now at Jesus’ trial, the blasphemy occurs unexpectedly on the spot, so the High Priest stands and rend his garments. If Jesus actually pronounced the divine name Yahweh, then a report would not include the word itself, but a substitute for it, like “The Power”).

Hence, Gundry concludes: “The collocation of capital blasphemy and clothes-rending in m.Sanh 7.5 as well as in Mark favors… that Jesus’ trial rested on trustworthy information. For… Christians are unable to have fabricated or have even been able to fabricate an account corresponding so subtly to a later idealization of Sanhedrin jurisprudence in cases of capital blasphemy.” (Gundry Mark 917-918.

And a charge of blasphemy, not idolatry was certainly appropriate. As Gundry says, "We may best think that the high priest and rest of the sanhedrin judge Jesus to have verbally robbed God of incommensurateness and unity by escalating himself to a superhuman level, by portraying himself as destined to sit at God’s right hand and come with the clouds of heaven.

That Jesus identified himself with God, claiming unsurpassed divine authority, actually fits well with why the Jewish leaders would have wanted him dead (blasphemy) and also given a charge that the Roman would have wanted him dead. He could be presented to the Romans as a competitor to Roman authority.

(and there is no plausible case the Jesus forbid paying taxes to Caesar, (Mark 12:17).

 

[Perplexity]

• 1. Our knowledge about Jewish burial practice supports that Resurrection implied an empty tomb.
• 1. Jewish Texts from the period, indicate common belief that the risen body would be the same body that died.

I haven’t quoted your most recent explanation and defense of these points for spatial reasons, but have taken them into consideration.

My response to these is that since Paul sacrificed so many Pharisaic beliefs, particularly about the resurrection, we shouldn’t expect Paul to believe certain things simply because Pharisaic Judaism held them. This seems reasonable to me: we should only expect Paul to follow suit if it’s unlikely for him to deviate. But, given his numerous deviations, on this very topic no less, there’s no reason to expect him not to.

I’ll list only a few such deviations from Pharisaic Judaism that I feel render your reasoning suspect here:

1. Messiahship: No Jew prior to the Christian movement believed that the Messiah would suffer and die. This is one main reason why Saul persecuted the infant church. They were telling people God’s holy anointed one who was expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and restore God’s people to their rightful and former glory was humiliatingly executed on criminal charges in the worst way. Saul simply couldn’t stomach this. He says in 1 Cor. 1:23 that Christ (Messiah) crucified is a stumbling block for the Jews. This is a massive deviation from Pharisaic Judaism.
2. Resurrection: Pharisaic Judaism held that the only resurrection of the dead occurred at the general judgment. It was inconceivable to them that someone would resurrect prior to this. Here, again, Paul substantially defects from his former sect.

These two points rob me of any confidence that we should expect Paul to follow Pharisaic tendencies. Note that the passion-event was allegedly begun when Jesus was charged with blasphemy. How could we look to these guys in order to form expectations of what Christians believed?

So, to be clear I’m not denying the evidence you’ve presented that Jews held to these positions, I’m simply questioning their intended implications for Christians and in particular Paul.

This is only bolstered when we examine further positions Paul adopted on any number of issues: soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.

Now, Connell points out that Josephus is widely considered ambiguous, so as an example of a Jew who holds a contrary view, he does not work.

But, as Carrier responded, Josephus speaks in very clear language here. I don’t detect much ambiguity in these passages at all. Perhaps he is vague in general, but I don’t see how that affects these particular passages.

Second, I can’t see how Paul in Philippians can be read as rejecting all beliefs that he had as a pharisee.

This is a fair point, I concede.

As a pharisee persecuting Christians (before his conversion), he would have shared their beliefs. Hence, he would have thought that Resurrection would have implied an empty tomb. But then, why, when he was persecuting Christians, did he not produce a body?!

Imagine how strong a case that would have made: Paul could’ve said “Look guys, I actually went to the tomb and checked for myself. There simply was no body. It’s so unlikely that the story was made up, that the body was stolen, relocated, or that Jesus didn’t die that the only thing left to believe is that he really did resurrect.”

We find no such testimony though. I find that quite odd. So, I feel like we should infer that Paul didn’t go looking for the tomb. (He boasts about everything else) Note, if he did go looking for it and never mentions it, one wonders whether his finds were too embarrassing to mention as a Christian? But, why wouldn’t he have searched, if he didn’t?

It’s generally conceded that Paul converted to Christianity at earliest, about 3-5 years after Jesus’ death. What use would it have been to search a tomb for a corpse that may have been rotting for 3 to 5 years? Paul never saw Jesus before anyways, how could he have identified the body? But, in any case, I think the earliest Christians believed like Paul did: resurrection involved transference. So, Paul would’ve been made a fool to go looking for an empty tomb. Plus, who knows of the Christians specified where the tomb was, lest its owner need undergo persecution (especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin).

What I mean is that the language of “Resurrection” implies an empty tomb. If there was no empty tomb, no one would say Jesus was raised. Even appearances alone would have lead disciples to say “we saw his ghost.” Appearances alone would not suffice for Resurrection.

Gotchya, my mistake. Hm, I guess I still don’t understand why the language of ‘Resurrection’ had to imply that the body left an empty tomb. The spirit-body wouldn’t appear as a ghost, it would be just as tangible as anything else, just made of different stuff. It would be a resurrection in the full sense, the person is literally transferred to a divinely prepared body, being raising to new life. It would’ve been very odd to describe this as anything but resurrection.

1. 1 Cor. 15:3-5 indicates Paul’s belief in the empty tomb.

Ok, I understand the claim now. I agree with Carrier that post-Pauline Christianity (and even toward the end of his life) came to embrace a transformational view of resurrection. So, it seems to me that the Gospels and Acts added to the creedal formula expressed in 1 Cor. 15 in light of new theological developments. Rather than delve into my reasons for this, I’ll just rely on my position that Paul didn’t hold a transformation view of empty tomb, which implies these later sources must be adding.

 

[Perplexity]

4:

I see quite a few objections here to my interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.

First, you charge Carrier and I with adopting hyper-critical/literal interpretations, particularly of the seed analogy. But, of course if we granted this we’d have to cease such interpretations. The fact that we are interpreting the text as we have means we don’t regard this interpretation as so extreme. This strikes me as a matter of opinion, I guess.

Second, you claim that “1 Cor. 15:53-54 is clearly meant to go with 1 Cor. 42-44” and vv. 42-44 are about a single body. I grant the first conjunct, but agree with Carrier’s grammatical analysis of vv. 42-44 (which I don’t think you’ve addressed) and thus infer the opposite.

Next you argue that “the corruptible must put on the incorruptible” means the body must acquire incorruptibility. But, in v. 42 Paul is talking about the eschaton during which the corruptible will be entirely destroyed. If Paul does have “body” here in mind, he runs into the problem of having the body get destroyed (with all other corruptible stuff) but somehow be transformed into something incorruptible.

As to your objections about my interpretation of “put on” in v. 53, I think I’ll just concede these points. My stronger objection was that “if flesh cannot inherent incorruptibility (1 Corinthians 15:50), then it cannot inherent it by putting on a cloak of incorruptibility.”

I’ll have to come back to 5, this might get very lengthy.

Consider that WLC regularly gives a case for the Resurrection, but he does not give all the evidence. it would be absurd to conclude because in one debate Craig does not mention a certain piece of evidence, he does not believe it.

I agree, but I don’t think this is analogous. The proper analogy would be WLC trying to present the best case for the Resurrection, but failing to mention one of his strongest points in doing so. I can imagine someone like Licona approaching him after the debate completely baffled asking “Why didn’t you mention this? This is like our silver bullet…”

1. Well, of course, they could have admitted the tomb was empty and claimed that it was the result of grave robbery (as the early Jews did).

This would have only given Paul further reason to discuss it (assuming he held a transformation view of resurrection), since if, for instance, the tomb was empty just ‘cause Jesus’ body was stolen, Christianity collapses.

1. But in terms of prioritizing arguments, since the empty tomb was implied (and possibly directly referred to in Mark or Luke), it was not necessary to state.

I agree it wouldn’t have been necessary to state, but considering his primary purpose in writing 1 Cor. 15, and all the other unnecessary arguments which prove nothing by themselves he employed therein, it’s surprising he didn’t even mention the empty tomb. (Best case scenario, what he said implied it).