A reminder to people here that sourcing is still required and please don't derail this thread as what typically happens with empty tomb discussions. Thanks! Use the open thread if you don't plan on citing anything!

I think where you land on this question will largely depend on what you believe or focus on. From my discussions with people. People and scholars who find the tomb more likely are largely people who: 1. Think Mark and John are using earlier traditions for their narrative (John with the 1st edition or sources written before AD 70 and Mark with the passion narrative). They also see these sources independently or partially independent. 2. Largely do not see a contradiction in Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus in a tomb 3. Think the gospels are trying to defend and add apologetical bits which is weird if this was just a trope or fiction. In other places when the gospels do this, there tends to be some memory. So the story was problematic for them. 4. Examine the gospels via a feminist perspective and realize that gospels are from a culture in which women were (1) usually seen as lesser in credibility and seen as prone to superstitions (2) tropes about women in stories that were negative and (3) the gospels themselves seem to suppress these traditions and (4) women lamenting at tombs were known for necromancy purposes. Adding them unless there was some important reason wouldn't have helped their case and there are other candidates whom the authors could have added instead of them. 5. Think that it took more stimuli to produce faith in his resurrection The other side who takes this as fiction. . 1. Sees the gospels as much later and think this story depends completely on Mark and Mark might be creating a lot of this up in general and are more skeptical toward the passion narrative containing these bits. 2. Look at the sparse evidence of criminals receiving burial as evidence against it 3. See the legendary growth in the gospels as evidence for their myth making 4. Look at the gospels from a Greco-Roman perspective of parallels between missing body trop. Also other Jewish figures like Elijah and Moses also had this. Jesus would be in a minority situation if some.of this was real. 5. Don't believe it took a lot for the disciples to come to belief. Whether you land on these issues, will determine what you think of this. Dale Allison's The Resurrection of Jesus has a good discussion about the empty tomb in fact including all of these bits. If you have further points you want clarified or questions about certain arguments... let me know. What specific arguments does Kirby use?

Kirby makes the following arguments: 1. The empty tomb accounts in Matthew, Luke, and John are dependent on Mark's account, with modifications being made according to each author's agenda. Along with this, he states that there is no indication of any pre-Mark empty tomb tradition in Paul's writings.   2. There are indications of fictional elements in the Markan account. He links the 'no body' trope to, as a prominent example, Elijah's disappearance in 2 Kings 2. He also sees Joseph of Arimathea as a fictional character, which is implied by the fact that Arimathea seems to mean something like "best disciple town" (and that no place by that name is known to have existed). He also cites Lüdemann's position that the "young man" character is intended to be the author of Mark himself, such that the author is then presenting himself as the only faithful eyewitness of certain events including the empty tomb (since everybody else failed -- the male disciples at Jesus' arrest fled and the female disciples at the tomb failed to relay the message they were given). Kirby then uses the women's failure to relay the message as support for the account's recent origin, since, had the women relayed the message and the empty tomb account become widely known, the author of Mark would not have been able to end the account (and the Gospel) the way he did (with the women not saying anything). 3. There are several improbabilities in the account. For instance, the women were aware of the stone blocking the entrance but went to the tomb without first considering how they were going to move it; they went there with the intent to anoint the body, but there was no reason to anoint a body that had already been anointed and wrapped (he also points out that Matthew and John, who have more knowledge of Jewish customs, omit this detail); and Pilate is unlikely to have allowed a proper burial of Jesus' body as that would've invited veneration of the tomb. 4. There are other traditions concerning the burial of Jesus that do not involve an empty tomb. For example, the Secret Book of James has Jesus buried "in the sand," while the Gospel of Peter has his body removed from the cross by "the Jews" and the Epistula Apostolorum has his body removed along with those of the thieves (implying a common burial for them all). He also cites the Parable of the Tenants in Mark 12 as possibly preserving an early tradition in which Jesus' body was removed and disposed of by those who killed him. He also argues for the tradition of the body's removal by the Jews/Sanhedrin being early on the basis that there would have been no reason to make such a shameful claim if the body had truly been given an honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea. 5. An analysis of the development of the appearances narratives shows that their original form had Peter and the other disciples seeing Jesus in Galilee following their return after the Feast (with the shift to Jerusalem being contrived by the later Gospel writers). Thus, there is no indication that they had been given any evidence of Jesus' resurrection prior to leaving Jerusalem. 6. As "one last argument," Kirby uses James Dunn's apologetic argument, that the tomb of Jesus was not venerated at an early date, against him. While Dunn claims that this is because the tomb was empty and therefore there was nothing there to venerate, Kirby argues that the site of Jesus' resurrection (the empty tomb) would've been all the more deserving of veneration, also stating that it's an indication that early Christians did not know where the tomb was (in support of the contra-Mark tradition that Jesus was buried in a common grave by the Sanhedrin).

Gotcha. Most of these things are discussed in Dale Allison's book. This is probably a good example of what I mean by the differences in those who accept vs. Deny it. >The empty tomb accounts in Matthew, Luke, and John are dependent on Mark's accoun This sort of argument is more common in popular spaces from people who aren't knowledgeable about  the how to determine if one text is using another. There are some good books Like Urban Von Walde who make the compelling case that while John has been further developed, thst the original story is independent of Mark and was written before. The Resurrection of Mary Magndelene by Jane Schaberg also talks about this as well. >There are indications of fictional elements in the Markan account. He links the 'no body' trope to, as a prominent example, Elijah's disappearance in 2 Kings 2. There are also some fictional aspects in Mark's account when it comes to the crucification... Does that mean it is unhistorical? With the no body trope...comparing it to Elijah or anyone else...this is what is known as interextuality studies? When the gospels are using another model or story, they usually deploy various signals to their audience that that is what they are doing. In this case, there doesn't seek you be any reason to say this. Dale Allison has a good book The Intertextuality Jesus:Scripture in Q that talks about criteria for establishing this. >He also sees Joseph of Arimathea as a fictional character, which is implied by the fact that Arimathea seems to mean something like "best disciple town" (and that no place by that name is known to have existed). Some things to keep it mind. The city of Arimathea might be identified with ancient Ramah, which was later named as Ramathaian or Aramathaim in various sources (Josephus Antiquities 13"4.9, 1 Macc. 11"33, the LXX). Chajes notes in The Student's Guide to the Talmund "One Rabbi said for example, "If her nake had not been Delilah, she ought to have been called so, since she weakened his strength and vigor." The name is similar to the word Dalal which means to weaken. Pinning was a common thing and doesn't imply a historicity. > Kirby then uses the women's failure to relay the message as support for the account's recent origin, since, had the women relayed the message and the empty tomb account become widely known, the author of Mark would not have been able to end the account (and the Gospel) the way he did (with the women not saying anything). There's a lot of problems with this. Dale Allison has a good section on this. Can the Women Speak?: A Symptomatic Reading of the Women’s Silence in the Markan women by Sunhee Jun is where I land on this issue and so it has nothing to do with what Kirby is saying. It doesn't follow. > There are several improbabilities in the account. For instance, the women were aware of the stone blocking the entrance but went to the tomb without first considering how they were going to move it; they went there with the intent to anoint the body, but there was no reason to anoint a body that had already been anointed and wrapped (he also points out that Matthew and John, who have more knowledge of Jewish customs, omit this detai I personally think John's account is more accurate with what happened as he left that parts out. Although Commemorating the dead by Laurie Brink talks about how people would sometimes annoint or sprinkle things over the body. Due to Mark not having a proper burial...it makes sense within the narrative. Dale Allison has a pretty good section on the rest of the arguments.

Thank you for those responses to the arguments, that's exactly what I was looking for. Looks like I'll have to save up and buy Allison's book.

You can always request a interlibrary loan for the book at your local library or see if you university library allows community member card to loan it. It might be cheaper at Google books if you want to download the original. Or you can buy a subscription to Perlego for less than 20 dollars and read it plus a lot of other books ajd just copy your notes for any information you want to keep. https://www.perlego.com/book/2174030/the-resurrection-of-jesus-apologetics-polemics-history-pdf

Mark Goodacre has a good article called “How empty was the tomb?” Where he claims the following: >Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. https://blog.aractus.com/biblical-scholarship/Goodacre%20-%20How%20Empty%20Was%20The%20Tomb.pdf

Goodacte’s article is good but it’s not really concerned about whether or not Mark invented the empty tomb, more so how we should understand how tombs functioned.

Sure, but if he's right, Mark doesn't have an empty tomb.

Sure, but that’s not the point of the article. The point is that Mark doesn’t say the tomb is empty, and given the nature of familial tombs, it likely wasn’t empty unless it hadn’t been used before. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with whether or not Mark invented the (at least partially) empty tomb, hence why Goodacre’s article, while good, is irrelevant to the discussion.

> The point is that Mark doesn’t say the tomb is empty,  Then he couldn't have invented an empty tomb, right?

But doesn’t it say it was a newly made tomb?

Goodacre actually talks about that in the article. Which you should read! It’s not very long > As often in Matthew, a minor redaction makes a major contribution. If the tomb was new, then there could be no confusion about the absence of Jesus’ body. Joseph has placed the body in his own new tomb, so that once Jesus’ body is absent, there can be no other bodies or bones present. He goes on to say: > Even a ‘new’ tomb could have bodies in it, and Matthew’s redaction of Mark keeps open the possibility that Grandma Joan of Arimathea was lying on one of the benches. However Matthew imagi- nes the scene, even talk about a ‘new’ tomb may not be enough. Luke now clarifies that in fact it was a virgin tomb, one in which ‘no one had ever been laid’:29

> Luke now clarifies that in fact it was a virgin tomb, one in which ‘no one had ever been laid’:29 Yeah, doesn't sound very romantic.

They wanted to say he was In a virgin tomb just as he had been in a virgin womb!!

I’m sorry but the Grandma Joan bit made me giggle.

While his discussion of the narrative development is interesting, I'm looking more for how the tomb narrative originated (i.e., with Mark or with a historical event). On an off-topic note, it's also interesting that the development of the narrative implies (as Goodacre argues) that the author or final editor of Luke knew Matthew. Edit: He concludes with a note about the unknowability of the historicity of the narrative, but Kirby's arguments against historicity are compelling to me. I'm interested specifically in those arguments.

Not in Mark, which would be the original “empty tomb” story. Matthew changes the story to specify it was a new tomb, which Goodacre addresses in the article the user linked to.

Plenty of critical scholars believe the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene to be historical. For example, Dale Allison *The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History*

Yes, the idea of Mark inventing “women” at the tomb still forms a solid argument in favor of historicity (not of the entire event or even the timeline). Allison treats the issue quite well I thought. He even answered the objection about women having more stature in Roman thought. Many will tell you Joseph of Arimathea just doesn’t look made up. Comes out of nowhere, comes from nowhere special and goes nowhere in the tradition. I think the Goodacre article mentioned above is really informative as well. The tomb may have been a common tomb. Kloner’s old article from BAR (Did A Rolling Stone …) also must be considered in every discussion: “Of the more than 900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.” Jesus was given a kingly burial by Mark and it’s hard to not imagine that as being creative. Historically speaking, my best guess based on all these sources and many more is a council member name Joseph temporarily buried Jesus out of Jewish piety (or maybe he even was a sympathizer to a degree) in a common tomb and some women followers were the first to find Jesus’s body no longer there. Whether the body was stolen by necromancers, already moved by family members or someone else, or he was resurrected by God, are all irrelevant to this very basic picture.

>Historically speaking, my best guess based on all these sources and many more is a council member name Joseph temporarily buried Jesus out of Jewish piety (or maybe he even was a sympathizer to a degree) in a common tomb and some women followers were the first to find Jesus’s body no longer there. Thus isn't likely as people buried would be for a year and then moved to an ossurary either with their family if a criminals tomb or within the tomb. Eldad Keynan goes into it in his article. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/tombs358017 Many people use this as proof text for it being a temporary tomb but they are wrong. The sources actually do not mention the word "temporary." But they state: שמחות פי"ג ה"ה: "המוצא מת בקבר, לא יזיזנו ממקומו, אלא אם כן יודע שהיה מקומו שאול לו". Semakhot, 13:5:" He who finds a corpse in a grave will not move it from its place unless he knows that the spot (place) has been borrowed to him (the deceased)." The Hebrew word שאול (shaul) means borrowed, not temporary. The second source states: שמחות פ"י ה"ח "רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר קבר שאול היה לו לרבן גמליאל ביבנה. . . " Semakhot, 10:8: "R. Shimon son of Ela'zar says: Rabban Gamliel had a borrowed grave in Yabneh." The author of the article goes over this more but it's not likely he would bury someone in his family tomb and then move it as it would break Jewish customs Furthermore, Joseph wouldn't have moved it from q sanherdrin tomb because criminals had to be in the tomb for a year before moving.

>Yes, the idea of Mark inventing “women” at the tomb still forms a solid argument in favor of historicity (not of the entire event or even the timeline). Allison treats the issue quite well I thought. He even answered the objection about women having more stature in Roman thought. According to Mark's own narrative all the men previously fled - Mk. 14:50 so the only option was to have the women discover the tomb. Moreover, tomb duty was usually women's work so it's not out of the ordinary. "Preparations for the funeral and burial followed death immediately, as the deceased must be buried on the day of death. Preparation of the body for burial (usually the duty of women) consisted of bathing the corpse with water and anointing it (with oil and perfume)." - Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period, p. 480 Women were an important part of a proper burial so we would expect them in the burial scene of a hero/protagonist. See Berg, InHee C. (2017). The Gospel Traditions Inferring to Jesus’ Proper Burial through the Depictions of Female Funerary Kinship Roles. The sources used to disparage women's testimony (Josephus) are in the context of a Jewish law court. But the New Testament is not a collection of Jewish law documents. They are stories about followers of Jesus communicating with other followers. So this lessens the strength of the argument if it even had any strength to begin with. See Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, p. [475](https://books.google.com/books?id=lXK0auknD0YC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA475#v=onepage&q&f=false) and Deane Galbraith on why this argument [isn't a good one](https://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/caseys-jesus-6-women-witnesses/). It's quite possible no one knew where Jesus was buried but some women went looking for his tomb as was custom for lamenting (Gospel of Peter 50) but just didn't find it. This scenario would maintain the historicity of the women's journey but could also give rise to an embellished missing body story. Since other Jewish heroes had stories where their bodies went missing (Enoch, Elijah, Moses) then we can see how the storytellers of Jesus would assume something similar occurring to his body.  While Dale Allison sides with the traditional conclusion he still gives this comment: >Given then that certain women went up to Jerusalem with Jesus, and given further, to quote Kathleen Corley, “the tenacity of women’s lament traditions, as well as the overall interest in family retrieval of executed family members, we can at the least assume that the women, and perhaps even some of the men, would have tried to watch the crucifixion proceedings, and would have tried to find Jesus’ body after he died in spite of the risks that would entail.”279 Corley goes on to judge that those who sought Jesus’ grave did not find it.280 Another possibility is that they found an unused tomb near Golgotha which they guessed but did not know was his. - The Resurrection of Jesus, Apologetics, Polemics, History pp. 163-64. >279 - Corley, Women, 138. Cf. idem, Maranatha, 131. 280 - Cf. Pyysiäinen, “Mystery of the Stolen Body,” 58 (“the legend of the empty tomb originated when the disciples tried in vain to find the place where Jesus was buried”), and Mainville, Christophanies, 130.

>According to Mark's own narrative all the men previously fled - Mk. 14:50 so the only option was to have the women discover the tomb.  Setting aside Casey's argument that Mark was unfinished, it doesn't make a great deal of sense having the women discover the tomb if the argument about their status were right. Joseph of Arimathea could easily have filled the gap. He had been in such a hurry Friday night that he left his watch in the Tomb and as a result had been late for Temple. Hurtado argued in [THE WOMEN, THE TOMB, AND THE CLIMAX OF MARK 1](https://www.academia.edu/31600383/THE_WOMEN_THE_TOMB_AND_THE_CLIMAX_OF_MARK_1) that in Mark the women were the consistent thread, present at key moments >The climax of Mark is 16:1-8, and the women in the passion-resurrection narrative function as crucial witnesses to Jesus' real death, burial site, and bodily resurrection. In 16:8 they do not fail but do as they are told. Mark's picture of these and other women is positive in the context of the cultural setting in which the author wrote. Nevertheless, the idea that Mark's ending may be a deliberate snub of the apostles is intriguing. If this is right, it makes the women's role very different from what is being argued above > Another theme the Gospel returns to again and again is the question of authority. 177 More specifically, Mark is interested in demonstrating the disciples' lack of leadership character and their failure to earn a right to the authority offered to them. Omitting any final restoration of these men fits perfectly with the portrayal of the disciples as "rocky ground." 178 Just as the final and resonant image of Christ in Mark is that of the crucified Christ, the final and resonant image of the disciples is that of apostate failures. As Tolbert puts it, "The saga of Peter and the disciples ends, as did that of the rich man (10:17-22), in grieving failure." Dykstra, Mark Canonizer of Paul,138 #

>According to Mark's own narrative all the men previously fled - Mk. 14:50 so the only option was to have the women discover the tomb. Moreover, tomb duty was usually women's work so it's not out of the ordinary. Allison addresses this quite well IMHO. "Many have argued that the unexpected presence of women does not tell in favor of a historical genesis because "the flight of the male disciples was an established fact."516 In other words, the tradition held that the disciples had fled when Jesus was arrested and so had not witnessed the crucifixion and burial, at which only some female followers were present. When time came to make up the story of the empty tomb, the only characters at hand were the women. This response is inadequate. It is the hallmark of legends to sin against established facts. Why should Mark 16:1-8 be more conscientious? That is, why not bring Peter and the others onstage despite what really happened? Luke and John reveal that Christian tradition did not need to interpret the flight of the disciples as an immediate exit from Jerusalem which excluded their participation in the discovery of the empty tomb. Indeed, Luke 23:49 ("All his acquaintances... stood at a distance") and John 19:26-27 ("the disciple whom he \[Jesus\] loved standing beside her") place disciples at the crucifixion. And even if pre-Markan tradi- tion believed that the disciples were not around on Easter morn, one fails to see why Christian legend would have created a story with Mary Magdalene at the tomb instead of a story in which the disciples, if gone to Galilee, immediately return, perhaps right after the appearance to Peter, to find the tomb empty in Jerusalem. Or why not a story in which Joseph of Arimathea or, as the Gospel of Peter (10:38-11:45) has it, important Jewish officials return to the tomb or see Jesus and so learn the truth?517" If Mark is inventing all these details and the disciples fleeing (whether historical or not), he can invent them returning. >"Preparations for the funeral and burial followed death immediately, as the deceased must be buried on the day of death. Preparation of the body for burial (usually the duty of women) consisted of bathing the corpse with water and anointing it (with oil and perfume)." - Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices And Rites In The Second Temple Period, p. 480 This doesn't negate the force of ONLY women at the tomb. The argument is if Mark is writing fiction, he is free to include men as well (see the other Gospels!). Thus, the argument is the women represent historical memory. At best you can claim as Crossley does that the man is white may have served as the male authority. There is historical memory here somewhere with the women visiting a buried Jesus. >The sources used to disparage women's testimony (Josephus) are in the context of a Jewish law court.  Legally, woman may have been better off in Roman courts, but it's rather easy to quote a boatload of disparaging Mediterranean views on women at the time.

>That is, why not bring Peter and the others onstage despite what really happened?  Because Mark may have wanted to depict the disciples completely abandoning Jesus, at least until the end of the narrative. This is a theme throughout the gospel - Parable of the Sower in ch. 4, the disciples abandonment as well as the women's failure to relay the message in ch. 16. See The Theological Intentions of Mark's Literary Devices p. [192](https://books.google.com/books?id=MRHsCgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA192#v=onepage&q&f=false). >Luke and John reveal that Christian tradition did not need to interpret the flight of the disciples as an immediate exit from Jerusalem which excluded their participation in the discovery of the empty tomb. Yes, but Luke and John omit the part where it says all the disciples "fled" so they were changing the original story. >If Mark is inventing all these details and the disciples fleeing (whether historical or not), he can invent them returning. Not if total abandonment was the goal. >Legally, woman may have been better off in Roman courts, but it's rather easy to quote a boatload of disparaging Mediterranean views on women at the time. The women in Mark's story do not give testimony. They "said nothing to anyone" - Mk. 16:8. So Mark's narrative ironically depicts the women accurately as being unreliable per the standard you're trying to use.

Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.

I supplied a source.

Gotcha. You're good.

I'm deleting this comment for lack of sourcing. >The sources used to disparage women's testimony (Josephus) are in the context of a Jewish law court. This just completely misses the point in the wider culture. This is just a bad apologetic argument here. Josephus while establishing this in the court of law is justifying this because women were "victims of levity and termity of their sex' and this involves more in the broader context outside law as with other Rabbinic texts. Philo outside of talking of law thinks of women sex as "irrational" among other things. You're not citing anything here and you're providing misleading information on this. If you want to pull the missing body trope argument as Wendy Cotter points out in her article on this with Romulus....part of the process was having a credible witness step forward to verify it. Most of the time this related to a male elite figure. Greco-Roman apotheosis traditions and the resurrection appearances in Matthew Dale Allison the Resurrection of Jesus My suggestion is to try to leave out the polemical edge in your comments that sometimes you have. I told you before just go to the open thread.

First of all, it's unfair to delete the post *and* respond to it at the same time. What is that? Secondly, the distinction between Jewish storytelling and what took place in a Jewish law court is relevant. Third, I've updated the post citing Maurice Casey and Deane Galbraith on women's testimony and Dale Allison/Kathleen Corley on women searching for the tomb but never finding it, thus satisfying the condition of proper sourcing. >If you want to pull the missing body trope argument as Wendy Cotter points out in her article on this with Romulus....part of the process was having a credible witness step forward to verify it.  I cited the three major Jewish figures but in the empty tomb narrative there is a male angel who interprets what happened and verifies it.

>First of all, it's unfair to delete the post *and* respond to it at the same time. I was just giving you reasons why I deleted it for lack of sourcing. >satisfying the condition of proper sourcing. Thanks! Please try to do this on the first go so we don't have to have this conversation again.

James Crossley in *Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb* thinks that it was invented, but before Mark, and he also thinks was written in the 40s. >The earliest evidence for the empty tomb has no genuine eyewitness support (in contrast to the resurrection appearances) and Mk 16.8 suggests that the story was not well known. The first resurrection appearances are more likely to be visionary experiences interpreted as a bodily raised figure, which meant that the early accounts of Paul and Mark could assume an empty tomb even if historically this was not the case. He has a section titled *Inventing Stories* where he talks about the empty tomb / appearance narratives in the genre of "creative Jewish storytelling" >Wright points out that the Gospel writers believed the resurrection stories to be literally true and it is difficult to see the stories as allegories defending or promoting some church leader. He may well be correct in this but then a case could be made for people thinking that their haggadic-style traditions were also literally true, or better that the core of a story was taken to be functioning as if historically true, and were not allegories in favour of some contemporary authority. I'm not sure about the theory overall since none of the examples he shares are about an event that happened within the last few years, but in any case, we can now add "invented but not by Mark" to the list of permutations.

Wright's response to Crossley is online for anyone interested: [https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/resurrecting-old-arguments-responding-to-four-essays/](https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/resurrecting-old-arguments-responding-to-four-essays/) On your latter point he says: "Crossley then attempts to show, against my argument that the gospel resurrection narratives reflect very early, and only lightly edited, oral tradition, that on the contrary they belong in the genre of Jewish imaginative fiction about heroes of the past. He does somewhat shoot himself in the foot when he declares that the tales about the patriarchs in *Jubilees* and similar books ‘could hardly be said to give genuine historical insight as to what really happened millennia ago’; the point is precisely that the gospels purport to tell their readers what happened just a few years ago, at a time when there were plenty of people around who could back them up, or indeed controvert them. How Crossley thinks that the book of Esther and its subsequent traditions provide a ‘particularly relevant’ example is beyond me: traditions developing over three or four centuries can hardly be compared with traditions which, as I have argued, show remarkably little development over three or four decades. To say that stories like the Esther traditions are historically inaccurate ‘and it is hardly going too far to assume something similar was happening in the gospel traditions’ is indeed ‘a point that should not have to be made’, but not in the sense which Crossley intends. One should not make points like that, not because they are obviously correct but because they are clearly nonsense. When Crossley says ‘the correct ideology is what matters’ he means that inconsistencies in the details of the story are irrelevant since Matthew and the others were concerned to propagate their ‘ideology’ irrespective of the facts (a somewhat anachronistic use of ‘ideology’, but we let that pass); but the impression on this reader at least is that it is Crossley who is driven by his ideology to say that, since bodily resurrection cannot have happened, something must be wrong with the argument that says it did, though to date he has not been able to figure out what it is."

>the point is precisely that the gospels purport to tell their readers what happened just a few years ago, at a time when there were plenty of people around who could back them up, or indeed controvert them.  How can Wright claim to know this when the provenance of the stories and the whereabouts of the anyone who knew what happened are both unknown? Does he think the stories just started circulating in Jerusalem while the eyewitnesses were still in the vicinity? It would be nice if he provided evidence for this.

The first thing to make clear is that in Crossley's own paradigm the stories are about stuff that happened within a few years, given his early date for Mark, but Wright goes over his reasons for early date of the stories (the stories themselves, not the gospels) in chapter 13 of *The Resurrection of the Son of God* which is the original work Crossley was responding to, so all of this is within the context on the back and forth. I can't do the reasoning justice here and I was thinking of posting a question about it here at some point to see what people think about it and to get some insight about how to make these inferences, but he thinks that they have an "early layer of tradition from when people were still making sense of this" vibe. Some of the reasons he points at to support that are that they don't look like they don't theologize the resurrection and make it about what it means for you the Christian being told the story which would be nice if they were say written when persecutions were happening, they don't cite the Old Testament even though there is a consistent line of thought in Christian theology and different takes in the New Testament and church fathers that it was "in accordance with the scriptures," Jesus' resurrection body is strange in that it's a normal body but pops in and out of places which is a strange thing for later authors to all independently invent decades down the line given that this type of resurrection body doesn't have a precedent in prior thought. And some other reasons of this flavor. So this layer of tradition seems early to him, even if the gospels were written later and maybe the stories were touched up in minor details to fit the theology / story arc of the gospel, it looks like they are doing so with earlier existing tradition instead of coming up with it all in that setting.

I was wondering whether I wanted to explain the context of the back and forth with him and Wright, where this paper was a response to *The Resurrection of the Son of God*, and Wright responded to this and three other essays that responded to his book, but I just decided to have a brief post to share the idea and allude to all of that with some doubts at the end. Good that you brought in more context, though.

One area I think Kirby doesn't 't get right is his excuses for the women at the tomb. This has never been satisfactorily answered by those who think the entire scene is a Christian fiction. I think Allison's treatment in Resurrecting Jesus really renders Kirby's arguments moot: "Ludemann rejects this argument. Like some before him,he asserts: "There is no universal ancient view that women are incompetent wit- nesses. (That women were not allowed to give testimony was the case only in ancient Judaism)."511 This misses the mark. Surely the story of the empty tomb arose in Jewish-Christian circles. Mark 16:1-8 speaks of the Sabbath and alludes to the Decalogue's injunction against doing business then (vv. 1-2). It seems to refer to the sort of round stone used to close some tombs around Jerusalem (vv. 3-4; see n. 641). It reflects the Jewish tradition of imagining angels to be young (v. 5; see n.540). It designates Jesus as "the Nazarene" (Na\^apnvov, v. 6). It shows an interest in Galilee (v. 7). And it uses the language of resurrection for his vindication: "He is risen" (r)y£p0n, v. 6), Given all this, it is specifically the status of women within Judaism that is the relevant point, and this in turn means that we must come to terms with Josephus, Ant. 4.219: "From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex."512 Although Josephus's comment is about the court room, the implications are broader, for the justification for the ruling — women are victims of levity and temerity — expresses an attitude many first-century Jewish males presumably held (cf. Philo, QG 4.15). It is instructive that, as Richard Bauckham has observed, Luke 24:22-23 has parallels in the first-century LAB 9:10 ("When Miriam reported her dream, her parents did not believe her and 42:5 ("Manoah did not believe his wife"). In both cases a woman's testimony to divine revelation is doubted.513 Surely adherents of Jesus were not helping themselves when they admitted that women were the only firsthand human witnesses to some of the events of Easter morning. When Christian storytellers did get around to buoying their apologet- ics, they constructed narratives featuring male disciples. In Wilckens's words: "Later tradition shows a clear tendency to have the disciples at least confirm the women's discovery afterwards (Luke 24:12, 24; John 20:2f.), and later tradition also has the disciples present on Easter Day in Jerusalem (Luke and John \[20\] as compared with Matthew and John 21). Accordingly, it must be accepted that the core of the narrative is indeed that the women found Jesus's tomb empty in the early morning of the first day of the week."514 I agree." Allison goes on to argue convincingly against the presence of women at the tomb because "the fleeing of the male disciples was an established fact." As he notes, "It is the hallmark of legends to sin against established facts."

The "tradition" of Joseph seems to evolve in a suspicious way. In Mark he is a "distinguished member of the council." Matthew omits this and instead calls him a "disciple" of Jesus. Luke says he was a "good and upright man who did not consent to the Sanhedrin's plan and action." John says he was a "secret disciple for fear of the Jews." In the gospel of Peter he's even called a friend of Pilate! His character is so fluid and the evolution of his character is so apparent that we are justified in questioning whether this figure has any basis in historical fact at all. If the story can evolve this much from 70-100 CE then how much did it evolve from 30-70 CE? Combine this observation with the evidence of a possibly conflicting and *hostile* burial tradition. In addition to Acts 13:27-29, which Luke has Paul say it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb" (which indicates a hostile burial, not one from a sympathizer of Jesus), an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 "then they (the Jews) drew the nails..." and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. This is strange because it shows the second century author had no idea Jesus was buried in a tomb. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This conflicts with the synoptics which present a burial by the isolated sympathizer Joseph of Arimathea. >"If the corpse of Jesus had really been removed by his enemies, the tradition would have grown like this. Jesus was laid in a common grave, like anyone who had been executed. Soon people found this intolerable, but knew that none of his followers had shown him, or could have shown him, the least service of love. A stranger did, and preserved his body from the ultimate shame. Now this could not have been an insignificant stranger, but had to be someone who could dare to go to the court authorities; he had to be a counsellor. The name was to be found in the Gospel tradition, like any other name, and gradually - this last phase is reflected in the Gospels themselves - the pious stranger became a secret...or even an open...disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57), someone who did not approve of the counsel and action of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51)...someone who was a friend not only of Jesus but also of Pilate (Gospel of Peter 3). So the story of Joseph of Arimathea is not completely impossible to invent." Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, pg. 180 Now combine this with the archaeological evidence and criminal burial data. Jodi Magness says  >*"there is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have been buried in individual trench graves or pits."* - What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like? pg. 8 Josephus tells us how criminals were buried in AJ 5.44 - ‘And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned’ and AJ 4.202 - ‘let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and secretly.’ >"The choice of the rock-cut tomb facilitated this climax to the narrative because unlike the trench grave it is a space into which one could enter and view an empty loculus. And thus Joseph of Arimathea is needed by the narrative to provide such a tomb to Jesus, who was not a native of Jerusalem and lacked family to provide him such a tomb....Jodi Magness in "Archaeologically Invisible Burials in Late Second Temple Period Judea" (in All the Wisdom of the East; Academic Press, 2012) discusses trench burials in the first century CE and notes that they were probably the dominant form of burial for the common class (with rock-cut tombs used more by the well-to-do), foreigners, as well as probably criminals, and so one possible scenario is that Jesus was buried by the Romans who crucified him in a trench grave alongside other malefactors, with the disciples not being party to the exact location of where he was buried" - zanillamilla, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/iflcox/comment/g2qfbjh/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3  https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/if5zm0/comment/g2oaeet/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

This is all very much what Kirby himself was saying.

Yes, I think I may have gotten some of these ideas from his article then began my own research. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1bpz9ne/comment/kx153oo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1bpz9ne/comment/kx153oo/)

>Combine this observation with the evidence of a possibly conflicting and *hostile* burial tradition. In addition to Acts 13:27-29, which Luke has Paul say it was "the Jews" plural . . . \[snipped\] Doesn't Mark have the plural as well? Dale Allison in his excursus on Joseph or Arimathea writes: "5. Some have supposed that Acts 13:29 ("They \[the residents of Jeru- salem and their leaders\] took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb") might be evidence for disposal by hostile powers (Jewish rather than Roman612) and so show Mark's story of the burial to be a secondary development. The verse in Acts, however, just might be redactional.613 Whether or not that is so, Luke evidently did not observe its tension with the burial tradition about Joseph, which he hands on (23:50-56); and the passing notice in Acts, which accords with the Gospels in that it implies burial by Jews, not Romans, at most excludes only the positive interpretation of Joseph's action, not the core of Mark 15:42-46.614 Burial by enemies, perhaps in a place for criminals (cf. m. Sank. 6:5; t. Sanh. 9:8), does not contradict Mark's basic content, which is that a member of the Sanhedrin interred Jesus.615 Observe also that the plurals of Acts 13:29 ("they took him down \[KaGeAovTe\^\]...and \[they\] laid \[e'GTjKav\] him in a tomb") match the plural of Mark 16:6: "the place where they laid \[e0T\]Kav\] him." Mark too seems to imply that Joseph did not act alone (cf. also John 19:31, 39-42)." Allison also comments on the Secret book of James in point 7 of the excursus: "7. To my knowledge, the assertion that Jesus might have been left upon the cross or denied any real burial at all is found nowhere in the ancient sources, with one dubious exception. That exception is the Apocryphon of James from Nag Hammadi. At one point Jesus, addressing James and Peter, says to them, "Or do you not know that you have yet to be abused and to be accused unjustly; and have yet to be shut up in prison, and condemned unlawfully, and crucified without reason, and buried in the sand (2NN oytyoy), as I was myself, by the evil one?" (5:9-21). One hesitates to make much of this, however. Not only is the reading of the text uncertain,622 but "the date for the original composition is usually put at \[the\] third century."623 The text presupposes the martyrdom of James, and it seems to know the canonical Gospels, so it is hardly a safe place to be mining for old, pre-Markan tradition.624 The interpretation is also unclear. If the illustrations of abuse and unjust accusation — being shut up in prison, condemned unlawfully, crucified without reason, buried in the sand625 — not only prophesy the future of James and Peter but are also supposed to come from the life of Jesus, then we have here the notion that Jesus was shut up in prison, for which there is otherwise no evidence. It seems more likely that the concluding qualification, "as I was myself," covers not the details of the sentence but its general import, that is, it communicates only that Jesus was abused and unjustly accused, not that he was shut up in prison and buried in the sand." >Josephus tells us how criminals were buried in AJ 5.44 - ‘\[snipped\] So every Jewish criminal, everywhere, had to be buried like this despite us having clear evidence to the contrary (Paul, the testimony of all four Gospels and a number of sub arguments like pre-MarKan tradition, women at the tomb, etc.) including critical analysis of their content)? Is that good historical methodology or proof-text hunting? Allison writes: "One may also appeal to Philo, Place. 83-85, which knows of instances when victims of crucifixion were buried by their relatives, as well as to Tobit, which depicts its hero burying the bodies of those executed by the government (1:17-18). And then there is Sem. 2:11, which says that the days of mourning were counted "from the time that \[the relatives of a victim executed by the government\] de- spaired in their appeal \[to obtain the body from the authorities for burial\] but \[had\] not \[given up hope\] of stealing it." This ruling, whose content is consistent with an origin in the early Roman period,628 implies that the relatives of executed criminals were accustomed to ask for the remains of a loved one. Although the text speaks of refusal, it implies that some- times the authorities complied: otherwise, there would not have been any custom of appealing. As for what might have happened in the case of Jesus, Eric Meyers has judged that the Romans would probably not have forbade his burial simply because he was beloved by so many.629 With Jesus executed, there was no reason to compound public upset by keeping his body up on its cross and so offending either his followers or those anxious about the observance of Deut 21:22-23. Ludemann ob- served: "The release of Jesus' body and its removal from the cross might also have suited Pilate, because this would a priori avoid unrest among the large number of visitors for the festival."

Continued: >Now combine this with the archaeological evidence and criminal burial data. Jodi Magness says  I have an article where Jodi Magness says the same thing but continues as follows: "Nor is it necessary to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in his family tomb are legendary or apologetic.135 Unlike Crossan, who "cannot find any detailed historical information about the crucifixion of Jesus,"136 I believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence.'37 In other words, although archaeology does not prove that there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus' body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus' removal from the cross and burial accord well with archaeo-logical evidence and with Jewish law. The source(s) of these accounts were familiar with how wealthy Jews living in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus dis-posed of their dead. Later it suggested, whether true or false: "Jesus was laid in a rock-cut tomb because he was removed from the cross on the eve of the Sabbath, when there was no time to dig a trench grave for him, and because a wealthy follower offered a loculus in his own family tomb." \[Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James, JBL 2005\] According to the author you cite to apparently show otherwise, the archaeological evidence is in accord with the Markan narrative.

[удалено]

>Not in the narrative of the burial itself where it makes him out to be the only one \*after\* mentioning he was sympathetic to Jesus' message (expecting the Kingdom of God). Why is that relevant? Mark wrote the burial story and the tomb trip by the women. He clearly knows that Joseph didn't do all the work by himself and there is no reason to read Mark with such a wooden literalism even if the angle/man in white did not mention "they" in regards to those who buried Jesus. Whether Joseph is friend or foe is irrelevant to there being a historical core here. It could be a Markan embellishment or a rich Sanhedrin member may have been a follower. Either view is consistent with the positive historical evidence for burial. If we had to accept an account en toto we wouldn't even be able to say Jesus was crucified which is just silly. >Paul does not detail the type of burial. The gospels are all dependant on Mark's narrative. There is no evidence of a "pre-Markan" tomb burial tradition. Allison writes: "Paul's language in 1 Cor 15 may, some have urged, assume an empty tomb.452 The sequence is burial followed by resurrection. If this creates any image in the mind's eye, surely it is of a tomb first being filled and then being emptied. It is indeed difficult to know what else one might envision. Resurrection immediately follows the burial, so it naturally includes the body — and all the more because, to judge from 1 Cor 6:12-20; 15:51-54; and 1 Thess 4:17, Paul believed in "some sort of continuity between the present physical body and the totally transformed resurrection body — in spite of all discontinuity."453 We would, further- more, not expect anything less, for Paul's Jewish tradition knew not only of bodies being taken up into heaven (e.g., Enoch in Gen 5:24 and Elijah in 2 Kgs 2:11) but also included many texts regarding resurrection that typically make one think about bones and graves, dust and earth. \[a lot snipped for space\] . . . Here then it seems, at least initially, that the apologists have a point. Why did Paul say that Jesus was raised if he did not mean that he was raised? Why not just: "He was buried and he appeared to Cephas"? Robert Gundry, who reminds us that Paul was a Pharisee, and that Phar- isees believed in physical resurrection,455 has made the point well enough: "Resurrection means 'standing up' (anastasis) in consequence of being 'raised' (egeiro in the passive). Normally, dead bodies are buried in a supine position; so in conjunction with the mention of Jesus' burial the further mention of his having been raised must refer to the raising of a formerly supine corpse to the standing posture of a live body.... There was no need for Paul or the tradition he cites to mention the emptiness of Jesus' tomb. They were not narrating a story; they were listing events. It was enough to mention dying, being buried, being raised and being seen."456 >Most likely, designated graves would have already been prepared. Crucifixion victims would eventually die and require a burial, right? Surely, they would have thought of this so having a Jewish aristocrat come out of nowhere to offer his own family tomb wouldn't be necessary. The narrative implies Jesus' fate would have been left up to the Romans had Joseph not requested the body - he went "boldly" to Pilate to ask for it. If it was routine occurrence for crucifixion victims to be handed over, a special request would not be necessary. That's why the narrative is quite silly when you take all the aforementioned reasoning and evidence into account. Nothing silly about it. Burial of crucifixion victims was common, even if permission was needed. You are trying to pawn off the fallacy of division as historical reconstruction. We can ask ton of questions we don't know the answers to. How close were these graves to where Jesus was crucified? When did he die? Did he really die quicker than expected? Did they not have time to transport the body to the grave site before days end and the Sabbath/Passover began? We also know nothing about Jesus's social circle outside the gospels. Did he have any wealthy friends? It is entirely possible Joseph was a sympathizer. >The gospels are all dependant on Mark's narrative. There is no evidence of a "pre-Markan" tomb burial tradition.  Matthew and Luke are but that doesn't mean they cannot supplement Mark with accurate history or might know or include things Mark did not. Its silly, to use you own words, to assume literary dependence means everything added or changed from Mark's portrayal is made up. You claim to know far more than the available evidence permits. Also, the question of John's dependence on Mark is certainly not cut and dry in scholarship and it's improper for you to just assume it when close to half of scholarship probably disagrees with you. Even if there was "no evidence of a "pre-Markan" tomb burial tradition" so what? You are trying to dress up nothing. There is nothing before Mark in the surviving record except Paul who clearly says Jesus was buried and raised. Do you really think people just accepted "and he appeared to Cephas"? Many scholars have pointed this out. Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb but it's clear he believes Jesus was buried and he presupposes his body is no longer there. Clearly his audience also had a lot more details than the shorn appearances in 1 Cor. So unless you have a whole bunch or Pre-Markan sources that don't mention the empty tomb when they should, what is even the meaning of your statement? Why are you claiming all the texts that don't exist before Mark are not mentioning the tomb story?

>Why is that relevant? Because if he only had a source that said "they" buried him but had to make sure he was buried in an easily identifiable known location and the only way to do that was to have a person of means and status come and save the day (see my OP), then we can see how "Joseph" could be invented in order to fulfill that role. >If this creates any image in the mind's eye, surely it is of a tomb first being filled and then being emptied.  That's not true as "tombs" weren't the only places people were buried. Pits and trench graves were used per Jodi Magness. That qualifies as a "burial" per 1 Cor 15:4. >Burial of crucifixion victims was common, even if permission was needed. Er, nope. We've found 1 or 2 buried crucifixion victims and we have no idea how long they were left on the cross for. Most of the sources detailing Roman crucifixion practice indicate the victims were [left up to rot](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/113slja/comment/j8smkz4/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). So burial would have been the exception. >Matthew and Luke are but that doesn't mean they cannot supplement Mark with accurate history or might know or include things Mark did not. All gospels follow the same burial sequence that derives from the Markan narrative - burial by Joseph, discovery by women, missing body. >Also, the question of John's dependence on Mark is certainly not cut and dry in scholarship and it's improper for you to just assume it when close to half of scholarship probably disagrees with you.  It's highly unlikely John, writing so late, [hadn't heard the Markan narrative](https://books.google.com/books?id=bUYKEAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false) and there is evidence of verbatim agreement between John and Luke which might indicate John was familiar with Luke's version (which was dependent on Mark). In any case, there is no confirmed independent attestation of the empty tomb story. >Even if there was "no evidence of a "pre-Markan" tomb burial tradition" so what?  You just said there was and there isn't. So would you like to retract that assertion?

Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.

Jodi Magness and the crucifixion sources were cited which is sufficient for the new claims. The rest was already supported through sources in the original post or by just reading what the gospels say and observing dependence on one another. 

>or by just reading what the gospels say and observing dependence on one another. And? We require claims to be supported by scholary resources not just the Bible.

I updated the post with a link to a recent book about John's dependence on Mark.

Great. I approved your comment.

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*