Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism

. . . hoti Christos apethanen huper ton hamartion hemon kata tas graphas, kai hoti etaphe, kai hoti egegertai te hemera te trite kata tas graphas, kai hoti ophthe Kepha, eita tois dodeka.

The Greek phrase "kai hoti" is translated to English to mean "and that". It's not in English translations of the Bible because they are grammatically unnecessary, but they are in the Greek. The "and that" properly reads as individual lines and the significance of it is that the burial stands as an event itself, rather then just a statement to undergird Jesus' resurrection. Thus, the way the creed reads probably alludes to the fact that Paul was associated with each of the lines in the formula.

That he died (Paul probably knew how Jesus died in detail)

That he was buried (Paul probably knew of the burial and the empty tomb

That he was risen (He knew about the way in Jesus was resurrected [1 Cor. tells about this])

That he appeared (He probably knew the number of appearances, the locations, etc...)

In conclusion: (a) Paul probably knew of the empty tomb and the burial and Joseph of Arimathea since Paul almost certainly knew many other facts of Jesus' life. It has also been persuasively argued that Paul was not trying to show historical facts in his letters to different churches. (b) Since it would have been historically improbable that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus since he was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the court that condemned Jesus to death, the identity of Joseph as the one who asked for the body and placed Jesus in the tomb is probably historical. Concerning (c), Joseph laying Jesus in his own tomb is probably historical and Lowder even agrees with this point. Next, (d) was found to be historical. Finally (e) no other burial traditions exist was shown to support the burial tradition. It seems then that Craig's case for the burial tradition is thus plausible. All of Lowder's rebuttals fall apart.

Lowder actually rejects other naturalistic hypothesis' for Jesus' resurrection, like: The women went to the wrong tomb; Jesus really wasn't dead; and the conspiracy theory. Thus, Lowder's naturalistic explanation for the resurrection hinges upon the re-burial hypothesis. ********* But this was shown to be implausible. It should be noted also that if the empty tomb is used as evidence and combined with the evidence from the appearances and the origin of the belief in the resurrection, as Craig holds, the low-probability of the temporal burial/re-burial hypothesis gets even lower. For it can't explain the resurrection appearances. It must either say the disciples were lying when they claimed to see appearances, or were hallucinating. But this requires an additional hypothesis: the Hallucination theory. But this has shown to be improbable. 13 1.2. Did Paul Know that Jesus’ Permanent Burial Place was Empty? Did Paul know where Jesus was buried? Lowder first claims that Paul didn't mention an empty tomb. This is true, but as was seen in 1.1 Paul probably presumed the empty tomb between the "...he was buried" and the "... he was risen from the dead." So even though Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb explicitly in the ancient formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, he probably implies the empty tomb. It should be noteworthy that Lowder affirms the historicity of this formula that goes back to within three to eight years after the resurrection. This is too short for legendary development to have arisen. It should also be remembered that Paul wasn't trying to argue historicity in any of his thirteen letters, but dealt more with theological problems and preaching. Paul also does not mention women finding the tomb empty, like the gospels do. But this can be explained easily. Paul didn't list women because his letter was aimed at a Greek audience which didn't except women as reliable. Thus, it would have been counter-productive. Paul was also mentioning the appearances of Jesus, not the appearances to the tomb. Lowder next agrees that Paul, on his visit to Jerusalem to see the other apostles, probably was asked them about the resurrection. Indeed, we saw in 1.1 that a Greek word found in Galations 1:18 means to do an investigation. And this is almost certainly what Lowder did. He almost definitely would have asked where Jesus' had been buried and where his tomb had been located. This probably included who buried Jesus. Thus, Paul would have known where Jesus' burial place was and where his tomb was located. As was argued in 1.1 Paul would also have known if there were any discussions amongst the Jews about a temporal burial hypothesis. Paul's lack of discussing it his letters probable means that there wasn't discussion among the Jews about a separate temporal burial tradition. Finally, Lowder disputes that Paul visited Jesus' tomb before his conversion. While it will be shown later that some Jews probably did check Jesus' tomb, Paul may have also. But this is questionable. But nonetheless, it does have some possibility. Lowder next says that it's unlikely, priori to Paul conversion, that Jews checked Jesus' burial spot. But this seems likely. It's probable that at least some curious Jews checked Jesus' tomb and reported back to the Jewish authorities. It is likely that after hearing initial reports from the Jews who did look at Jesus' tomb that more became interested. In conclusion Lowder's rebuttals do not undercut Craig's position that Paul probably knew of the empty tomb. Indeed, Craig's case continues to be strong. Thus, Paul probably knew where Jesus tomb was and he probably got this information (and may have visted the location) on his visit to Jerusalem fives years after the crucifixion. 1.3 Was the Empty Tomb Part of Mark's Source Material? Was the empty tomb part of Mark's source material? This is what Craig has argued. It will be argued that the empty tomb narrative, was indeed, part of Mark's source material. From the start, Lowder questions the pre-Marcan source material. Even apart from the empty tomb source material, Lowder rejects the notion that there was a pre-Marcan narrative. Lowder informs us that Craig gives two arguments for the Passion narrative containing the empty tomb: (i) the two stories are linked by grammatical and linguistic ties, forming one smooth, continuous narrative; and (ii) the passion story is incomplete without victory at the end. Lowder rejects both of these points. His reasons will be evaluated. Concerning (i), Lowder's reason for doubting seems dubious. He states "for all we know, these features could just as well be the product of the late author’s editing." But isn't this convenient. Lowder just gives us a possibility, not caring whether it's probable or not. He is arguing that Mark made up the empty tomb story. But this assumes that Mark wasn't interested in getting his facts straight, and indeed, that he purposely tried to lye about what actually happened. 14 Thus, Lowder's reason for denying (i) isn't persuasive. Next, (ii) Lowder presumes that there wasn't victory at the end of the Passion story (probably he is presuming his temporal burial hypothesis, but this has already been shown to be implausible). Lowder then urges the possibility that Mark made up the empty tomb narrative because of doctrinal reasons. Lowder's proposes that possible Mark wanted to strengthen the case for a physical resurrection because Gnostism denied it. Many things can be said about this. First, even if Mark was trying to strengthen the case for the physical resurrection because of Gnostism or for other reasons, this doesn't mean the empty tomb story is false. Secondly, Gnostism wasn't very big at the time Mark wrote his gospel. Thirdly, the nature of the appearances of Jesus' to his followers increases the probability that the tomb was empty. Fourthly, the evangelism of the apostles is not easily explained if there wasn't victory at the end of the Passion narrative. It seems that Lowder's objection doesn't stand. Although Lowder believes that arguments in favor that the empty tomb narrative was part of Mark's source material are inconclusive, he does admit that arguments against this are as well. He next states that the discrepancies of the names of the women in Mk 15:47 and 16:1 are the main reason for denying that the empty tomb narrative was part of Mark's source material. For this, Lowder admits that this could be explained by editorial changes by Mark. In his next paragraph Lowder contends that (i) and (ii) haven't been shown to be persuasive. But is was seen that there are good reasons for affirming (i) and (ii) and Lowder's reasons for denying them were shown to be insufficient. Next, Lowder questions the reliability of the women who found the empty tomb. He states, "we do not know the identity or reliability of those women, so the value of their testimony is likewise uncertain." 15 But this objection is dubious. It's similar to what the heretic Celsus held. The fact that women were indeed the ones who found Jesus' tomb empty counts in favor of their testimony. This is because of the low social status that women were given in first century Palestine. The women discovering the tomb empty also counts in favor of their being a tomb since Mark would have no reason to add the empty tomb narrative in the Passion story, and it would also be counter productive to his aim of lying and making up the empty tomb story, assuming as Lowder does that Mark wasn't concerned with accuracy. As for (b) Craig argues that the high priest must have been Caiaphas because the pre-Marcan story doesn't mention him by name. Lowder doesn't think so and even gives many reasons why. They will be evaluated. Lowder firstly brings up the possibility that possible Mark was written so late that he didn't know the name of the high priest. But Mark was written before the destruction of Jerusalem when there were eye-witnesses still around. Also, for Lowder to be correct, he must assume that Mark wasn't concerned with history since he makes up the name of Joseph of Armitheia. This is because it is almost certain that if Mark knew about Joseph of Armitheia he would know other people associated with Jesus' death. Moreover, if the tradition is true, Mark was a scribe for Peter and Peter almost certainly would have known the facts associated with Jesus' crucifixion. Next, it's hard to imagine how later gospels got the name of Caiaphas correct and Mark didn't. This is because Mark was written the first. We know that the other gospels are right about the name of the high priest because Josephus gives independent confirmation of his existence. 16 Considering Lowder's second reason he simple says that possible Mark didn't mention the name on accident. But this is hardly probable. Surely, Mark omitted the name on purpose. Lastly, Lowder accuses Craig of making an argument from silence. However, sometimes when people are silent it speaks louder then words. Again, akin to Lowder's second criticism of Craig, surely Mark omitted the high priest's name because he was still, or had just ended, being the high-priest. It is most likely though, that he was still high-priest when the pre-Marcan tradition originated. 1.4 Is the Markan Expression, "the First Day of the Week," Evidence that the Empty Tomb Story is Primitive? Next, Craig argues that the expression "...the first day of the week" describes the day the women found the empty tomb and thus must be very old because it lacks the third day motif prominent in the kerygma which itself is very old, included in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Lowder thinks the "...the first day of the week" expression might refer to something else. His alterative explanations will be evaluated and discussed. As Lowder states, "...the kerygma uses the third day motif..." But Lowder thinks that the kerygma uses the motif in reference to the resurrection, not the empty tomb. Lowder even gives multiple passages where Mark uses the phrase "on the first day of the week" in reference to the women discovering the empty tomb. Lowder lists a number of verses in which the kerygma uses the phrase "on the third day of the week." Lowder wants his audience to believe that only the phrase "on the first day of the week" refers to the women discovering the empty tomb and the phrase "on the third day of the week" refer to the resurrection. But why couldn't they be the same, just worded differently. Mark's usage of "on the third day of the week" probably referred to the empty tomb because that is when the women discovered Jesus' tomb empty. Apart from this, there are independent reasons for thinking that women found the tomb empty, discussed in 1.6. There are of course, a number of other ways that "on the first day of the week" could refer to. Craig gives five possible alterative explanations. • The third day dates the first appearance of Jesus. • Because Christians assembled on the first day of the week, the resurrection was assigned to this day. • Parallels in the history of religions influenced the dating of the resurrection on the third day. • The dating of the third day is lifted from Old Testament scriptures. • The third day is a theological interpretation indicating God's salvation, deliverance, and manifestation. Craig explains all these alterative explanations for "on the third day of the week" clearly and shows each to be implausible. 17 Against Craig's claim that "on the first day of the week" is awkward in Greek, Lowder disagrees. However, Lowder should be careful of disagreeing here because Craig is able to read New Testament Greek. Lowder, can't. As E.L. Bode, of whom Lowder quoted earlier, states, if the empty tomb story were a late legend, it would almost certainly have been formulated in terms of the accepted and widespread third day motif. The fact that Mark uses "on the first day of the week" confirms that his tradition is very old, even antedating the third day reckoning. This fact is confirmed by the linguistic character of the phrase in question. For although "the first day of the week" is very awkward in the Greek, when translated back into Aramaic it is perfectly smooth and normal. This suggests that the empty tomb tradition reaches all the way back to the original language spoken by the first disciples themselves. 18 In his final words, Lowder claims that the phrase "on the first day of the week" was simple part of Mark's narrativeand just was used as a time indicator. But Mark doesn't use many time indicators and there are none in the Passion narrative. Even though this is possible, it still seems plausible that "on the first day of the week" refers to the women discovering the tomb empty. In reference 17 listed above (and at the reference section), Craig gives some reasons for this. I will let the reader deside if Mark knew what he was writting or if he did it purely to complete his narrative. 1.5. The Story Is Simple and Lacks Legendary Development In Lowder's words, "...Craig argues that the Marcan account of the empty tomb is simple and lacks legendary development." Craig gives two accounts which are colored with the theological motifs that Mark doesn't have. They are, the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah. For Mark, Craig holds that it is a straight-forward account while the others are obviously not. But Lowder disagrees. He thinks the empty tomb story is a legendary embellishment. To be sure, he holds that because of the inclusion of an angel in the Marcan empty tomb motif, there must have been legendary embellishment. To begin, Lowder concurs with Craig. For he states that Craig "certainly [is] correct that the Marcan account of the empty tomb story is relatively simple, especially when compared to accounts like the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah." But this is where his agreement with Craig ends. Lowder's first argument is interesting, but turns out to not be persuasive. Lowder's first argument appears to be an assertion. He states, "in both accounts [the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah] do not appear to be significantly more theologically adorned than that of the Gospel of Mark. But this is simple wrong. The Gospel of Peter has a report where a cross is actually speaking and proclaiming Jesus' resurrection. The cross actually comes out of the ground. 19 The Ascension of Isaiah likewise has theological coloring. 20 At the end of his second paragraph, Lowder urges that it is non unlikely for those two "second century documents" to have those motifs since Mark does also. But Craig has disputed that Mark has those motifs. Indeed, it appears at first glance that Mark's Gospel could be strenthetened since it doesn't mention the appearances. There also is no guard at the tomb in Mark's Gospel which shows that Mark wasn't concerned with apologetics. It would thus appear that Mark is given a straight-forward account. Next, Lowder's discusses Mark's "two young men." Most New Testament scholars hold that Mark's "two young men" are actually angels. Lowder agrees with Bode that typical the young men/angel represents a typical literary motif used to introduce a desired divine message." Thus, young men/angel may not have been meant to portray a historical event, but a literary device. It also be be possible that the young men/angel are historical, but also a literary device. But in either case, this wouldn't mean that there were legendary embalmment to the empty tomb story. Moreover, other evidence for the empty tomb that will be discussed in this paper show that the empty tomb story was extremely early. This shows that the angel at the tomb wasn't a legendary embellishment. While Lowder implies that it is wrong and that he himself doesn't disbelieve in angels a priori, he nevertheless does. He holds to metaphysical atheism. That is the view that all that exists is nature. Thus, if Mark's account of the angel was shown to be historical (which I think it is) Lowder would still give it a low probability because of his atheism. As was mentioned earlier in this paper, there are good arguments for the existence of God. Moreover, it would be possible for God to send some of his angels, specifically at a time when his Son was resurrected. And we have other evidence, like the appearances of Jesus, for the resurrection that would give a higher probability that God would send an angel to Jesus' tomb. So, Lowder's reasons for denying the tomb, inevitable are philosophical. It has been argued that the Mark's empty tomb story is simple and lacks legendary development. The Ascension of Isaiah and the Gospel of Peter were shown to have obvious legendary development, many things that Mark's gospel doesn't have. Moreover, it was argued that Mark's young men/angel are not legendary developments. It was shown that Lowder's case for the Gospel of Mark containing legendary development was under-cuted. Craig's case for Mark's Gospel lacking legendary development continues to be persuasive. 1.6. The Discovery of the Tomb by Women The empty tomb was discovered by women. Lowder quotes Craig as saying, "'Given the relatively low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses,' the discovery of the empty tomb by women would have been highly embarrassing to the Christian church." Thus, the empty tomb would be more accurately stated on historical grounds then on legendary grounds. In his second paragraph Lowder states that the discovery of the empty tomb by women "perfectly compatible with reburial by Joseph of Armithiea." But the reburial hypothesis has been severely critiqued already. The reburial hypothesis was thus shown to be unlikely because reburial was done after the body had gone and all that was left were the bones of an individual. They were then collected about a year later (how much time it took) to be reburied to await the general resurrection at the end of the age. Next, Lowder urges that "there is nothing about the women's discovery that makes a reburial unlikely." Also, there is simple not enough time for a reburial. But this is not compatible with John's Gospel. In it, Jesus' burial cloth was raped and left inside the tomb. Surely Joseph wouldn't have raped the clothes neatly as John's Gospel states. Also, the stone in front of the tomb must have been rolled away. But Joseph probably couldn't move the stone by himself. It more then likely took two, or possibly even three individuals to move the stone, assuming the reburial hypothesis. But then it seems almost certain that Jesus' burial place would have been known to the whole Sanhedrin. It is then easy to imagine how the Jew could have falsified the resurrection. Some tradition probable would have been hinted at in the gospels if the Jewish authority tried to show where Jesus was reburied. The best explanation of this is the Jewish authority probably couldn't falsify the resurrection by pointing to the supposed reburial location. Why? Because the body was gone. There also would be distinguishing marks on Jesus' body making it easy to identify him. Next, Lowder starts to criticizes Craig of over-stating his case. Against Craig's claim, he says that women could be used as witnesses. For this he quotes J.P. Moreland. But Moreland quite specifically says "rarely." However, the point is not whether women could or could not serve as legal witnesses in a case, the point is that the early Church did claim that women were the first to discovery the empty tomb. It still seems unlikely that women could be the discovers of the empty tomb because of their low socail status in the first century. To be sure, there were exceptions but on the whole, the women discovering the empty tomb counts in favor of them actually discovering it empty. He next gives an example of Josephus citing women as witnesses of what happened inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala. But this doesn't prove anything except that there were exceptions to the general social order. Moreover, perhaps women were the only survivors in Masada. Josephus may have also been trying to instill pity in his readers Lowder then speaks about Pliny the Younger and his letter to the emperor Trojan. There were women where women were deacons and the highest church representatives that could be interrogated. But these were Christian women, who were deacons long after women discovered Jesus' tomb empty. Thus, his examples aren't persuasive. He lastly says that there is, surprisingly, no Christian polemic against women finding the tomb empty. But this isn't persuasive either. Just because there is no polemic against women finding the tomb empty doesn't mean anything. It could be that the women finding the empty tomb was so widely known to Christians that polemic against it would have not helped in the least. Lowder continues by raising the possibility that the Church may have been in an embarrassing situation. Namely, why there was no detailed account of the empty tomb priori to Mark. But it has been shown that Paul probably knew about the empty tom and it was also explained why he didn't mention it in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. But another way that it could be explained is that the early church felt no reason to refer to the empty tomb in their apologetics because the emptiness of the tomb was already presumed in the first audience, which were after all Jews who had no concept of a physical resurrection while the body still lay in the tomb. For in the words of E. E. Ellis, "It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, 'grave emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle." 21 Likewise, as E. L. Bode observes, the notion of the occurrence of a spiritual resurrection while the body remained in the tomb is a peculiarity of modern theology. For the Jews it was the remains of the man in the tomb which were raised; hence, they carefully preserved the bones of the dead in ossuaries until the eschatological resurrection. There can be no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites pre-suppose the existence of the empty tomb. 22 Thus, the lack of mention of the empty tomb could be explained; the empty tomb was widely known and Jesus' followers presumed an empty tomb in their evangelism. Added to this is the fact that there are independent reasons for the empty tomb besides women discovering it empty. Continuing in the same paragraph Lowder accuses the women in Mark of telling no-body of the empty tomb. But as Lowder is well aware, Craig holds that the women's silence was only temporal. Thus, when Matthew and Luke say that the women told the disciples of the empty tomb, Mark probably knew that women in his gospel did the same thing. But because of fear of the body being missing and the angel at Jesus' tomb, the women were probably silence temporally. This is very reasonable. When a person is scared and frightened by something and they knew if they told anybody people would think they were crazy or worse, even lying, then a temporal silence is perfectly reasonable in human psychology. Lowder next claims that Craig's temporal silence of the empty tomb begs the question. After all, the empty tomb account, according to Lowder, could be legendary. But there are good reasons for the historicity of the empty tomb and it's inclusion in the pre-Marcan tradition. The reasons for the hypothesis that the empty tomb is a legend have been under-cuted and shown implausible. Finally, in his last paragraph, Lowder urges that Mark created the empty tomb story. But again, there are many independent reasons for the empty tomb tradition apart from the women discovering the tomb empty. In conclusion, it seems that the women finding Jesus' tomb is probably historical. This attests to the empty tomb. Lowder's claim that the women were silent about the empty tomb is probably best explained on the hypothesis that the women's silence was temporal. Lowder's critique of Craig here seems to be very implausible. Craig's case that the women discovered the empty tomb continues to have persuasive power. 1.7. The Investigation of the Empty Tomb by Peter and John Did Peter and John find the tomb empty. Luke's and John's Gospel said they did and it was probably including in the pre-Markan narrative. As Lowder mentions, if 1.1 and 1.6 aren't historical, then 1.7 probably isn't either. But both 1.1 and 1.6 were shown to be historical. That is, Jesus' permanant burial place and the women's discovery of the empty tomb are probably historical. Lowder's critiques of Craig's arguments on these points weren't in the least persuasive. Lowder first accuses Craig of begging the question when Craig states, the "investigation of the empty tomb by Peter and John" is historical. This is because the empty tomb, according to Lowder, is simple presumed to be historical. But the empty tomb has shown to be historical by Craig and Lowder's counter-arguments against the empty tomb were under-cutted. Lowder's next tells us that he will proceed to give four arguments against the proposition that Peter and John discovered the tomb empty. Each of his arguments will be discussed below. Lowder's first argument questions the authenticity of the verses that Craig gives to show that Peter and John are mentioned by tradition. The verses are Luke 24:12, 24 and John 20:3. In Lowder's words, "...although one of the Lukan verses (v. 12) explicitly refers to Peter, that verse is absent from some Western manuscripts. Given this textual variation, some scholars have argued that v. 12 is not Lukan and is instead an interpolation..." But most scholars hold that it is authentic none the less. Because Luke 24:24 doesn't mention John's name, the only verse showing that John was included in the discovery of the empty tomb apart from Luke 24:12 is John 20:3. This might cast doubt on John's inclusion with Peter in finding discovering Jesus' tomb because it's only reported in one source. Moreover, Lowder's verse 24 doesn't mention Peter. Thus, both of these points could possibly cast doubt on Peter's and John's discovery of the empty tomb. But in Lowder's defense he admits that it could still show to be historically reliable even apart to the fact that he's (John) is only mentioned in John's Gospel, and that Peter is not mentioned in verse 24 while verse 12 could be an interpolation. At the end of his first point, Lowder admits that the hypothesis that Luke 24: 12 is an interpolation is controversial. As stated earlier, most scholars do not hold to this. Moreover, there is a simple solution to this. It could be the case that even if Peter's name isn't mentioned in verse 24 and that verse 12 is an interpolation, it still looks very similar to the discovery of the empty tomb by Peter and John mentioned in John's Gospel. The story appears to be similar to Luke's account, even though the names aren't mentioned. Since most scholars don't think verse 12 is an interpolation, we'll move on. In his next paragraph Lowder questions the discovery of the empty tomb by Peter and John because it is not reported in Matthew and Mark. However, as Lowder often accuses Craig of, he gives an argument from silence. Just because Matthew and Mark don't report the discovery of the tomb by Peter and John, it doesn't negate the fact that Luke and John report it. Moreover, Luke's and John's report probably came from Q or the pre-Marcan tradition since Matthew and Mark don't mention it. Secondly, there are independent reasons for holding that Matthew, and John used Q, or the pre-Marcan tradition. Since, Luke, the lone Synoptic that reports the discovery of the empty tomb by Peter and John, it seems likely that Matthew and Mark would have known this tradition since they also used various sources, including Q and the Pre-Marcan tradition. At the end of his paragraph, Lowder admits the historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb by Peter and John. One last point needs to be made on this issue before proceeding further. Next, Lowder discussed John's reference (Jn. 20:6-8) of Peter and John entering Jesus' tomb. This is because Luke doesn't report them entering the tomb. But this is irreverent. Whether or not they actually went into the tomb is not what is important. In the least they peeked into the tomb. While Lowder is quite correct that under Roman law, a person going into somebody's tomb was met with severe penalties. But this was in Israel, a land that the Romans let the Jews basically rule themselves. So the disciples probably weren't fearful of the Romans seeing them go into Jesus' tomb. Moreover, the disciples probably put their own concerns in front of what the law said. And their concerns, were of course, about Jesus and where his body had been laid. Furthermore, one can speculate that the thought of Jesus foretelling that he would rise from the dead may have entered their minds while running for the tomb. This could be another possible reason and motivation why they went in the tomb. But let not be labor this point. We'll move on. In his next paragraph, Lowder asks us, "when did the disciples visit the tomb?" Presumably, after the women told them. But Lowder has a ready answer for this. He informs us that the women who told the disciples that Jesus' body was stolen were at first silent. And if they were silent, then the historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb by Peter and John is therefore not historical. On the other hand, urges Lowder, to retain the historicity of the discovery of the tomb by Peter and John, you would have to affirm the women's silence as a legendary embellishment. But I don't think this is persuasive. Mark often uses hyperbole 22 and him saying the women were silent probably meant that they were silent only for a short period of time. Even if the women's report of the empty tomb was meant to be for a long time, this wouldn't destroy the historicity of the discovery of the tomb by Peter and John. It could still be the case, historically speaking, that Peter and John went to the tomb but for other reasons. Even though this last hypothesis isn't very plausible, it does show that the discovering of the empty tomb by Peter and John doesn't rest solely on the women's report because it's reported in Luke and John. Thus, it was probably contained in the L source, and John may give independent confirmation of it. It seems plausible that Mark simple used hyperbole in saying the women were silent and thus it splits the horns of Lowder's dilemma. In his closing paragraph of this section, Lowder urges that his re-burial hypothesis is consistent with Jesus' empty tomb and Peter and John discovering the tomb empty. But it has already been argued that that Lowder's re-burial hypothesis carries with it a low-probability. It was also argued that the discovery of the empty tomb by Peter and John was probably historical, as presented by Craig. Lowder's rebuttals were under-cuted and shown implausible. It was also argued that the women's silence, reported by Mark, was probably only a used as hyperbole. 1.8. Could first-century non-Christians preach the Resurrection in Jerusalem if Jesus lay in the grave? The resurrection took place in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus was crucified. Lowder quotes Craig as saying, If the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection were false, all the Jewish authorities would have had to do to nip the Christian heresy in the bud would have been to point to his tomb or exhume the corpse of Jesus and parade it through the streets of the city for all to see. Had the tomb not been empty, then it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem as they did. 23 But Lowder disagrees. In fact, Lowder believes that the Jews wouldn't even have wanted to bother with the claims that Jesus was raised from the dead. He discusses this point in detail and so it warrants a detailed critique. Let's proceed to his arguments. Lowder first claims that Christianity was a small sect which probably didn't get big enough worthy of refuting. He also says that first century Christians were of the lower classes in society. But this is not Craig's arguments. Craig's argument is that the resurrection took place in the very city where Jesus was crucified and the Jewish authorities could have produced Jesus' body in that case. It is not important whether the Romans were interested in refuting Christianity. What is important is that the Jewish authority couldn't produce Jesus' body. So even though Christianity was a small sect compared to say Mithrasism, it was a big sect in Jerusalem. Thousands of Jews subsequently converted to Christianity because of the resurrection, and this was on Pentecost. Certainly, the Jewish authroties would have been interested in this growing new sect and since it proclaimed a miracle (Jesus' resurrection). Moreover, to stop convert from switching to Christianity from Judaism, they would have had an additial interest in refuting Christianity. Thus, Christianity was a big sect because it was in Jerusalem where the crucifixion took place. The Jews may have had the additional interest in "nipping Christianity in the bud." Meaning while the disciples and undoubtedly others were proclaiming that Jesus was resurrected (they weren't converted until Pentecost but they probably were talking to others about the resurrection and proclaiming it) it is likely that they would have tried to put a severe stoppage to the witnesses' proclamation by producing a body. But this isn't what happened. Of course it's possible that this did in fact happen, but it doesn't explain the other arguments for the empty tomb, and the number of people who converted on Pentecost because of the resurrection appearances. It is also nowhere mentioned or implied, even in the slightest way, in any of the Gospels, Paul's letters, the epistles, or church fathers. This cries out for a huge explanation. E. P. Sandards has remarked that "At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement (Gal. 1:13, 22; Phil. 3:6), and it appears that this persecution endured at least to a time near the end of Paul's career (2 Cor. 11:24; Gal 5:11; 6:12; cf. Matt 10:17, 23:34)." 24 This is, according to Sandards, an "almost indisputable fact [s]." 25 Continuing with our discussion, Lowder believes and urges his readers that the disciples didn't start to proclaim the resurrection until after "seven weeks." He gives as evidence for this Acts chapter two. Acts two actually discusses how the disciples told the other Jews and people around what the tongues of fire meant and how to become saved. It simple doesn't say they started to proclaim the resurrection then. In fact, from the time of Jesus' resurrection until the end of the seven weeks, it's reasonable to believe that the disciples proclaimed that Jesus was risen from the dead, to people. Also, Jews and other people were probably talking amongst themselves when Jesus was appearing and almost certainly this message spread to people who were not sympathetic to Jesus during his life due to a) many people claimed to have seen appearances of Jesus, and b) the uniqueness and reportedly miraculous event that took place. It's thus probable that due to the fact of the resurrection that they proclaimed it even before Pentecost. This is a crucial blow to Lowder's argument because the body would not only been identifiable by distinguishable marks (nails in hands and feet, spear in side, legs not broken) but it would have also have been easy to tell it was Jesus immediately. Being in a tomb in Jerusalem for seven weeks (and even earlier probably) where the temperature was low because it was in a tomb with no light and the fact that Jerusalem itself is seven hundred meters above see level, it would have stayed cold and preserved Jesus' body. In other words, it would have easily been indefinable by such things as height, body size, hair color, scars, etc... Even if these considerations couldn't help identify the body, the distinguishable marks mentioned earlier would. Lowder then gives the opinion of pathologist Nernoff who claimed that after seven weeks in a tomb of 45 degrees (something which I assume the tomb to have been about that temperature since the crucifixion happened in the spring) would have "not entirely prevent decomposition of the body; molds and some bacteria grow at that temperature." But the body would still been identifiable because the disciples and the Jewish authority knew many of the personal characterists Jesus had (height, body size, hair cooler, scars, etc...) and the distinguishable marks due to the crucifixion (nails in hands and feet, spear in side, legs not broken). Lowder next quotes the Jewish Midrash to the effect that after three days the face of some people couldn't been identified. Lowder tries to show that maybe Jesus' face couldn't be identified either. But Jesus was buried in a tomb, and one of the most expensive kind (rock hewn). It was also in the spring. For all we know the Midrash passages that Lowder quoted, the people were buried in a tomb in a common grave so this can't be persuasively used as evidence to show that this would have happened to Jesus. In his next paragraph, Lowder makes an interesting remark. He states that he "think this argument would be a plausible one if Jesus had not been reburied." Even though Lowder makes an amazing admission, he thinks the re-burial hypothesis is probable. But I have already given evidence for why the re-burial hypothesis has a low probability of actually happening. Since this naturalistic hypothesis isn't in the least persuasive, Lowder should, by his own admission, accept that the Jews could identify Jesus if they would have found the body. Of course, they couldn't because the tomb was empty! Lastly, Lowder wants us to presume that the Jews took the resurrection seriously (something which I gave arguments for above). Continuing, Lowder explains that the Jews "violated the tomb, removed the body, and paraded the rotting corpse of Jesus" through the streets for all to see. For this Lowder says that the Christians would have denied that the body was Jesus and perhaps even modified the doctrines accordingly. But this isn't in the least persuasive. But isn't this convienent? Because the body was missing from the top, the fact is that the Jews had to explain the empty tomb away. See the next section for a more detailed critque of this. If Jesus' corpse would have been paraded through the streets of Jerusalem, it would have had distinguishable marks on the body which was already discussed above. The body would have also had personal characteristics which the Jewish authority would have known about, such as height, weight, hair color, body size, etc... We can be sure that the Jews didn't parade Jesus' body through the streets because a) the arguments for the empty tomb, and b) it's not mentioned or implied in the Jewish polemic against the empty tomb recorded in Matthew or anywhere else in the New Testament or other sources. But what about Lowder's claim that the early Christians would have modified the doctrine accordingly. This isn't persuasive either. This objection presumes that Jesus' followers didn't wish to portray reliable information, which is disputed by Blomberg and others. 26 Moreover, this objection is ad hoc. Instead of looking at what actually happened, it merely speculates that Jesus' followers would have changed the doctrines. But the resurrection was a unique event. It was something that nothing in their experience could account for. Thus, the disciples probably reported what they thought had happened, not what they wanted to have occurred by wishful thinking. This objection, moreover, speculates that the disciples died for what they knew to be a lie. In the end, Lowder's speculations get more and more ad hoc and against the disciples truthfulness in the resurrection In conclusion then, the fact that Jesus followers proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem is significant because the resurrection hypothesis could have been falsified. The fact that the Jews couldn't falsify the proclamation of the resurrection counts in favor of the hypothesis that the resurrection actually occurred. 1.9. Does Jewish propaganda provide independent confirmation of the empty tomb story? In Lowder's words, "Craig's ninth argument for the historicity of the empty tomb is that Jewish polemic (in Matthew 28:15) presupposes the empty tomb." Since the Jew's explanation of the empty tomb was that the Christians stole the body, instead of saying where the body was, it gives independent confirmation of the empty tomb. In other words, the Jews tried to explain away Jesus' empty tomb. We will look at Lowder's criticisms of this argument and evaluate it. Lowder tells us not to assume the historicity of the Jewish polemic. For this he gives two arguments, or rater, speculations. His first argument is that the Jewish polemic might be a "literary device designed to answer" objections of doubt. But there are no obvious theological important aspects of this historical report. Consider Matthew's probable literary device for the ripping of the cloth in the temple and the earthquake. These have obvious theological characteristics. The temple cloth ripping in two shows that a new covenant had occurred. The earthquake signifies the tombs opening which itself is a theological motif of people being saved before Christ died for humanity. When Matthew reports the Jewish polemic it doesn't have any apparent theological characteristics and probably should be taken as historical. Thus, the Jewish polemic is probably historical and therefore Craig's argument still seems plausible. Lowder's second argument is that the Jewish polemic might in fact have been made by someone else. But isn't this bizarre? As always, Lowder simple opens the possibility of this polemic deriving from some other party. But who could this other party be? Matthew's passage that the Jews held to the "Christian stole the body hypothesis" also reports that the Jews held to this report to that day Matthew's gospel was written. This implies that the polemic is very old and therefore probably originated in Jerusalem. Thus, the other way the Jewish polemic could be derived from is the Jews, and since it has already been argued that the resurrection happened in the very city where Jesus died, Jerusalem, it must have come from the Jew's own mouths. Continuing our discussion Lowder asks us to "suppose, for the sake of argument, the Jewish polemic is historical." Would the Jews have accepted the empty tomb after verifying it themselves? Craig thinks so. But Lowder's sees "multiple flaws" with this. His reasons will be evaluated and discussed. Lowder's first argument seems to be that "it is uncertain" whether the polemic arose of of firsthand evidence (reports) of the empty tomb. Lowder continues his sceptism by noting that the date of the polemic is uncertain. But I say to Lowder, not so fast. Matthew telling us that the polemic was used to that day (when Matthew's gospel was written) presupposes an earlier date. Thus, the Jewish polemic must therefore be quite early and probably was in response to the Christians who said that Jesus was risen. Also, on the assumption that this polemic arouse after the Jewish war (66-70) it is bizarre to say the least that the Jews would make the statement that the disciples stole away Jesus' body while the guard slept. Why would the Jews, again assuming that the polemic is post-Jewish war, have included the detail that the guards feel asleep? It seems unlikely because it would attest to the historicity of this very polemic being early, and thus would have been counter-productive because the guard in the story would be shown as historical. Upon starting his second argument, Lowder makes a wild speculation, to say the least. He states, "[p]olemical rumors need neither a basis in historical fact nor even sincere belief among those who spread them." What reasons does Lowder give for this? He simple says that the Jews were only hostile to the theological claims of Christianity, not the empirical ones. But I have already argued that the Jews would have been hostile to the empty tomb. For example, at least three years after the crucifixion, at least one Jew, Paul, was persecuting Christians. And it is reasonable to think that there were others. Secondly, to nip Christianity in the bud, as I have already argued above, they would have been very interested in the claim that Jesus was risen. Thus, they were in a position Jerusalem to easily be able to falsify Christianity. I gave the additional reason for the Jews being interested in the resurrection claim that fear of converts converting to this new belief system that Jesus was risen. To say the polemic wasn't meant to be taken as historical doesn't explain why the Jews mentioned the guard falling asleep. This already shows that the Jews were searching for an alternative explanation for how Jesus' tomb was found empty. But even assuming for the sake of argument that the polemic was late, perhaps even after the Jewish war, why would the Jews say that the guard at Jesus' tomb fell asleep? By saying that the guard fell asleep, the Jews were basically mentioning a detail that a) shows the guard story is historical, and b) shows that they were interested in not just giving a "tit for tat account" but meant for the polemic to explain why Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. Thus, Craig's case for the historicity of the Jewish polemic is sound. Lowder's arguments were, at the very least, under-cuted once again. Finally, we'll move on to 1.10. 1.10. Jesus tomb' was not venerated as a shrine For Craig's last argument for the empty tomb, he argues because Jesus' tomb was non venerated as a shrine proves that his body was missing, indeed, missing from the tomb. This is because when Jewish holy men or prophets died their tomb's or burial places were often venerated. One would expect that Jesus' disciples would do the same. But since they didn't, it's reasonable to conclude that the body was missing. I think Craig's argument is persuasive but as always, Lowder doesn't. Lowder's reasons for believing that this argument isn't persuasive will be looked at and evaluated. At the end of Lowder's second paragraph he states that most critics accept that Jesus' tomb was not venerated. But Lowder wishes to go against consensus of New Testament scholars and plead that he's "undecided" as to whether Jesus' tomb was venerated. He asserts that Craig's case for the tomb not being venerated is an argument of silence and if Jesus' tomb had been venerated before the sack of Jerusalem it is far from obvious that we would have any evidence for it. But Craig's argument seems persuasive because there is no hint anywhere insides the gospels or in any letters of Paul or in any other of the books of the New Testament that the tomb was venerated. Surely there would have been evidence in it. Now, Lowder is correct that this is an argument from silence, but that's where Lowder's and my agreement ends. Some arguments from silence can be quite persuasive. For example, 1.10 would seem to be plausible because a) there would almost certainly be a mention or in the least, a hint of it in the New Testament but there isn't, and b) most critics agree that Jesus tomb was venerated. Some might say that 1.1 rests on an argument from silence. But there are good reasons why Paul probably knew of the empty tomb. These reasons were discussed in 1.1. So, the hypothesis that Jesus' tomb was not venerated, even though it's an argument from silence, is sound. Lowder's third paragraph starts out by saying "we would expect a lack of veneration of Jesus' permanent burial place was unknown." But this isn't correct at all. Even if Jesus' permanent burial place was unknown (I have already argued this above in Specific Evidence) they would have venerated Jesus' temporal burial place. So there would again be a reason to expect that the New Testament writers would have mentioned, or hinted at, Jesus' tomb being venerated. But this isn't the case. Next, Lowder wants us two devide Christians into two groups. The "earliest" Christians and the "later" Christians. "The earlier Christian" Lowder says "are those who had known Jesus before his death and who thought they had seen Jesus rise from the dead." "Later Christian" Lowder says "had not known Jesus before his death and had not seen him risen from the dead." Lowder speculates that it seems reasonable that the earliest Christians would have venerated Jesus' tomb. But the fact that no where it is mentioned or implied in the New Testement, or in the apostles preaching shows that the tomb probably wasn't venerated. "But even if none of the earliest Christians venerated the tomb as a shrine" Lowder notes "later Christians would have done so, as demonstrated by veneration of the Holy Sepulchre Church, centuries after the Jewish War." But this is irrelevant, the fact that the Holy Sepulchre Church was build in the third centery shows that Christians venerated Jesus shine as much as the Talmud shows Jesus had a Roman father, something which Lowder rejects. Moreover, by the time that Paul was converting "later" Christians who had not seen Jesus risen from the dead,, there were still eye-witnesses around who were "earlier" Christians, and thus would tell the "later" Christians not to venerate Jesus' tomb. To add to this, it's just speculation if the "later" Christians would have venerated Jesus tomb as a shrine because a) Jesus' body was missing. When a tomb was venerated for a Jewish wise man or a prophet, the bones of the person would be at the veneration spot. And b) Jesus had acceded into heaven and it's is a an indisputable fact that they knew that Jesus ascended, thus setting something of a rule that veneration of a shrine wasn't necessary at all. Now to the last paragraph. Lowder urges that Craig has not shown "that the lack of veneration of Jesus’ grave is more probable on the assumption that the empty tomb story is historical than on the assumption that Jesus was (ultimately) buried in a common grave." This is getting all to common by Lowder. Firstly, arguments have been given for the hypothesis that the reburial in a common grave has a low probability. Secondly, arguments have been given to show that the empty tomb has a high probability above. Craig's case still seems persuasive. Concluding Remarks In his concluding remarks, Lowder talks about how Craig's presents his case for the empty tomb. As Lowder quotes Craig, "It is no part of inference to the best explanation that the hypothesis is rendered probable by the cumulative weight of considerations, which, taken individually, do not make the hypothesis probable." Thus, instead of taking the ten arguments for the empty tomb separately, Craig uses them as a cumulative case towards the best explanation oh how the tomb was empty. The case for the empty tomb can stand on it own accord, but doesn't have to. The appearances of Jesus, the origin of the Christian way, circumstantial evidence, and the continued changed lives of people can make an even higher probability for Christianity being true. In the case of the appearances, this factor of events can actually support and make even more likely the empty tomb hypothesis. For example, if Jesus did appear to people, he would have to have risen from the tomb. However, it's possible in that case that Jesus could have been buried in a common graveyard. But independent arguments have already been given for the empty tomb. Thus, the appearances give evidence that the tomb was empty. At the end of his paper Lowder discusses criteria of showing an event to be historical. He uses C. Behan McCullagh's book, Justifying Historical Descriptions. Since McCullagh is a professional historian, what Lowder says about each of the criteria will be discussed and evaluated. 1. Implication of other observation statements. It has been argued that the hypothesis that Jesus was permately buried better explains the empty tomb then the reburial hypothesis proposed by Lowder. It was also argued that the reburial hypothesis has a low probability. The appearances of Jesus after his death also give it an even higher probability that the tomb was empty. Lowder even mentioned earlier in the paper that he rejected other common naturalistic hypothesis'. Therefore, the reburial hypothesis must be abandoned. 27 2. Explanatory scope. Lowder starts off mentioning that both the permanent burial hypothesis and the temporal/reburial hypothesis explains such things as "prominence of women in the story, the preaching of the resurrection in Jerusalem, Jewish polemic, and the lack of veneration of Jesus’ tomb as a shrine." But the reburial hypothesis doesn't explain the appearances of Jesus, the origin of the Christian way, circumstantial evidence, or people's life's being changed. Therefore, the reburial hypothesis must be abandoned. 28 3. Explanatory power. Lowder urges that both the reburial hypothesis and the permanent burial hypothesis are of the same probability, but I don't think so. The permanent burial hypothesis explains why Joseph of Armitheia buried Jesus in his own tomb, and of the most expensive kind. It was because Joseph, if not a secret disciple of Jesus, was at least a sympathizer and cared about Jesus' body so as to give him his own tomb. Therefore, the reburial hypothesis must be abandoned. 29 4. Plausibility. Given our background knowledge it is plausible that Jesus would have been buried in a permanent tomb by Joseph of Armitheia because of the specific evidence that we have. Joseph going to Pilate, in fear, shows that he had some care for Jesus. There is just no reason he would go to Pilate. As was stated before, he probably gave Jesus his own tomb. Therefore, the reburial hypothesis must be abandoned. 30 5. Ad hocness. Fifth, the temporal burial hypothesis is ad hoc. It explains why a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Joseph) would bury Jesus. Since the Romans were probably sympathetic towards the Jewish culture, they would have let the Jews bury the other two criminals in a common grave yard, since this was the norm. Only the specific evidence of Joseph of Armitheia can overturn this. The reburial hypothesis is unlikely because it presumes a body could be reburied before the body had decomposed, which is inaccurate. The temporal hypothesis must be abandoned. 31 6. Disconfirmation. As was argued, the specific evidence disconfirms the reburial hypothesis. The temporal burial hypothesis must be abandoned. 32 7. Relative superiority. The resurrection hypothesis is greater then the temporal/reburial hypothesis. It is plausible; has much greater explanatory scope; it is not ad hoc; and it is not disconfirmed by accepted beliefs. I think the real Achilles' heel that makes the temporal/reburial hypothesis improbable is explanatory scope. It only tries to explain how Jesus tomb got empty, but as was even seen, by ad hoc reasons. It doesn't explain the appearances, the origin of the Christian way, circumstantial evidence, or the changed life's of believers. Therefore, the temporal/reburial hypothesis must be abandoned. 33 There are good reasons and arguments have been given for each argument for the empty tomb. Lowder's arguments and assertions were seen to not tip the scale in his favor. Used as a cumulative case, these 10 arguments for the empty tomb can be even stronger. The appearances can also support the empty tomb. Each argument was shown to be plausible. Many scholars hold to the empty tomb. For example, Jacob Kremer states, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb." 34 Similarly, according to the New Testament critic, D. H. van Daalen, “it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.” 35 And Michael Grant states, “But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.” 36 And lastly, Eduard Schweizer, for example states, “the empty tomb is “one of the most reliable pieces of information about the historical course of events that we possess.” 37 As was seen, many scholars hold to the empty tomb, and not an ad hoc reburial hypothesis proposed by Lowder. In fact, the majority of New Testament scholars hold to the empty tomb tradition. 38 Lowder is certainly a clear writer and I appreciate the opportunity I had to try to refute his paper. I hope the readers don't stop here in their research because there are many more things to cover on the empty tomb that this paper didn't cover, like historical methodology. I very much hope that Lowder doesn't take this paper with a grain of salt. I hope that he thinks deeply about what has been discussed on this paper and comes up with a new naturalistic explanation of the empty tomb. But for the temporal burial hypothesis, or it's other name, the reburial hypothesis, words that I used interchangeable, this hypothesis doesn't explain the facts as well as the specific evidence for Jesus' burial and empty tomb do. End notes: 1. Lowder is at atheist and showed this in a debate with Phil Fernadas. Thus, natralistic explainations for the empty tomb will undoubtably have a higer probability if God doesn't exist. Many of Lowder's papers on his website aren't worth refuting and as similarly, some of the arguments on this paper weren't worth refuting. I did learn from reading his paper that Lowder's paper is clearly writen. I wish more theists could be as clear as Lowder in their writing. 2. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, (1987); http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html; http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html; http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_03.html; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq1.html; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqx.html; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq11.html; http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq5.html; http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html; 3. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html; http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html; http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html 4. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/shellgame.html 5 Ibid. 6. Raymond E. Brown, Death of the Mesiiah Version 2, pg. 1239 7. Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.16 8. This is what normally happened. Pilate wouldn't have been suspious that Joseph asked for Jesus' body, he might have been suspious that he didn't ask for the other two theives. Thus, without wanting controvery, or people thinking he's not on Ceasar's side, this might have been an additional reason why Joseph asked Pilate for the body, even though Joseph still was scared to do it. 9. William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston/Queenston Lampeter 1989), p. 174 10. "We may presume that [the disciples] did not spend all their time talking about the weather." C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (3rd ed., London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1967), p. 26. 11. John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (PhiladelphiaL Westnubster, 1973), p. 131. 12. Raymond E. Brown, VCBR 113-14 13. http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html; Pat Zukeran states, This position is unrealistic for several reasons. In order for hallucinations of this type to occur, psychiatrists agree that several conditions must exist. However, this situation was not conducive for hallucinations. Here are several reasons. Hallucinations generally occur to people who are imaginative and of a nervous make up. However, the appearances of Jesus occurred to a variety of people. Hallucinations are subjective and individual. No two people have the same experience. In this case, over five hundred people (Corinthians 15) have the same account. Hallucinations occur only at particular times and places and are associated with the events. The Resurrection appearances occur in many different environments and at different times. Finally, hallucinations of this nature occur to those who intensely want to believe. However, several such as Thomas and James, the half brother of Jesus were hostile to the news of the Resurrection. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/resurrec.html 14. This is absured. To say that Mark was lying about the empty tomb is ridiculous. 15. Historicaly, we don't need to know the names of the women. All that is important is the fact that they were women, people who wouldn't have been taken seriously very much. 16. Josephus mentions Ananias, the High Priest, who was mentioned in Acts 23:2: "Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money.” 17. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html 18. 19. The Gospel of Peter 8.35- 42: now in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the sepulcher. The stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulcher started of itself to roll and gave way to the side, and the sepulcher was opened, and both the young men entered in. When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders - for they also were there to assist at the watch. And whilst they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulcher, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying "Thou hast preached to them that sleep?", and from the cross there was heard the answer, "Yea". 20. The Ascension of Isaiah 3. 16: 'Gabriel, the Angel of the Holy Spirit, and Michael, the chief of the holy Angels, on the third day will open the sepulcher: and the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will come forth.' 21. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), p. 273. 22. Paul was a Jew from the tribe of Bengermine. He was also a Pharasee. It is lkely that his audience presumed an empty tomb when he says Jesus was raised. 23. Craig 1994, pp. 276-277. 24 [Jesus and Judaism, (London: SCM/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 11, cited in JUF 102-3]. 25. Ibid 26. Blomberg's book might be too advanced for some. 27. That Jesus was permately buried better explains the empty tomb then the temporal/reburial hypothesis. The reburial hypothesis doesn't deal with the specific evidence found in the gospels. 28. I think this is the most important criteria. It simple can't explain the appearances of Jesus and the very origin of the Christian faith. Therefore it must be abandoned. 29. This criteria shows clearly that the temporal burial/reburial hypothesis doesn't deal with the specific evidence. 30. As was stated earlier, this criteria again shows that the temporal burial/reburial hypothesis doesn't deal with the specific evidence. 31. Simple stated, the temporal buraial/reburial hypothesis is just contrived. 32. Again, Lowder deals with what usualy happened, not with what actually happened. He doesn't deal with the specific evidence found in the gospels that shows Joseph of Armithea buried Jesus. 33. All six criteria have been shown to falsify or make improbable the temporal burial/reburial hypothesis. 34. Jacob Kremer, "Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte" (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-50. 35. D. H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972), p. 41. 36. Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, p. 176 37. Resurrection –Fact or Illusion

©2005 Malachi