Scientific and Historical Critical Challenges Flashcards
The Holy Sepulchre
• there is dispute about where Jesus was buried because the walls of the city are now different to the time of Jesus
• the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in the Christian quarter and is allegedly the site of Jesus’ death (because Helen the mother of Constantine believed that she found remnants of the cross there)
• She was not there for the excavation
The Dome of the Rock
• a mosque built on the site of the temple
• controversial because the site has significance for Jews and Christians too
The Garden Tomb
• Gordon believed this is where Jesus was buried
• a tomb, in a garden, like in the Gospel account
• has the features of a Jewish tomb: burial benches
(Morrison) Evidence that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body
Bodies could not be moved on the sabbath, which was quickly approaching after Jesus’ death. It was necessary for Jesus to have a resting place during the Sabbath.
Joseph may have moved the body before dawn to avoid drawing crowds. This would be consistent with the Gospel narratives.
He may have worked on behalf of the Sanhedrin to ensure Jewish burial laws were upheld.
(Morrison) Evidence against Joseph of Arimathea moving the body
Joseph and the women both would have wanted access to the tomb at the earliest possible point after the Sabbath.
For Joseph to have moved it before they arrived, he would have had to have done it very early before dawn. This operation would have been totally legitimate and made very difficult by the dark, so why not do it later?
If he had done it later, at the soonest possible point after the Sabbath, surely he and the women would have come into contact.
If he acted for the Sahedrin, why did he not do the same for the criminals? Joseph obtained Jesus’ body by personal request for his own tomb, unlike the criminals who were likely chucked into a common tomb.
Joseph was damaging his standing with the
Jewish authorities by taking Jesus’ body. Seems that he did this because he was an admirer and follower of Jesus, not acting on behalf of the Sanhedrin.
Had Joseph moved the body for the Sanhedrin, to avoid the tomb becoming a shrine, this would have been used as evidence against the resurrection claims
Morrison’s conclusion on the theory that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body
“…the only way in which we can account for the absence of this phenomenon [pilgrimages to an actual tomb with Jesus’ body] is the explanation offered in the Gospels”
“Overwhelmingly psychology is against it [obtaining Jesus’ body if he was not a follower]”
“It is extremely unlikely that in such circumstances Joseph would have wished to remove the body of Jesus”
(Morison) Evidence that the Romans or the Jews moved the body
There is a tradition in the Gospels and in apocryphal writings that the Jews went to Pilate with a request.
(Morison) evidence against the body being moved by the Romans or the Jews
This would require them knowing where the body eventually was put, meaning they would have been able to refute the claims of a resurrection. There would never have been a need to claim that the disciples stole the body.
They also would have wanted to leave the body in place so as to show that Jesus was dead and not the Messiah.
Morison’s conclusion on the theory that the body was moved by the Romans or the Jews
“…the intrinsic probability of such a proceeding seems to be slight”
“But the whole case for the supposed official removal of the body really breaks down when we confront it by the admitted facts of the after-situation”
(Morison) evidence that Jesus did not die and recovered in the tomb
Venturini: Jesus only ever fainted on the cross and then made a recovery in the cool of the grave, after which he appeared to his disciples.
(Morison) Evidence against Jesus surviving the crucifixion and recovering in the tomb
Jesus’ wounds were too deadly for this to be plausible. He would have lost much blood, had his legs broken (as the Romans would do during crucifixion), and his hands and feet were pierced with nails.
Jesus’ wounds would have been untended while he lay alone in the tomb, making it seem very unlikely that he would survive the Sabbath even if he had survived the crucifixion.
Morison’s conclusion on the theory that Jesus never died and recovered in the tomb
“This suggestion, while attempting to produce a strictly rational explanation of the post-Crucifixion phenomena, is surely the least rational of all”
(Morison) Evidence that the women were confused
The women, because it would still have been somewhat dark, went to the wrong tomb and misunderstood the gardener who told them that Jesus was not there (he meant that he was in another tomb, not that he was gone altogether).
Kirsopp Lake: begins by assuming that the story of the women’s visit to the tomb was historical, seeing as it was in the earliest Gospel document (Mark), the other synoptics, John and Apocryphal writings. If they had visited the wrong tomb, the following account seems to fall into place.
The women would have found an empty tomb; a young man telling them Jesus was not there, and them trying to tell them where they laid Jesus, but the women were spooked and left, not understanding that he was pointing to another tomb; the disciples had fled Jerusalem earlier and returned later upon Christ’s appearance to Peter.
The women told them that the resurrection occurred on the third day, in their minds fulfilling prophecy.
(Morison) Evidence against the theory that the women were confused
Had it still been dark, no gardener would have been at work at all. Had it been late enough for the gardener to be at work, the women probably would not have gone to the wrong tomb.
There is no strong evidence to suggest the 11 had fled Jerusalem; “the whole Synoptic tradition asserts and implies” that they were there on that Sunday. The story of
Peter’s fall and repentance seems much like a real story, and there would be no incentive to present Peter in such a negative way had it not been true.
If the disciples needed to flee from Jerusalem to avoid prosecution, then the same would have applied to the women who had allegedly been mistaken about the tomb. If the disciples were in danger, the women were too.
The Sanhedrin would have used the gardener to refute the claims of a resurrection. They would have shown believers the actual corpse in the other tomb had this been the case.
The gardener was not called as a witness against the resurrection claim because: he was probably not the gardener at all and his presence at the cave had another explanation, the physical vacancy of the actual tomb was not open to doubt.
Morison’s conclusion on the theory that the women were confused
“The theory thus rests upon the synchronization of two very doubtful contingencies!”
“Neither Prof. Lake nor the Rev. P. Gardner-Smith…seem to have realised the annihilating character of the evidential case which their theory, if true, would have placed within reach of the Priests”
(Morison) evidence that the grave was never visited
This is the only logical alternative to the Gospel account. Removes the need for the other suggestions and the issues with them. The Priests would not have needed to refute Christian claims and Jerusalem would largely have gone back to normal.
(Morison) evidence against the grave having never been visited
The following history invalidates this.
Morison’s conclusion on the theory that the grave was never visited
“…none of the six hypotheses which we have been considering falls in greater or completer intellectual ruin than this”
