0
We must not think of each of the four evangelists as having private knowledge of the resurrection, separate from what the other evangelists knew. As Archbishop Peter Carnley (The Structure of Resurrection Belief ) writes:
The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of historicity if we had four clearly independent but slightly different versions of the story, if only for the reason that four witnesses are better than one. But, of course, it is now impossible to argue that what we have in the four gospel accounts of the empty tomb are four contemporaneous but independent accounts of the one event. Modern redactional studies of the traditions account for the discrepancies as literary developments at the hand of later redactors of what was originally one report of the empty tomb...
There is no suggestion that the tomb was discovered by different witnesses on four different occasions, so it is in fact impossible to argue that the discrepancies were introduced by different witnesses of the one event; rather, they can be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source.
Only in Matthew's Gospel does the Sanhedrin seek to explain away the empty tomb. They bribed the guards, who had been placed at the tomb since Friday evening, to say that the disciples had come and taken away the body of Jesus.
However, scholars now know that the author of Matthew (it was originally anonymous and only attributed to the disciple Matthew later in the second century) relied on Mark's Gospel for most of the material he wrote about the life and mission of Jesus. If the author of Mark knew nothing about the guard placed at the tomb, and he clearly did not, then there was no guard. The Sanhedrin had no expectation that the disciples would take the body and therefore did not place a guard, and to portray them as having panicked when the body was missing was simply Matthew's literary device to indicate to his readers that the Jewish priests secretly believed that Jesus really had risen. The Sanhedrin made no attempt to explain the empty tomb.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Maxine
Devin
CoachAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are the proofs that support Christ ressurection in the new testament?
The empty tomb is implied in the early tradition of the church. Paul gives an example of an early creed in 1Cor 15:3-7 which states Jesus was buried and rose again. Women were the discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb. Considering women in first century Palestine were low on the social ladder this is significant. Any legendary account would most likely have had male disciples discovering the empty tomb. This adds to the historicity of the account rather that its legendary status. The disciples were witnesses to the fact of the resurrection, look at Peters speech at Pentecost-- 'we are witnesses of the fact'. Nobody claimed that the tomb still contained Jesus' body. The burial / resurrection accounts in the gospels were written early after the events so are not subject legendary corruption.
Who were the first apostles at Jesus' tomb?
Peter and John went to the tomb.
What is the main purpose of the tomb?
The main purpose of a tomb is to hold the remains of the dead.
Who are the 3 Marys to visit Jesus' tomb?
Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James), and Mary Salome visited the empty tomb. In Matthew 27:61 it is written "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb." The other Mary here is named in Mark 16:1 and Matthew 27:56 as the mother of James and Joseph. If you use the Mark 16:1 account then the third women is Salome who is called Mary Salome in the Catholic Encyclopedia and probably identical with the mother of the sons of Zebedee (James and John) in Matthew 27:56.
How come an empty sets become an empty sets?
An empty set becomes an empty set by virtue of its definition which states that it is a set that contains no elements. In other words, it contains nothing, it is empty!
