Originally posted by Dave
View Post
I think it's safe to say that both cases are still possibilities given all of the ancient quotes including what Adrift added. Either the body was released as an exception because someone requested it, or it was buried with other crucified criminals. We have this later account from an anonymous writer that there is a request for the body which is granted. This could be true or it could have been added as a means of achieving the powerful story of an empty tomb.
Okay, so it's possible that the story had an early basis and could have made it's rounds to someone in the Sanhedrin who could have made the effort to try and correct it if it was in fact false. I can accept that. I think it's also possible that the story was a later invention (perhaps author of Mark wrote it in Rome in 72 AD) and that this was not distributed to whomever was possibly left from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin of 30 AD. So I don't think we can say with certainty that it would have been shot down by opponents if it were not true.
I think it's because the readers are being told how righteous Jesus is, how he had done nothing wrong to deserve death and that he was being unjustly and horrifically punished. The injustice is what would evoke sympathy. It was shameful to be crucified, mocked, whipped, stripped naked and then to add insult to injury he is buried without any mourning. Why would so much shame and rejection be brought upon a righteous man?
[QUOTE] Another reason to not put mourners at the tomb is that it could ruin the story. You can't have an empty tomb discovered if everyone is already there. If they are already there when Jesus emerges then those mourners become the first eyewitnesses. If the oral tradition that was already in place states that he appeared first to Peter and then to the twelve, but somewhere other than a grave site, this would not pan out. [/QUOTE[
Sure you can. You can have people mourning on Friday evening for Jesus. You can have his family going to the tomb. None of this is mentioned.
Let's ask another question. Could there be a reasonable motive for the author of Mark (or his source) to add an empty tomb story? I think so. #1 There is a gap here in the timeline that is waiting to be filled and #2 a physical resurrection with an empty tomb is more impressive then just appearing to people after you've been dead for a few days. Consider that there could already be many appearance stories in circulation at this time. The crucifixion story was also in circulation and thus the gap. To fill this gap you can't use the key players because they already have appearance stories in circulation (seeing Jesus on the beach, seeing him on the road to Emmaus, seeing him on a hill, etc.). You would have to use someone nobody knew (Joseph) from a town no one has heard of (Arimathea). Then you need a reason for someone to discover the tomb empty (anoint Jesus with spices) and someone to perform this task (women). I know this might sound way off base to you, but I think it makes for a good story and does not require any basis in early traditions.
I guess I see things like the sayings of Jesus or the creeds of the early church to be things that endure for a long time and eventually get written down. But dialogue between two people is not something I would think of as being memorized. However, I will accept that it's a possibility.
I think the original ending was lost, but there's no way to know.
Comment