In the name of Allah ﷻ, most gracious, most merciful Refuting the notion that Tacitus and Josephus were eyewitnesses Tacitus was born in 56 CE and died in 120 CE. He is not an eyewitness to crucifixion nor did he interview any eyewitnesses nor did he interview anybody who talked to eyewitnesses. He is just reporting street gossip. And in the same work where he repeats street gossip about Jesus he accuses Christians of burning down Rome which we know now that it’s false. So a man who is caught lying about Christians can’t serve as a proof of Christianity by reporting street gossip. Josephus is the same basically. Born in 37 CE died in 100 CE. He is not an eyewitness to crucifixion nor did he interview any eyewitnesses nor did he interview anybody who talked to eyewitnesses. He is just reporting street gossip. And on top of that many of his works were forged by Christians. Refuting the argument, “How Did Paul Transfer from Being an Enemy of Christians to becoming a Christian Himself?” Some responses we could give to neutralize the impact of this argument are: Point 1: Perhaps he was sincere, but deceived by the devil. Point 2: Perhaps he hated Jesus so much that he thought making up a false religion would be the most convincing way to drive people away from Jesus’ true teachings. This would make sense in light of the fact that his story of seeing Jesus on the Damascus road is self-contradictory and that he opposed the preaching of the apostles. Point 3: Richard Carrier in his book “Why I don’t Buy the Resurrection Story” states: “In my opinion, Paul may have seen in Christianity a way to save the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Romans by displacing their messianic motives to rebel, and creating a new Judaism more agreeable to the Gentiles, open to all and thus uniting rather than dividing, and more submissive to outside authority by internalizing and spiritualizing religious faith, eliminating messianic (and violent) emphasis on the Temple, and postponing material and social complaints by referring them to an afterlife. This could have been a deliberate or a subconscious motivator for Paul and others leading the movement. In Paul's case, guilt at what he had done to good people, and admiration for their moral program and fortitude, may have also played an
emotional role. We also have to consider, as I note, the effects of guilt. Paul persecuted the early followers, but what if he realized this was wrong? Indeed, if he realized, consciously or not, that this new reform was essential to the survival of his people and their faith, the guilt may have been unbearable--yet it could be easily atoned for by conversion, support, and penance in the form of enduring the persecution that he "deserved" (an eye for an eye).” Point 4: Umar ibn Al Khattab converted to Islam when he was an enemy of Islam and was on his way to murder the Prophet, so what? Whatever you say in the case of Umar may also be said in the case of Paul as well. Refuting the argument, “If you don't want to accept the resurrection as a fact then you might as well disregard all of history” Christians argue that the historical evidence for the resurrection is so good, that to deny it would be to deny so many things that occurred in history, which we regard as facts, yet have less evidence for it's veracity than the resurrection. They give the example of Aristotle. They say there is less historical evidence for the existence of Aristotle than for the resurrection, yet we accept Aristotle's existence as a fact, but not the same for the resurrection. So why the inconsistency they ask. They also say that we have better evidence that the apostles wrote the Gospels than whether Aristotle wrote the books attributed to him. Some points to consider: Point 1: You are committing the fallacy of appealing to consequences of a belief. Even if it were true that this would be the result of my argument, that is not evidence that would render my argument to be invalid. Point 2: Each case is investigated individually. As one skeptic said: "In other cases we have either artifacts, writings, or reliable eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus’s resurrection we have neither. Thus, we can’t compare this case with others." Point 3: Thirdly, our eternal salvation does not depend on whether people like Aristotle actually existed or not. Even if the works attributed to Aristotle aren’t really for him, it doesn’t matter. We can still benefit from the works attributed to him regardless of where they came from. However, if the Gospels are documents that tell us how to attain salvation and they really are not inspired from God, then we cannot benefit from them for seeking salvation. On the contrary, if these documents are false then they could actually land us up in hell. That is why it is important for us to know where they came from. Our eternal salvation depends on it. Point 4: If you take the resurrection as a fact, might as well believe in the authentic Hadith literature which would lead you to accept Islam. I can argue that the Hadith literature is far more reliable and surpasses any kind of “evidence” for the resurrection. If we applied the reports of the resurrection to the standards of isnad, those reports would immediately be thrown out in a heartbeat Refuting the argument, “There was not enough time for a myth to develop” You hear many Christian apologists claiming that their sources are very early and that there wouldn't have been enough time for myth to develop. The interesting thing is that Michael Licona (despite being one of the foremost defenders of the resurrection) in his radio debate with Ehrman on the unbelievable show neutralizes that argument perfectly well. Go to the 24th minute of the show over here http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx%E2%80%A6 and listen for yourself!!! Also another thing, since the Christians had the Old Testament, it’s not like they needed to develop a religion from the ground up. They would use the OT as their basis for their religion. Refuting the argument, “The story couldn’t have been made up, since it doesn’t sound like your typical legendary fairy tale” Christian Claim: If they made up the story, they were the most creative, clever, intelligent fantasists in history, far surpassing Shakespeare, or Dante or Tolkien. Fisherman's "fish stories" are never that elaborate, that convincing, that life-changing, and that enduring. The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events. Nothing is arbitrary. Everything fits in. Everything is meaningful. The hand of a master is at work here. (read the rest afterwards) Source: Bring You To - The Marketing Blog Response: Can stories only be made up if they sound like "your typical legendary fairy tale"? Stories lacking fairy tale elements cannot ever be made up? How does this work? And if we are to take this seriously, then is the Christian apologist willing to accept as "made up" the status of all gospel accounts, which sound like "your typical legendary fairy tale", for example the Gospels speak about three hours of darkness at midday, an earthquake that resurrected "many saints," an angel that descended in an earthquake to roll away the stone sealing a tomb, angels that talked to women, a resurrected man who was apparently able to pass through material objects like doors, etc. and you don’t call these "legendary styled" stories? Refuting the argument, “Paul claims there are 500 witnesses to the resurrection” Some points to consider: Point 1: How come we have no testimony from any of these five hundred people? How come none of these five hundred people ever wrote anything regarding their experiences when they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus? This is all hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible. Where are the five hundred accounts? "There have been attempts to identify Luke's story of Pentecost with this Pauline reference, but no consensus has been reached." (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? p. 52) Point 2: The alleged resurrection took place over 800 kilometers away from the city of Corinth. Do you think that the Corinthians are going to travel all the way and go and investigate the matter that easily? Plus Paul did not indicate where those 500 hundred witnesses were in order for the people to go and ask them. Point 3: How do we know that the text about "500 witnesses" wasn't slipped into the text by some evidence-hungry scribe later on? Point 4: Paul could also have been reporting hearsay, for it is doubtful that he actually interviewed over 500 people. Refuting the argument, “The Earliest Account Which is Mark is Unembellished” Polemicists like William Lane Craig argue that the earliest source (i.e. Mark) is unembellished and mentions important facts in regards to the resurrection. Let's take note of the of the following points: Point 1: There is no consensus in that Mark was the first of the four Gospels written. Some scholars such as John Wenham & B.C. Butler hold to the Augustinian Hypothesis, which states that Matthew was written first. Matthew tells us about three hours of darkness at midday, an earthquake that resurrected "many saints," an angel that descended in an earthquake to roll away the stone sealing a tomb, angels that talked to women, a resurrected man who was apparently able to teletransport himself and to pass through material objects like doors, etc. So maybe the first Gospel was indeed embellished. —— Point 2: Bart Ehrman in his debate with William Lane Craig argued back against this point saying: "Does that mean that the embellished accounts of the Gospels are not historical? You see, he can’t have it both ways. He can’t say that unembellished accounts like Mark’s burial scene are probably historical because they’re unembellished, and then say that John’s account, which is embellished, is also historical. If both embellished and unembellished accounts are equally historical, then the criterion has no weight that says that unembellished accounts are more likely to be historical." Source: http://www.holycross.edu/%E2%80%A6/resurrection-debate-transcript.p%E2%80%A6 Point 3: Mark’s intention when writing could be to make the story really brief. Maybe he was on a paper limit. Maybe he thought that if he lied then people would catch him, so he made a minimal amount of statements so that he would be under less pressure to defend himself. Maybe he was also in a hurry when writing his gospel. —- Point 4: The reason why it is not so embellished is because it only speaks about the empty tomb. It does not speak about the resurrection or post-resurrection appearances. If it did talk about those events to begin with then we probably would have expected embellishments to be there. (assuming you reject Mark 16:9-20) Craig is certainly correct that the Markan 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 hardly makes it likely that the Markan empty tomb story is true. On the contrary, it seems to me that there are good reasons to reject Craig's a priori assumptions about what an empty tomb story would have included if it were legendary. First, even on the assumption that the empty tomb story is legendary, the story would still be older than the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah. We would expect the Markan story to contain less fantastic elements than second century legends. Second, and most importantly, the Markan empty tomb narrative is solely an empty tomb narrative. Not only is the resurrection itself not described, but Mark lacks post-resurrection appearances. In contrast, the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah are complete accounts of Jesus' resurrection, including a description of the resurrection itself, an empty tomb narrative, and an appearance narrative. And most of the "theological and other developments" in the latter documents are found precisely within the sections that the Markan account of the resurrection lacks. Most of the motifs listed by Craig as legendary--including a description of the resurrection itself, reflection on Jesus' triumph over sin and death, quotation of fulfilled prophecy, or a description of the risen Jesus--are not found within the empty tomb stories of the Gospel of Peter or the Ascension of Isaiah.[62] In other words, while the resurrection stories in both the Gospel of Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah are "theologically adorned," the empty tomb stories in both accounts do not appear to be significantly more theologically adorned than that of the Gospel of Mark. Thus, on the assumption that the empty tomb story was legendary, we would not expect it to contain most of the motifs listed by Craig. [60] Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), p. 71. [61] Craig 1995a, p. 151. —— Refuting the argument, “Our sources are independently tested” Yes we hear this a lot, don't we? They keep saying that they have multiple and independent sources attesting their claims. Well....................... What is the evidence that these sources are really independently attested? Do you know for a fact that none of these authors ever met and conspired together or were aware of each other’s works? 
Luke in the introduction to his Gospel made it known that he was aware of the accounts written before him. Isn’t it possible that he depended upon them? Don’t many scholars adhere to the Two Source Hypothesis, which states that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark’s Gospel? So isn’t it possible that there actually might only be one independent account, which is false and all those that followed afterwards are dependent upon that one false account? In contrast, non-traditional scholarship (those who do not think Jesus rose from the dead in the traditionally understood sense) argues that none of the gospels can be considered historically reliable and none are truly independent from the others because later gospels could have drawn from previously written gospels and/or a a common pool of oral traditions. —— Refuting the argument, “The Resurrection is not a Jewish Belief” Christian Argument: (a) the disciples could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus. For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms. 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."
But neither can the belief in the resurrection be explained as a result of Jewish influences. To see this we need to back up a moment. In the Old Testament, the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead on the Day of Judgment is mentioned in three places (Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26, 19, Daniel 12.2). During the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the belief in resurrection flowered and is often mentioned in the Jewish literature of that period. In Jesus' day the Jewish party of the Pharisees held to belief in resurrection, and Jesus sided with them on this score in opposition to the party of the Sadducees. So the idea of resurrection was itself nothing new. But the Jewish conception of resurrection differed in two important, fundamental respects from Jesus' resurrection. In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person. Source: Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Response: Point 1: It could be an exception to the general rule So what, they could have easily stated or believed that this was an exception to the general rule. Point 2: The Old and New Testaments are not consistent then. If this really isn’t a Jewish belief, then that means that the New Testament is not consistent with the Old Testament and this is a serious theological problem. —— Point 3: The story of the resurrection of Jesus wouldn’t have been too strange. It doesn’t seem difficult to believe that resurrection of dead bodies would appeal to people. Some people thought that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead (Mark 6:14ff), Matthew says "many saints" rose before everyone else on the day Jesus died (Matthew 27:52-53), and that Elijah's spirit lived on in Elisha (2 Kings 2:15). So it is not hard to believe that by being a little more creative someone could have made up the story of Jesus’ resurrection. As Keith Eilliot says: These Jewish ideas would and did find favour in the Hellenistic world outside, where stories of dying and rising gods were part of the native folk myths. Thus to talk of the resurrection of Jesus would not have seemed so strange. (Keith Elliott, Questioning Christian Origins, London, 1982, p. 90) Pliny the Elder reports there were numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic. He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius. Pliny also reports that the sailor Gabienus had his throat cut "and almost severed" yet returned from the dead that evening, to report on his visit to Hades. Plato records a similar story related by Alcinous about Er the Pamphylian, who "was slain in battle" and ten days later his body was recovered and brought home, then "at the moment of his funeral, on the twelfth day, as he lay upon the pyre, he revived" and "after coming to life he related what he said he'd seen in the world beyond." In a similar story, the Syrian commander Bouplagus rises from the dead on a body-strewn battlefield (despite having been stabbed twelve times) as Roman soldiers were looting the bodies, and chastised the Romans for looting the dead. The Lady Philinnion returned to life to visit her lover. The villainous Aridaeus fell to his death but returned to life "on the third day" to relate his trip to heaven, and was so transformed by what he learned there that he led a life of impeccable virtue thereafter. Timarchus spent two nights and a day in a sacred crypt, during which time he died, visited heaven, and returned. Ultimately, Pliny the Elder says he also knew of "cases of persons appearing after burial" but chose not to discuss them because his book was about "works of nature, not prodigies." This nevertheless proves such tales were transmitted and believed by many people. Pliny himself doesn't say what he believed, only that these stories weren't the subject of his book. But he still records numerous returns from death, and as we have seen there are many, many more.[ Pliny the Elder, Natural History 7.176-179. Er: Plato, Republic 614b. Bouplagus & Lady Philinnion: Phlegon, De Mirabilibus 3 (Lady Philinnion is also reported in Proclus, Commentary on Plato's Republic 2.115-16) & 1. Aridaeus: Plutarch, On the Delayed Vengeance of the Gods 563b-568a. Timarchus: Plutarch, On the Sign of Socrates 590a-592e. There were also legends and stories of people resurrected by magic herbs: Pliny the Elder, Natural History 25.5.14 (Tylon and others); Hyginus, Fables 136 (Glaucus); Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library 1.25.6 (Isis resurrecting Horus). There might also have been a popular belief that the Emperor Nero would or did return from the dead (Suetonius, Nero 57; Tacitus, Histories 1.2, 2.8; Augustine, City of God 20.19; some allusions in book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles). And several cases of "ghosts" returning from the grave are also recorded where the "ghost" clearly had a completely physical body: e.g. Polites (Pausanias, Description of Greece 6.6.7-11) and Polycritus (Phlegon, De Mirabilibus 2; Proclus, Commentary on Plato's Republic 2.115-16). —— Refuting the argument, “The Jews could have produced a body” This is what a number of polemicists refer to as the "Jerusalem Factor" argument. Basically this is an argument to try and support the historicity of the empty tomb. Basically the argument is like this: "The Jews could have easily produced the body anytime in order to prove that Jesus didn't resurrect, yet the disciples still had the guts to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem itself where it would have been easy to disprove". However, let's take the following points into consideration: —— Point 1: Who said that there was an interest in refuting Christianity? First, to claim that the enemies of Christianity did not produce Jesus' body, therefore the body was missing (and presumably resurrected), presupposes an interest in Christianity which first-century non-Christians may not have had. Because of Christianity's status in the twentieth century as a world religion, it is easy to forget that Christianity in the first century was not the center of attention in religious matters. Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, points out that "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians saw] the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society." (Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), p. xiv.) First-century Romans had about as much interest in refuting Christian claims as twentieth century skeptics had in refuting the misguided claims of the Heaven's Gate cult: they simply didn't care to refute it. As for the Jews, Jewish sources do not even mention the Resurrection, much less attempt to refute it. [97] As Martin writes, "This hardly suggests that Jewish leaders were actively engaged in attempting to refute the Resurrection story but failing in their efforts." (Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), p. 91.) Of course it is possible that the Jews wanted to keep the Resurrection story quiet precisely because they couldn't refute it, but in order for Craig's argument to have any force, he has the burden of proof to show that that mere possibility is probably what happened. Craig has shown nothing of the sort.[99] [97] The text of Josephus' Antiquities (18.3.3 § 63-64) might seem to contain an authentic reference to Jesus' resurrection, but there are clear signs of Christian tampering with the text. Moreover, even the New Testament does not claim that the Jews ever bothered to check the tomb. [99] Indeed, one cannot help but notice a parallel between first-century Jews' interest in refuting the Resurrection and contemporary New Testament scholars' interest in refuting apologetic arguments for the empty tomb. In the course of writing this paper, I contacted for peer review several New Testament scholars who reject the empty tomb story. Few felt apologetic arguments were worth serious consideration. One prominent critic thought it was a "waste of time" to provide a detailed response to Craig. Another exegete criticized me for taking apologists like Craig "too seriously!" One cannot help but wonder if first-century Jews held a similar view. Cf. Craig Blomberg's complaint that liberal scholars have ignored theological studies by evangelicals. According to Blomberg, "In fact, the wealth of detailed, nuanced evangelical scholarship that writers of Crossan's bent simply ignore altogether is astonishing." See Blomberg, "The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith: Harmony or Conflict?" Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? (ed. Paul Copan, Grand Rapids: Michigan, Baker, 1998), p. 111. —— Point 2: The body couldn’t have been identified anyway Second, even if a non-Christian had been motivated to produce the body, it could not have been identified by the time Christians began to publicly proclaim the resurrection. According to Acts 2, Christians did not begin to publicly proclaim the resurrection until seven weeks after Jesus' death. And by that time the body would have been far too decomposed to be identified without modern forensics, as evidenced by John's statement (11:39) that Lazarus had already started to decompose after just four days. It was precisely for this reason that bodies were wrapped in linen, perfumed, and buried quickly. According to Gerald Bostock, after seven weeks, "the corpse would not have been easily demonstrated to be the body of Jesus. The time-lag would have made the production of the body a futile exercise, even if its production could have proved anything of significance." (Gerald Bostock, "Do We Need an Empty Tomb?" The Expository Times, 105 (1994), p. 204.) I confirmed Bostock's objection by contacting John Nernoff III, a retired pathologist, and asked him about the decomposition of a body at 65 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Nernoff, a face will become nearly unrecognizable after several days at 65 degrees Fahrenheit.[101] Of course, for all we know, the temperature inside Jesus' tomb may have been much colder than 65 degrees Fahrenheit. As Craig points out, "Jerusalem, being 700 meters above sea level, can be quite cool in April."[102] Unfortunately, given the lack of meteorological records from the time, one can only speculate on what the temperature would have been inside Jesus' tomb. But even if it were cold inside the tomb, Jesus' corpse still would have been unrecognizable after seven weeks of decomposition. Again, I contacted Nernoff, but this time I asked him to suppose that the average temperature was 45 degrees Fahrenheit.[103] Nernoff stated that even that temperature could not entirely prevent decomposition of the body; molds and some bacteria grow at that temperature. Furthermore, additional changes in appearance would be caused by dessication (drying), rigor and its relaxation, and settling of blood in the dependent [102] Craig 1989a, p. 204. [103] I asked Craig in private correspondence (May 1, 2000) what he thought the average temperature was inside Jesus' tomb after his death, but he did not provide a temperature in his reply (June 27, 2000). Instead, he simply reiterated the altitude of Jerusalem and the fact that caves can be cold even in the summer. True, but the issue is whether the temperature in a cave at the time would have been cool enough to keep the body recognizable. 284 tissues.[104] So even if we assume that Jesus' corpse had been kept cool, seven weeks is still plenty of time for the corpse to become decomposed and disfigured. Indeed, in the Jewish Midrash, we find a passage stating that the facial features of a corpse become disfigured in three days: Bar Kappara taught: Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons [the body].[105] Given this disfigurement, the Midrash is emphatic that the identity of a corpse can only be confirmed within three days of death. Consider the pronouncement of one Midrash: You cannot testify to [the identity of a corpse] save by the facial features together with the nose, even if there are marks of identification in his body and garments: again, you can testify only within three days [of death].[106] But suppose a member of the Sanhedrin attempted to identify Jesus' corpse anyway. In private correspondence, Craig stated that Jesus' corpse would have had "identifying marks on it that would make its identity obvious."[107] Although Craig did not list the identifying marks, presumably he has in mind the telltale remnants of Jesus' crucifixion: nails (or holes where the nails had been), unbroken legs, etc. I think this argument would be a plausible one if Jesus had not been reburied. However, if the reburial hypothesis is true, none of Jesus' followers would have witnessed the reburial. They would not have known the exact location of Jesus' corpse within the criminals' graveyard. Thus, even if Joseph had unearthed Jesus' body, the disciples would not know that it was Jesus' body. Third, suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Jews took the resurrection seriously, violated the tomb, removed the body, and paraded the rotting corpse of Jesus "through the streets of the city for all to see." It is doubtful that such disconfirming
[104] John Nernoff III to Jeffery Jay Lowder, November 7, 2000.
[105] Midrash Rabbah Genesis C:7 (994).
[106] Midrash Rabbah Genesis LXV:20 (595). See also Midrash Rabbah Genesis LXXIII:5 (669-670), Midrash Rabbah Leviticus XVIII:1 (225-226), and Midrash Rabbah Leviticus XXXIII:5.
[107] William Lane Craig to Jeffery Jay Lowder, June 27, 2000. 
evidence would have "nipped the Christian heresy in the bud." For all we know, the early Christians would have denied that the body was Jesus, or they would have found some way to explain it away, perhaps by modifying their doctrines directly. Indeed, one could plausibly argue that Craig himself is a paradigm example of a Christian whose faith in the resurrection is impervious to disconfirming historical evidence. Elsewhere, Craig writes, "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 36) It is unclear why first-century Christians could not have engaged in a similar rationalization had, say, the Jews produced Jesus' corpse. Therefore, in light of the above considerations, the fact that the disciples preached the Resurrection in Jerusalem does not make it probable that the tomb was empty. —— Refuting the argument, “There was no pilgrimage to the tomb” This is another argument supporting the historicity of the empty tomb. Basically the argument goes like this....... "There is no historical record of people making pilgrimage to Jesus' tomb. Surely, if his body was still there, then people would have made pilgrimage to it. Yet, they did not. This proves that the tomb was empty." —— Point 1: We would expect a lack of veneration if Jesus' followers did not know the location of Jesus' permanent burial place. (Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (London: SCM, 1994), p. 208, n. 207; Carnley 1987, p. 58; Küng, p. 371.) Do Christians today know where Jesus’ tomb exactly was? Well no. If it was known by the early Christians then they definitely would have venerated it, but maybe they didn’t know where it was. Point 2: Even if the empty tomb story were true, early Christians would still have a reason to venerate the site, namely, that the grave was the alleged location of the Resurrection itself. As Wedderburn asks, "Was that not in itself reason enough to note and remember and cherish the site, regardless of whether it contained Jesus' remains or not"? (A.J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, Massachussetts: Hendrickson, 1999), p. 64.) Let's divide Christians into two groups, the 'earliest' Christians and 'later' Christians.[120] The earliest Christians are those who had known Jesus before his death and who thought they had "seen" Jesus risen from the dead. 'Later' Christians, on the other hand, had not known Jesus before his death and had not "seen" him risen from the dead. It seems to me that even the earliest disciples would have venerated the site as a shrine, once Jesus was no longer physically present. But even if none of the earliest Christians had venerated the tomb as a shrine, later Christians would have done so, as demonstrated by veneration of the Holy Sepulchre Church, centuries after the Jewish War.[121] Moreover, since everyone that Paul converted would have been a 'later' Christian, that puts an interest in veneration to within three years' of Jesus' death. And it seems far-fetched indeed to suppose that the earliest disciples, who were busy running the church and proclaiming the resurrection, would have policed the tomb in order to effectively stifle veneration. So the lack of veneration of the tombs actually serves as good evidence AGAINST the empty tomb, not for it! A final consideration related to Jesus’ burial involves tomb veneration. That Jesus’ burial location was unknown to his followers is consistent with the absence of evidence that Jesus’ burial location was ever venerated in the first decades after his death. The absolute earliest evidence of people venerating a tomb associated with Jesus is 135 C.E., and most think not until the fourth century. Both are well after the discovered empty tomb tradition came into circulation and therefore it would not be surprising if some tomb was by that time thought to be the one Jesus had been in even if the real site of burial was never known. I do not understand how some use the absence of early tomb veneration as evidence that Jesus’ tomb was actually found empty, the logic being that because it was found empty, the earliest Christians did not care to venerate it. Even if Jesus’ tomb was found empty, no one could have stopped early Christians from flocking to visit and venerate the site where the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection took place, just as thousands of Christians today flock to the two competing sites for Jesus’ burial in Jerusalem. As Peter Carnley says, “The pious interest in the alleged site of the Holy Sepulchre in our own day seems to render such an argument [that lack of tomb veneration points to a discovered empty tomb] completely impotent.” (Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 58.) Refuting the argument, “Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention” Christian Argument: As a member of the Sanhedrin, which condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. Response: Point 1: Joseph of Arimathea might not even be a real person Farrell Till said: "The gospels were written in Greek by Hellenistic Christians, whose audiences would not have been Jews personally familiar with the religious/ political milieu in which Jesus had allegedly lived. If a writer today should fictionalize a member of the Israeli Supreme Court as it was constituted 40 years ago, how many Jews who are citizens of other countries would notice it?" (Farrell Till, Still Standing on Sinking Sand, January 1997 edition of The Skeptical Review) Peter Kirby said: "The Gospel of Mark was composed over 40 years later, after the destruction of Jerusalem, possibly in a setting of diaspora Jews and Gentiles. Moreover, even if there were a considerable number of Palestinian Jews with strong traditional ties, it is difficult to suppose that their memory would be so strong that they would be able to remember the names of those on the Sanhedrin so as to be able to argue for the exclusion of any fictional name. There were about seventy people on the Sanhedrin, and forty years later most of them would died and been replaced at one point or another, not to mention that most people at the time that Jesus died would have also died, making it nearly inconceivable that the average Jew knew all the names of the Sanhedrin c. 30 well enough to spot a name that doesn't belong." (The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated, 2001) —— Point 2: It is not unbelievable that the author would place him as a member of the Sanhedrin But someone might argue back and ask why place him on the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus?
But, why is this so difficult to believe? The author probably thought to himself that if he can show that a member of the Sanhedrin came to show sympathy for Jesus, then this would show how strong the message of the Gospel really is. So someone is looking at the glass half full while someone else can look it at half empty. —— Point 3: The way the author shows the timing of Jesus’s death doesn’t make the story of Joseph to be unbelievable. The Gospels present Jesus dying as the time of the Sabbath was approaching. The Jews wanted to bury Jesus before the Sabbath came. So Joseph of Arimathea was probably in a hurry and had to bury Jesus in his tomb that was readily available and then after the Sabbath was over he would probably bury it elsewhere. So anyone reading the story would find this to be reasonable and thus not really object to it. The practice of temporary burial was well known back at that time as Amos Kloner points out, "During the Second Temple period and later, Jews often practiced temporary burial...a borrowed or temporary cave was used for a limited time." (Amos Kloner, "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?" Biblical Archeaology Review 25:5, Sept/Oct 1999, p. 29 spotted April 8, 2001. Kloner cites ancient Rabbinical writings: "Whoever finds a corpse in a tomb should not move it from its place, unless he knows that this is a temporary grave," for example "Rabban Gamliel had a temporary tomb in Yabneh into which they bring the corpse and lock the door upon it," just as Joseph does with Jesus (Semahot 13.5, 10.8, translations by Dov Zlotnik, The Tractate "Mourning", Yale Judaica Series 18 [New York and London, 1966], p. 84, 74). Once the Sabbath had passed, surely Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, would have moved the body out of his own tomb and into a permanent location more suitable for a criminal. (Cf. Oscar Holtzmann, The Life of Jesus (trans. J.T. Bealby and Maurice A. Canney, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1904), p. 499.) So if the author of the Gospel of Mark was aware of this and was also aware of the fact that his audience members were aware of this, then that means that he most likely saw no reason why anyone would question this story. —— Refuting the argument, “Early Jewish Polemic Presupposes an Empty Tomb” The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb. Source: Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (read the rest of it) THE WRONG TOMB? A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there! If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection. Source: http://www.leaderu.com/everystud%E2%80%A6/easter/articles/josh2.html If the resurrection was a lie, the Jews would have produced the corpse and nipped this feared superstition in the bud. All they had to do was go to the tomb and get it. The Roman soldiers and their leaders were on their side, not the Christians'. And if the Jews couldn't get the body because the disciples stole it, how did they do that? The arguments against the swoon theory hold here too: unarmed peasants could not have overpowered Roman soldiers or rolled away a great stone while they slept on duty. Source: Bring You To - The Marketing Blog —— Response: This is begging the question and assuming that the historicity of the Jewish polemic itself is authentic. As Jeffery Jay Lowder says: "For all we know, the Jewish polemic may be a literary device designed to answer obvious doubts that would occur to converts. Or, supposing that there is some sort of historical basis to the polemic, it may be that the polemic originated with a non-Jew and then later on Matthew attributed the polemic to the Jews. Given that the polemic is not recorded in any contemporary Jewish documents, we can't assume that Jews actually responded to the proclamation of the Resurrection with the accusation that the disciples stole the body."(Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig) Kris D. Komarnitsky on page 41 of his book Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? States: However, since this charge is recorded in a gospel written after the Gospel of Mark, this charge could just as easily be the result of apologetics and legendary growth after the discovered empty tomb tradition came into circulation. It would have been natural 2000 years ago, just as it would be today, that some people would have accepted the Christian claim of a discovered empty tomb at face value and responded simplistically. The result could have been a sequence of charge/countercharge between unsophisticated Jews and Christians that developed something like this: · Christian legend arises that Jesus’ tomb was found empty.
· Some Jews counter that his followers probably stole the body.
· Christian legend arises that the tomb was guarded.
· Jewish legend arises that the guards probably fell asleep.Christian legend arises (reflected in Matthew’s gospel) that the guards were paid off by the authorities to say they fell asleep when actually they passed out from fear when they saw the precursor to the resurrection, an angel. The entire sequence could be a series of legends driven by apologetics from both sides over a period of years or decades. That there never were any guards at Jesus’ burial spot is supported by three things. First, the gospels of Mark, Luke, and John say nothing about guards at the tomb. Second, Matthew’s comment that this “is still told among the Jews to this day” (Mt 28:15) suggests that the source of the stolen body/sleeping guards charge was not from any official Jewish source or even the guards themselves, but from the general populace. The third thing that supports the conclusion that there never were any guards at Jesus’ burial spot is an interesting coincidence in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew is both the only gospel to post guards at the tomb and the only gospel to have Jesus publicly predict his future resurrection (I am excluding the non-canonical Gospel of Peter, which does have a guarded tomb, because we’re missing much of that gospel and therefore we do not know if it also has a public prediction of Jesus’ future resurrection, although I predict that it will if the rest of that gospel is ever found). In Matthew, Jesus’ public prediction of his future resurrection cites Jon 1:17 and goes like this: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth” (Mt 12:40). Later on, when Matthew posts the guards, it is done like this: ... the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead’, and the last deception would be worse than the first.” (Mt 27:62-64) Regarding the connection between the Jon 1:17 announcement and the posting of the guards C.H. Giblin says: In [Mt] 27.63, when the Pharisees recall what Jesus said while he was still living, they must be referring principally to what was told them in [Mt] 12.40. For [Mt] 12.40 is the only place where a burial-prediction, able to be construed as a resurrection-prediction was made to them or even stated publicly. ( C.H. Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Matthean Burial-Resurrection Narrative (Matt. xxvii.57-xxviii.20),” New Testament Studies 21 (1974-75): 419.) Further cinching the connection that Giblin is referring to, the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus direct his resurrection prediction specifically at the “scribes and Pharisees” (Mt 12:38), the same general authorities who ask Pilate to have the tomb guarded — “the chief priests and the Pharisees” (Mt 27:62). These things give the impression that Matthew (or the tradition he drew from) has a public announcement about Jesus’ future resurrection for the sole purpose of posting guards at the tomb, for in order to have a reason to post guards, one must show that the Chief priests and Pharisees knew of this prediction. Adding further to the impression of fabrication or legend, the public prediction of Jesus’ future resurrection in Matthew creates a difficulty in the larger Christian storyline — the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’ Jon 1:17 resurrection prediction but his own disciples did not, even after Jesus told them in plain language (Mk 9:9-10, 31-32). According to the highly respected Catholic scholar R.E. Brown: “[Regarding the] existence of a guard... there is neither internal nor external evidence to cause us to affirm historicity.” (R.E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, II (ABRL, 7; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1312.) Even Even evangelical scholar William Craig, after a valiant attempt to defend the guard at the tomb, concludes, “Although there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb, there are also weighty considerations in its favor. It seems best to leave it an open question.” (William Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 281.) But if it is agreed that the guards at the tomb could be a fiction, then it is easy to explain the existence of the Jewish charge of a stolen body — it was just a simplistic response by some unsophisticated Jews to the Christian claim of a discovered empty tomb. How more sophisticated Jews might have responded to the Christian claim of a discovered empty tomb will be discussed in the next chapter. —— Refuting the argument of the women’s discovery of the tomb This is a very common argument and this is one of William Lane Craig's favorite arguments for proving the historicity of the empty tomb. The argument goes something like this......... "Why does Mark show that it was the women who discovered the tomb? Women's testimony back then was considered weak and inferior. If someone wanted to make up a story, then someone would have placed men as the ones who discovered the tomb. However, the fact that the author placed women indicates that he must have been telling the truth. Hence, this is a powerful argument for the historicity of the empty tomb." Understood the argument? Great. Proceed to the response below then....... —— Point 1: The Gospel Authors were Hellenestic Jews who had been exposed to cultural influences that did not degrade women the same way you find in Jewish societies in the past. Hellenistic literature and mythology had goddesses as well as gods and heroines as well as heroes. So their audience wouldn’t have had a big problem with women witnesses. This worn-out apologetic argument shows an incredible ignorance of the culture that produced the gospel accounts. It is true that in Jewish society, women had very little social or political status, but this ignores that the gospels were Hellenistic productions. If their authors were Jews, they were Hellenistic Jews who had been exposed to cultural influences that were not quite as unkind to women as was the Mosaic law, which considered women to be mere chattel. Hellenistic literature and mythology had goddesses as well as gods and heroines as well as heroes. Hera was the queen of heaven and the consort of Zeus; Athena was the goddess of wisdom, and Athens, the center of Greek learning, was her namesake; Artemis was the goddess of the moon and also the protector of wildlife; Aphrodite was the goddess of love. These are only a few of the many goddesses and nymphs who were worshipped and respected by the Greeks, and it would be unreasonable to think that generations of Hellenistic Jews could have lived in Greek societies without having been influenced by their fascination with goddesses. Greek culture, for example, had Sibyls, who were aged women that uttered prophecies thought to have been revealed to them by the gods. They functioned much in the same way as the "oracles," like the famous one at Delphi, and Hebrew society didn't escape the influence of the Sibyls as evinced by writings like The Sibylline Oracles, a pseudepigraphic work purporting to contain the prophetic utterances of several Hebrew Sybils dating as far back as Sambethe, a daughter-in-law of Noah. Such works as these could not have been produced in a culture that put no credence in the testimony of women. Furthermore, a study of the Old Testament shows that the Hebrews had their prophetesses, such as Deborah and Huldah in Judges 4 and 2 Kings 21, and that the worship of goddesses like Ashtaroth was often a religious problem in early Israel (Judges 2:13; 10:6; 1 Sam. 7:3-4; 12:10). The Hebrews also had their heroines like Ruth and Esther in the canonical books and Judith in the apocryphal. To argue that the testimony of women would have commanded no respect in first-century Judaism is a claim that cannot be substantiated, and it ignores evidence that indicates the gospels were Hellenistic in origin. —— Point 2: The women were the best people that Mark could appeal to in order to discover the empty tomb. Mark was probably aware of the tradition that was around that the disciples believed in the resurrection on the basis of the appearances. If that is the case, then obviously the male disciples couldn’t have been the ones who went to check out the tomb. Therefore, Mark chose women for that task in his story. —— Point 3: The Gospel of Mark does not appear to be written with an apologetic tone or intent. It does not appear to be appealing to the women’s testimony as evidence or as a method of persuading the reader about what has happened. Unless it can be shown that the Gospel of Mark was written with the intent of appealing to the women’s testimony as evidence, then there is nothing wrong with believing that this story could have been made up. Furthermore, they also appeal to male disciples as witnesses for Jesus appearing, hence it’s not like they were solely dependent upon the women. Mark was writing to the persecuted Christians to give them hope about their situation. Craig Blomberg states: "Mark is writing to Christians who would not likely have come to faith in the first place had they not heard the story of the resurrection. So he can assume knowledge of it and deliberately cut it [his gospel] short to call attention with riveting abruptness to the women’s initial fear and failure, knowing full well, and knowing that his audience knew well, the story of how they later overcame their fear and spread the word. Most probably, Mark wants to encourage beleaguered Christians in Rome shortly before or during the Neronic persecution in the 60s that they, too, can overcome any failure they may have experienced or that they may fear and that it remains their task to spread the gospel too." (Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 140.) Earl Doherty says: “Mark is portraying them [the women] exactly as... women were regarded in first-century Palestine.... All they can do is react in fear and terror.” (Earl Doherty, “Challenging the Verdict, A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ” n.p. [cited 10 Oct 2007] Online: Michael Goulder agrees: “You know what women are like. They were so scared that they never passed the message on.” (Michael Goulder, “Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins: A Response to N.T. Wright,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Vol. 3.2 (2005), 192) —— Point: 4: Maybe Mark used this in order for Christianity to appeal to women. As Richard Carrier points out, women were a major target of the Christian mission. Historians agree that "many more females than males were converting to Christianity in its first centuries," and recognize "Christianity's appeal to women as an important factor in its success." Indeed, "in the first Christian centuries the new belief system used women and their position in the family/household environment to transmit and reproduce itself." (Gillian Cloke, "Women, Worship, and Mission: The Church in the Household," The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Esler, vol. 1 (2000): pp. 422-51 (quotes from p. 423). For more on women in the early expansion of the Christian church, see Chapter 18. Note, also, that women could even hold the office of deacon within the Church (Romans 16:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-13, esp. 3:11; and Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96.8), cited in Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?, 2006) Point 5: If Jews could believe in female Prophets such as Deborah (Judges 4) or Huldah (2 Kings 22:12-20), then why not believe that God chose women to be witnesses of the empty tomb? —- Point 6: There were Jews who actually didn’t make that big of a deal reporting events from women alone.
Josephus, for example, has his entire account of the heroic sacrifices at Gamala and Masada from no other source than two women in each case--yet shows no embarrassment at this. (Masada: Josephus, Jewish War 7.399. Gamala: Josephus, Jewish War 4.81) Evangelical scholar John Wenham quotes the Rev. R.T. Beckwith as follows (this is taken from Jeffrey Lowder’s article): "However, the rabbinical lists of persons disqualified to give testimony do not normally include women, and it is clear from three passages in the Mishnah (Yebamoth 16:7; Ketuboth 2:5; Eduyoth 3:6) that women were allowed to give evidence on matters within their knowledge if there was no male witness available. Applying this to the resurrection appearances, it would mean that Mary Magdalene was on rabbinical principles entitled to give witness to an appearance of Christ, which was made only to her or to her and other women." (John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Second ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), pp. 150-51, n. 26) —— Richard Carrier in his article "Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?" also shows how the testimony of women was acceptable in Hellinistic and Roman societies. Point 7: Even for the Sake of Argument… If you want to insist that the women were still so marginalized back in those days and it could not have been invented, then I would argue back just like how Bart Ehrman did in his debate against William Lane Craig, which is that it was very likely that the author of Mark would have invented the story of the women discovering the tomb in order to fulfill his literary agenda. Quoting Ehrman… "The Gospel of Mark shows us how the disciples of Jesus, the family of Jesus, etc. did not understand the claims of Jesus or who he really was, but that it was those who were marginalized such as the unknown woman who anointed him, the centurion, etc. that understood him. So it would make sense for Mark to make up this story in order to show that it was the marginalized people who first believed and understood Jesus." Richard Carrier emphasizes this point when he said: "The first and foremost reason Mark has women first at the tomb, and first to learn the truth, is to fulfill the very gospel itself, that "the least shall be first" (Mark 9:35 & 10:31)." Point 8: NT authors didn’t face that as a problem We don't see that the NT authors ever had to defend themselves against opponents who objected to the women’s testimony. All credit for all these arguments goes to Bassam Zawadi https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtva5l8Dlk YouTube Quran and Bible Blog Surprising facts about the Resurrection of Jesus! 🤯