Neither
Peter nor Paul mentions an empty tomb. Crucifixion victims were usually buried
in a mass grave. The pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb could have
grown in the oral tradition before Mark wrote the first Gospel decades later in
Rome. Mark received the tomb burial story from the oral tradition, not from
eye-witnesses, then added an empty tomb story which the other Evangelists
received only from him.
The
Resurrection appearance to Peter could have been Peter’s traumatic response to
bereavement and guilt. The appearance en route to Emmaus reads like a case of
mistaken identity. The disciples, meeting to re-interpret scripture as
prophesying Resurrection, could have believed that Jesus was spiritually
present, confirming their new understanding. Evangelicals now claim to encounter
the risen Jesus but do not mean by this that he is visibly, tangibly present,
able to enter a room, shake hands, sit at a table or eat. The disciples need not
have meant this either but Matthew and Luke, having read Mark’s account of an
empty tomb, described a tangible risen Jesus.
Paul
did not meet a living person answering the description of the recently deceased
Jesus. He saw a blinding light and heard a voice while under stress. Matthew did
not know that, according to Luke, the risen Jesus appeared only in Jerusalem so
he described the disciples as going to Galilee to witness the Resurrection there
and added that, even while they were seeing the risen Jesus, “…some doubted.”
(Mt. 28. 17)
Conclusions: there was no empty tomb and no Resurrection appearances.
No comments:
Post a Comment