Allison weighs eight arguments against the empty tomb as follows:
The account is only singularly attested; it comes from Markan creativity. (pp 117-119)
The account is inspired by scripture, especially Dan 6. (pp 119-125)
The words about the women fleeing the tomb, “they said nothing to anyone” (Mk 16:8), is a literary explanation for why no one had heard of the empty tomb before. (pp 125-127)
The account involves the miraculous. (p 128)
Paul knows nothing of an empty tomb, so the account must have originated after him. (pp 129-136)
Mark’s original ending was not about an empty tomb. (pp 136-137)
If people had visions of Jesus and had come to believe in his resurrection, it’s easy to see how an empty tomb legend would have arisen; human beings create religious fictions to justify beliefs all the time. (pp 137-138)
There is remarkable precedent for — indeed, an overwhelming abundance of — legendary stories about empty tombs and disappearing bodies. (pp 138-140)
The account is only singularly attested; it comes from Markan creativity. (pp 117-119)
The account is inspired by scripture, especially Dan 6. (pp 119-125)
The words about the women fleeing the tomb, “they said nothing to anyone” (Mk 16:8), is a literary explanation for why no one had heard of the empty tomb before. (pp 125-127)
The account involves the miraculous. (p 128)
Paul knows nothing of an empty tomb, so the account must have originated after him. (pp 129-136)
Mark’s original ending was not about an empty tomb. (pp 136-137)
If people had visions of Jesus and had come to believe in his resurrection, it’s easy to see how an empty tomb legend would have arisen; human beings create religious fictions to justify beliefs all the time. (pp 137-138)
There is remarkable precedent for — indeed, an overwhelming abundance of — legendary stories about empty tombs and disappearing bodies. (pp 138-140)
https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2022/04/1 ... revisited/
Then I read that the arguments pro historicity of an "empty tomb" would be:
The view combated in Mt 28:11-15 — that the disciples robbed the tomb — shows that everyone agreed the tomb was empty. (pp 141-142)
The early Christians gave no attention to the tomb of Jesus, which is strange in light of Jewish veneration for the burial places of prophets and martyrs. Only an empty tomb accounts for this lack of veneration. (pp 142-145)
Paul’s language in I Cor 15 assumes an empty tomb. (pp 144-145)
Visions of Jesus without an empty tomb would not trigger a resurrection belief. (pp 145-146)
The early Christians could not have gotten away with preaching the resurrection of an individual (a wacky idea) in Jerusalem unless, at the very least, the tomb of that individual was known to be open and empty. (pp 146-150)
Apologetic interests, if present in the resurrection narratives, are undisclosed. (pp 150-152)
The empty tomb account of Mark 16:1-8 (like Jesus’ baptism in Mk 1:9-11) undergoes so much apologetic glosses and expansions in the other gospels, that it looks a historical memory that couldn’t be ignored, rather than something invented. (pp 152-153)
In a culture where women were seen as inferior to men, and the testimony of women was viewed as unreliable, the early Christians would not have invented female witnesses to the empty tomb. (pp 154-162)
The early Christians gave no attention to the tomb of Jesus, which is strange in light of Jewish veneration for the burial places of prophets and martyrs. Only an empty tomb accounts for this lack of veneration. (pp 142-145)
Paul’s language in I Cor 15 assumes an empty tomb. (pp 144-145)
Visions of Jesus without an empty tomb would not trigger a resurrection belief. (pp 145-146)
The early Christians could not have gotten away with preaching the resurrection of an individual (a wacky idea) in Jerusalem unless, at the very least, the tomb of that individual was known to be open and empty. (pp 146-150)
Apologetic interests, if present in the resurrection narratives, are undisclosed. (pp 150-152)
The empty tomb account of Mark 16:1-8 (like Jesus’ baptism in Mk 1:9-11) undergoes so much apologetic glosses and expansions in the other gospels, that it looks a historical memory that couldn’t be ignored, rather than something invented. (pp 152-153)
In a culture where women were seen as inferior to men, and the testimony of women was viewed as unreliable, the early Christians would not have invented female witnesses to the empty tomb. (pp 154-162)
Commenting them one after the other:
- The view combated in Mt 28:11-15 — that the disciples robbed the tomb — shows that everyone agreed the tomb was empty. (pp 141-142)
...for sake of argument?
- The early Christians gave no attention to the tomb of Jesus, which is strange in light of Jewish veneration for the burial places of prophets and martyrs. Only an empty tomb accounts for this lack of veneration. (pp 142-145)
this point is very strange. Then does Dallison buy sostantially the Doherty's point that the Paul's silence about the Golgotha and the tomb of Jesus is part and parcel of the greater Sound Silence about the historical Jesus in Paul? Was not Doherty attacked polemically by Maurice Casey for this idea?
- Paul’s language in I Cor 15 assumes an empty tomb. (pp 144-145)
but only "according to scriptures", sure.
- Visions of Jesus without an empty tomb would not trigger a resurrection belief. (pp 145-146)
Here I lose totally Dale Allison. Also visions of Jesus without a historical Jesus would trigger a resurrection belief.
- The early Christians could not have gotten away with preaching the resurrection of an individual (a wacky idea) in Jerusalem unless, at the very least, the tomb of that individual was known to be open and empty. (pp 146-150)
Idem as above. There is someway the strong desire of Allison that the Christian religion is based on a rational foundation.
- Apologetic interests, if present in the resurrection narratives, are undisclosed. (pp 150-152)
as reaction to Marcion the Apologetic interests are surely disclosed: the Risen Jesus has a carnal body absolutely identical to the former.
- The empty tomb account of Mark 16:1-8 (like Jesus’ baptism in Mk 1:9-11) undergoes so much apologetic glosses and expansions in the other gospels, that it looks a historical memory that couldn’t be ignored, rather than something invented. (pp 152-153)
Again: the marcionite threat explains validly the need of a such "historical memory".
- In a culture where women were seen as inferior to men, and the testimony of women was viewed as unreliable, the early Christians would not have invented female witnesses to the empty tomb. (pp 154-162)
This is strange. A solution may be that the women allegorize the Marcionites (where the women had more rights) so, as the argument goes, if even they witnessed the flesh of the Risen one, then even more so the "true" Christians.
