The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry (Michael J. Alter)

[rakovsky]

In that particular chapter mentioning Jesus' death and resurrection (not btw the empty tomb), he was focusing on real similarities to paganism. But it doesn't mean that he considered the analogy absolute.

the things in common are the birth, the disappearance of the body, the translation body and the ascension body, not exclusively the 'empty tomb' (that is only a particular simbolic way to show the entire concept). With his absurd argument of demons, etc, simply Justin did reveal to be basically ignorant about why the gospel episodes were ''true'' and the pagan episodes were ''false'' (and he did believe in the existence of pagan deities as demons). He assumes only that these stories, his stories, were ''true''. Period.
If Justin believes that his stories were true, then he does so because of his faith only, not because these stories did sound more persuasive than pagan stories: according to Justin, these stories were similar and one cannot see prima facie the qualitative difference. But by doing so he did recognize implicitly that these stories, as similar to these pagans, could not be evidence of his claims (even if he blindly believes in them). It's only because his strong will of believe that for Justin these stories will become more true than, more old than, the pagan stories.

I think you are extracting too much from one short chapter by Justin to think that Justin saw the pagan stories as fully analogous to the gospels.
Just because someone makes a chapter focusing on similarities without pointing out differences in a long book does not mean that he sees the stories as equally worthy of credibility.

Anyway, you already noted two distinctions that he imagined:
1. The stories of Jupiter, etc. were made by "demons", but the stories of Jesus came from God and the apostles.

2. He had faith in the gospels, not in the pagan stories.

As to 1. above, you can ask why he thought the demons were the motivators behind pagan stories. He would say that the pagan stories are attributed to false Gods like Jupiter. And being false gods, they are demons.
Yahweh on the other hand is the real God, and the apostles were real people who claimed to see the story in first person, not just to have them handed down anonymously.

As to 2., this is enough to show a difference. Justin was not implicitly saying that the tomb was not empty or that the tomb story was made up. In fact, as you said, Justin had faith. So Justin was not saying that the empty tomb story was made up like the pagan stories.

At best, this is a conclusion that Miller draws on his own based on the common elements of an empty tomb in both stories. Of course whether the gospels chose to include an empty tomb story doesn't mean that the empty tomb was not part of the original fact or legend.

[Giuseppe]

I subscribe entirely your last sentence. Jesus could be been buried in a real tomb and later the Christians did use hellenistic tropoi about empty tomb etc.
But I emphasize the fact that there is no independent evidence of a tomb as part of the original belief. A honest Christian should have faith in the existence of a tomb, and only in a second step he should have faith in an empty tomb. This is very similar to having faith in a historical Jesus as basically propedeutic to having faith in the Christ. Otherwise the risk obviously is the possibiliter fallacy.

[Giuseppe]

As evidence of this, I remember that Miller himself is Christian.

[rakovsky]

As evidence of this, I remember that Miller himself is Christian.

So are Muslims, as they call Jesus Christ (Masih). It doesn't mean that someone's interpretation of what the "original" story said is real.

[rakovsky]

I subscribe entirely your last sentence. Jesus could be been buried in a real tomb and later the Christians did use hellenistic tropoi about empty tomb etc.
But I emphasize the fact that there is no independent evidence of a tomb as part of the original belief.

You might as well say that there is no direct "independent evidence" of the "original belief" from 33-45 AD of anything at all, since we have no nonChristian writings from those years.

The empty tomb story is attested in all the gospels, which were written in 60-100 AD, in the natural lifetimes of those who did tell or hear the "original story" of 30-50 AD. So the gospels form "evidence" of what that story said, and there are four such gospels.

Finally, like I said, it's more likely than not that an empty tomb would be part of the original story, whether or not it was made up. That's because it's only natural for people to ask where the body went. Miller could think up that Jesus could have been buried in a mass grave, but it's not necessary for a crucified person to be buried in a mass grave, since we have found a case where one wasn't.

It seems like you and I are starting to run in circles repeating the same things. Miller has no basis to show that the empty tomb story was a later addition.
The fact that Justin saw similarities to paganism in the gospel story does not mean Justin thought the gospel story was made up.

[Giuseppe]

A reason to introduce an empty tomb is the will of exalting Jesus more than Caesar by using the tropos of body translation. Scholars have found already anti-imperial clues in epistles and gospels. How can I know that Jesus had a tomb if I see that the empty tomb story reflects so clearly the hellenistic tropos of body translation ? I can see a real historical kernel behind the body translation tropos applied on Tolomeus Cleopatra's brother (his body was not found after the battle against Caesar AND the Romans tried to search his body in vain) but can someone give me a reason to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that:
1) Jesus was buried in a tomb;
2) the Christians did need to see his body.

...when some scholars insist that the resurrection (for the original belief) was considered only spiritual and not even physical?

[rakovsky]

A reason to introduce an empty tomb is the will of exalting Jesus more than Caesar by using the tropos of body translation. Scholars have found already anti-imperial clues in epistles and gospels. How can I know that Jesus had a tomb if I see that the empty tomb story reflects so clearly the hellenistic tropos of body translation ? I can see a real historical kernel behind the body translation tropos applied on Tolomeus Cleopatra's brother (his body was not found after the battle against Caesar AND the Romans tried to search his body in vain)

The old Testament has empty pit/tomb stories like Elijah raising the boy, Daniel and Joseph in the pits, Jonah leaving a whale's body. The NT is heavily cross referenced to the OT.

but can someone give me a reason to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that:
1) Jesus was buried in a tomb;
2) the Christians did need to see his body.

...when some scholars insist that the resurrection (for the original belief) was considered only spiritual and not even physical?

How can any of Christianity's basics be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even the idea that a real Jesus had a real "spiritual" resurrection, as opposed to just staying dead?

This discussion of the empty tomb story being a later pagan-based creation is running in circles...
You can't show that it was a later invention or that it came from paganism. Correlation is not causation.

I think the resurrection stories are interesting, I would just like to shift gears to a different topic about it.

[Giuseppe]

I believe beyond any reasonable doubt that the body of Gaius Flaminius or Tholomeus was surely researched in vain by the victorious enemy, and was not found. That the victorious general wants the body of his defeated enemy is expected at 100%.

But I cannot believe what says the Gospel when I see clearly only the literary effect (the use of a evident hellenistic tropos) but I cannot discern easily the cause (if the original belief in a physical resurrection - implying the need of a historical tomb - or in a spiritual resurrection).

I wonder why Miller is Christian, if for a Christian as you the Miller's thesis is so disturbing.

Therefore, yes: I give you the last word in this curious discussion.

Thanks and Good Year!

[rakovsky]

I believe beyond any reasonable doubt that the body of Gaius Flaminius or Tholomeus was surely researched in vain by the victorious enemy, and was not found. That the victorious general wants the body of his defeated enemy is expected at 100%.

Maybe there is more to that story.
Read about the body of Harold II at Hastings. There is a strong historical debate over whether the body was found as William II claimed or if Harold II secretly escaped. There were even stories of him having done so.

Perhaps the enemies found the bodies of Gaius or Tholomeus and then somehow this was missed or confused in accounts, which were written at a later time. Or perhaps they actually secretly escaped the battle? Perhaps someone will think that these are reasonable possibilities, even if not likely.

But I cannot believe what says the Gospel when I see clearly only the literary effect (the use of a evident hellenistic tropos)

I don't know what is so "evident" about it. The Greeks did not believe in bodily resurrection, I think. But the Jews did. So why is this a hellenistic tropos and not a Hebrew one?

but I cannot discern easily the cause (if the original belief in a physical resurrection - implying the need of a historical tomb - or in a spiritual resurrection).

There are two more obvious, natural reasons:
1. The tomb was actually empty (a stolen body or a resurrected one), or:
2. The original mythological teaching was a bodily resurrection, and so it was only natural that they would want to say that the body did not stay in the grave. An empty tomb would be proof of a bodily resurrection. So whether or not the origin of the myth was paganism or Judaism, an empty tomb could still be part of the original myth.

Maybe you can find empty tomb stories in paganism. But they are more obvious in Judaism with its body resurrection belief. And Christianity's beliefs were avowedly based in Judaism. Just look at all the cross references between the OT and NTs. Almost every verse in the gospels can crossreference to Judaism's verses.

Psalm 16 says that the FLESH REJOICES because God does not abandon the holy person to the grave.
Paul and Peter looked at that verse and announced in Acts that Jesus fulfilled this verse from Judaism. That Jewish prophecy is the obvious motive for this belief even if it is a myth.

I wonder why Miller is Christian, if for a Christian as you the Miller's thesis is so disturbing.

Muslims are Christians too, because they call Jesus the Masih.
The reason Miller and Muslims look to "Christ" is because Jesus' story is inspiring even if they do not believe in the apostles' teachings about a real resurrection.

[Giuseppe]

Perhaps the enemies found the bodies of Gaius or Tholomeus and then somehow this was missed or confused in accounts, which were written at a later time. Or perhaps they actually secretly escaped the battle? Perhaps someone will think that these are reasonable possibilities, even if not likely.

Or maybe their bodies were found, but were later adorned by the tropos in question (saying they were disappeared contra factum), only in order to honour them.

Maybe you can find empty tomb stories in paganism. But they are more obvious in Judaism with its body resurrection belief.

If what you want is to apply on Jesus a hellenistic tropos, you have only to istantiate it accordingly in a Jewish matrix. I don't see Judaism and Paganism as so black and white.

Paul and Peter looked at that verse and announced in Acts that Jesus fulfilled this verse from Judaism. That Jewish prophecy is the obvious motive for this belief even if it is a myth.

Marcion would not agree. Especially if your argument is based on Acts.

The irony here is that I can even concede you free the assumption of a tomb for Jesus. His record at all in the original belief, if indeed found (and I doubt about it), is more easily explained as the banal corollary of the our innocent tropos and not as evidence of a real empty tomb. But this obviously for my naturalistic assumptions.