Divide and Conquer, again

 This is a follow up to my last post, regarding the article: Loke, Andrew. ‘The resurrection of the Son of God: a reduction of the naturalistic alternatives.’ Journal of Theological Studies, 60 (2009): 570-584.

Last time I looked at how he tries to divide up the possible explanations for the resurrection. Now it is the empty tomb we focus on.

My view is the empty tomb was made up later - after Paul was writing, given 1 Cor 15. Mark made up the women witnessing tomb, and had them tell no one specifically because they really did tell no one - they told no one because there was no empty tomb.

I am going to skip some of his alternatives; I do not find them likely either.

(7) Either (7.1), (7.2), or (7.3) is true: 

(7.1) There was no crucifixion of Jesus in mid-first- century Palestine, in which case either 7.1.1. or 7.1.2. is true. ... 

(7.2) Jesus was crucified in mid-first-century Palestine and he was not buried (Unburied Hypothesis; a possible scenario for this hypothesis is that his body was eaten by birds or dogs).  

(7.3) Jesus was crucified in mid-first-century Palestine and his body was buried, in which case either (8.1) or (8.2) is true. 

(8.1) On the third day after the crucifixion, the body of Jesus remained in the place where it was buried. (Remain Buried Hypothesis: among the suggestions for this are (i) his body was buried in a poorly identified place; (ii) the women went to the wrong tomb on the Sunday morning, etc.). 

(8.2) On the third day after the crucifixion, the body of Jesus did not remain in the place where it was buried, in which case either (9.1) or (9.2) is true:

(9.1) The body was removed naturalistically, in which case either (9.1.1) or (9.1.2) is true: 

(9.1.1) The body was removed by humans, .... 

(9.1.2) The body was removed by non-humans, e.g. natural forces such as earthquakes, animals, etc. 

(9.2) The body was removed super-naturalistically (Resurrection Hypothesis).

I think 7.2 is possible, but it seems likely Jesus was buried so I am going to examine 8.1 - Jesus was buried and he remained buried. He lists the possibilities, and this becomes number 4. He then says:

Just as the account in Luke 24:36–43 is useful in demonstrating the improbability of the naturalistic hypotheses concerning the post-mortem appearances, the account concerning the guards at the tomb in Matt. 27:62 – 28:15 is useful in this regard with respect to the naturalistic hypotheses concerning the empty tomb. First, the apologist can argue that the presence of guards at the tomb would imply that Jesus was buried in a well-identified place (contra 3). It would make it highly unlikely that the body remained buried three days after the crucifixion, for the early Christians would never have been able to proclaim the resurrection if the guards were still guarding the body inside the tomb (contra 4).

So there you have it. If we assume the gospels are true, then there was a guard on tomb! And hence the resurrection happened.

But why should we assume Matthew is true? Well, because he wants it to be true, of course! It is apologetics - he is only trying to preach to the converted.

In reality, the gospels are not reliable. For one thing, why does only Matthew mention the guards on the tomb? He made them up, and he even tells us why he made them up.

Mat 28:13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Matthew changed the women finding the tomb so they immediately told the disciples, rather than tell no one as per the earlier account. Did the author know something Peter's own secretary did not? Of course not! The author just lied.