I agree here with J.P. But then again, even many Christians seem horribly unfamiliar with the Context Group and their excellent research. In fact, I think very few Christians and precious fewer skeptics are familiar with their research. Personally, as a budding young historian, I considered myself deeply privileged to not only know of the Context Group but to possess several books written by scholars such as Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh. I honestly cannot imagine living at a time when their works were not available for Bible students like myself.

As I have written, against Doherty's Christ-myth theory based on the "silence" of Paul and the epistles: Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [16ff] that the NT was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. In such societies people "presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or 'high' knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing." Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary. As an example (one I happen to disagree with, but it makes no difference here), they note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon, by their view) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain that the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is.

In contrast, we in the modern US are a "low-context" society. We assume little or no knowledge of he context of a communication. This is in part because we have so many specialized fields requiring specialized knowledge. Thus we expect background to be given when communication is given between fields. This is in contrast to the ancient world where there was little specialized knowledge.

Malina and Rohrbaugh set forth in summary what we now use as a stinging indictment of Doherty's methodology and as confirmation of what we have noted in this essay from the very beginning: "The obvious problem this creates for reading the biblical writings today is that low-context readers in the United States frequently mistake the biblical writings for low-context documents.

In this light I will obviously ask whether Kirby's assumptions and criteria can withstand the "high context" test. Let's have a look: The first criterion is the presumption of knowledge. This criterion asks, how likely is it that a particular writer knew of an event if it had happened? In terms of our key issue, the empty tomb, we of course are constrained to say that all of the writers Kirby appeals to would have to know of it.

The second criterion is the presumption of relevance. This criterion asks, how likely is it that the writer would mention this event in this document? This criteria is where the "high context" issue comes to the fore. In our low-context social world, "how likely" becomes a different question than it would be for a "high context" setting.

The third criterion is applied after we have a number of different writers and documents that have been evaluated through the first two. The third one asks, how likely is it that all these documents fail to mention this event? Obviously, this also is affected by the same issue; it becomes perhaps, as I say to Doherty, a matter of "200 times zero" still equalling zero.

But now we come to a question that is necessary here. Given the distinction between high-context and low-context societies, we need to ask a crucially important question for the sake of our discussion. The question that needs to be asked here is: What grounds do we have for believing that any given event, creed, or item of knowledge will be part of a society's high-context knowledge content? If the argument from silence in the case of New Testament writers is a bad one, then that would mean that the knowledge of the empty tomb was part of the society's high-context knowledge. We then have to ask how do we know it wouldbe part of the context knowledge? What grounds do we have for believing so? Are there criteria for determining such?

Kirby lays Paul aside for a separate section and proceeds at once to the letter of 1 Clement. He notes that Clement: ...fails to appeal to the historical knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus (such as the discovery of the empty tomb would provide) and prefers instead to provide assurance of the resurrection on the basis of nature, scripture, and the legend of the phoenix.

There is little doubt that Kirby's criteria (1) would have to be fulfilled, but what of (2)? Here I must take issue, and it lies in part with high context. Please note what Clement says: Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection which is at all times taking place. Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit. Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, "Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee; " and again, "I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me;" and again, Job says, "Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things." Is the empty tomb "relevant" here? Kirby apparently believes that it is; I do not. The main issue here is the future resurrection. Clement however is surely aware that not all persons who die will be entombed as Jesus was; there will be other methods of burial, as well as persons not buried (lost at sea, cremated, etc.). What would the empty tomb prove here? Nothing at all. The resurrection of Jesus proves our future resurrection; but the empty tomb proves the resurrection of Jesus, not our future resurrection. Kirby is asking Clement to talk about step 1 to prove step 3 when step 2 is specific to the issue and step 1 is not. The tomb itself, lying empty, does not prove anything about the resurrection of all others; whereas Christ's resurrection as the head of the Body of Christ does. I would add that "high context" allows "raising him from the dead" to carry all the weight of content of the empty tomb.

I think J.P's criticism here is quote misplaced for the simple reason that I think he has misunderstood what Kirby has written. The point is not that Kirby believes the empty tomb to be relevant here or he would've stated so. The issue, indeed, is the future resurrection. Kirby even states his reason for quoting the large piece from Clement's letter.

But Paul is not the only Christian author who wrote letters in the first century. A letter was written from Rome to the Corinthians around the year 95. This letter fails to appeal to the historical knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus (such as an empty tomb would provide) and prefers instead to provide assurance of the resurrection on the basis of nature, scripture, and the legend of the phoenix"

From this quote of Kirby's essay, it is clear that Kirby is criticizing the entire letter for failing to appeal to any historical knowledge of the resurrection, which the empty tomb would be part of. Even given that the large section that Kirby quoted is referring to a future resurrection, bear in mind that Clement could refer to the historical resurrection of Jesus, especially given that writers like Paul thought of Jesus as the "firstfruits of those who slept". I can understand Clement's appeal to Scripture (Paul himself appealed to it routinely) but why appeal to nature and what Christians would've seen as a pagan legend? Why not appeal to Scripture, the resurrection of Christ as an assurance of their own future resurrection, and other elements associated with the resurrection of Christ such as the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the empty tomb, the women, etc? I believe that Kirby's point here is rather solid.

Kirby appeals to another part of the letter: The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will. Having therefore received their commands, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with faith confirmed by the Word of God, they went forth in the assurance of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. But the answer is the same: "the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ" carries with it, in "high context", the freight of the empty tomb -- as well as all else that went with the procedure.

My question about the content of high context knowledge is relevant here. How do we know the empty tomb would've been part of the high context knowledge of Clement? That Clement mentions resurrection (I'm betting the original Greek here uses the word anastasis) doesn't necessarily entail that it is fleshly resurrection or a "spiritual resurrection". I'm not sure what Clement would've or would not have believed in regards to the resurrection but even a fleshly resurrection would not necessarily entail an empty tomb because a fleshly resurrection, be it a resuscitation of an existing corpse or the "transphysical" resurrection as championed by Holding, N.T. Wright, etc., would still be compatible with alternate forms of burial such as burial in a criminal graveyard. It wouldn't carry a necessary connotation of an empty tomb although I tend to agree that it's probably more likely than not that it did in most people's minds.

It is just as well to say that here Clement does not mention that Jesus died. I therefore do not see, as Kirby does, any "occasion for the writer to mention the discovery of the empty tomb" -- other than by low-context assumptions of how a conversation "ought to" proceed.

I wouldn't argue against Holding's point that Kirby is operating by a low-context assumption of how conversations "ought to" proceed. I'm not sure if Kirby is aware of the Context Group or their scholarship. Kirby is more than welcome to join in on this and contribute to our discussion here. He's more than invited and I think that J.P. would cherish his participation as much as I would! If so, perhaps we can have a tag-team! Peter Kirby and I on one end of the debate and J.P. and a friend of his on the other side. I can just imagine hearing the music to the TV show "American Gladiators"! More seriously though-Clement need not mention that Jesus died. A resurrection of any type would necessarily imply that the person being resurrected would die, logically speaking, but an empty tomb isn't logically implied, nor is a resurrection of a fleshly body necessarily implied although it definitely can be what an author like Clement had in mind. Again, a death is logically necessary for a resurrection of any type but since a resurrection of any type is compatible with an empty tomb and other forms of burial- an empty tomb isn't logically or historically necessary.

From here Kirby lists documents that also do not mention the empty tomb -- most from the NT, but others later. In each case he does not provide any specific analysis to show that any particular writer "ought to" have mentioned the empty tomb -- he acknowledges that there "may have been no particular reason for any one of these writers to mention the story" but also offers no specific reason for any of them to have mentioned it. In light of this, and the very important consideration of "high context" we agree with Kirby that this argument from silence "does fall short of proof," but further disagree that it "this should be given consideration as admissable historical evidence."

But then my question of how we can tell that any given item was a necessary or logical part of any high-context's knowledge content? The documents that Kirby mentions, to be sure, do not mention an empty tomb but I would have to ask what reasons are there for believing that such knowledge (of an empty tomb) would be part of the "knowledge pool" of the high-context society which produced these documents? This is the most important question that I can think to ask and it's crucial that we answer it or at least think of criteria by which we can determined exactly what items would be part of any high-context's "knowledge pool".

Finally for this section, Kirby briefly considers an "argument from silence" from the other side, as Dunn puts it: Christians today of course regard the site of Jesus' tomb with similar veneration, and that practice goes back at least to the fourth century. But for the period covered by the New Testament and other earliest Christian writings there is no evidence whatsoever for Christians regarding the place where Jesus had been buried as having any special significance. No practice of tomb veneration, or even of meeting for worship at Jesus' tomb is attested for the first Christians. Had such been the practice of the first Christians, with all the significance which the very practice itself presupposes, it is hard to believe that our records of Jerusalem Christianity and of Christian visits thereto would not have mentioned or alluded to it in some way or at some point. This strange silence, exceptional in view of the religious practice of the time [of meeting at the tomb of a dead prophet], has only one obvious explanation. The first Christians did not regard the place where Jesus had been laid as having any special significance because no grave was thought to contain Jesus' earthly remains. The tomb was not venerated, it did not become a place of pilgrimage, because the tomb was empty! Kirby regards Dunn's conclusion as "highly illogical" because Dunn did not consider the "obvious explanation....that early Christians had no idea where Jesus was buried." Of course this idea requires an abrupt dismissal of the Gospel evidence, and the matter of associating the tomb with the highly famous personage of Joseph, which Kirby does not deal with in this section; he deals with it in another we will come to later. He also cites another author as saying "pious interest in the alleged site of the Holy Sepulchre in our own day seems to render such an argument completely impotent." But this imposes a set of improper values on the ancients, as I have noted here. Thus neither of Kirby's alternatives appear satisfactory.

Kirby will have to defend his argument against J.P's criticism here or modify it to take into account the difference in values of our respective social systems. I find it a bit odd that Kirby would conclude that Dunn didn't consider the "obvious explanation". Maybe Dunn hasn't found it persuasive and therefore didn't deign to mention it because he found it implausible and not seriously worth mentioning. I think it's possible that the earliest Christians didn't know where Jesus was buried but still, in order for this possibility to have any historical merit and be plausible, the question of determining the knowledge pool of a high-context society has to come into play.

A final appeal is made to Raymond Brown's comment that, "A particular reason for remembering the tomb of Jesus would lie in the Christian faith that the tomb had been evacuated by his resurrection from the dead." I believe that Brown here may likewise submit to what I would call the "Disneyland Palestine" fallacy; but at the same time, one must draw a distinction between remembering where the tomb was and conducting venerations at it. We would expect Christians to recall the location whether the tomb was empty or not; but we would not expect veneration unless something were there to venerate -- and in that regard, a tomb is not a thing to be venerated.

As noted, Kirby puts Paul in his own section; but our answer will be the same. We would add as well comments we offered in reply to Kirby's editor, Price, some time ago, also in reply to 1 Cor. 15:

We agree, of course, that it may have been too obvious to require mentioning that a resurrected body means an empty tomb - just as simply saying, "A zombie rose from the dead!" would today imply an empty grave left behind! On the other hand, Paul does show implicit awareness of the empty tomb elsewhere - for example, where he compares the resurrection to baptism (Rom. 6:4, 8:29; Col. 2:12). Body in, body out - whether water, or earth, the comparison makes the implication of an empty tomb (along with the Jewish concept of bodily resurrection that MUST be applied here...) inescapable; and the other type of "resurrection" becomes, as Price admits, rather far-fetched. Finally, we may add that Paul's formula is an accounting of things DONE or experienced by Jesus: died, buried, rose, appeared. A citation of the empty tomb would not fit very well within the rhythm and structure of the formula.

Several things can be said here. First of all, what J.P. has said here entirely assumes that the resurrection body necessarily contains flesh- something which I remain unpersuaded on. Second, even granting that for Paul a resurrected body necessarily contained flesh, especially the "transphysical resurrection" body that J.P. Holding, N.T.Wright, Ben Witherington, and the vast majority of conservative Evangeilcals champion, that doesn't necessarily imply an empty tomb for the simple reason that even a resurrected body of flesh is perfectly compatible with other burial types. One need not even document these alternative burials in the form of traditions; the fact that a fleshly resurrection is perfectly compatible with alternative burial methods on theoretical grounds is enough to show that a fleshly resurrection doesn't necessarily imply an empty tomb although it definitely can given an adequately argued historical connection. But any such historical connection is contigent and not necessary. Third, I'm not sure that I agree that Paul shows implicit awareness of an empty tomb elsewhere, such as comparing the resurrection to baptism. The baptism waters symbolize death and burial, and rising out of the water only means that one is symbolically leaving death and not necessarily an empty tomb behind. While we're on the subject of comparisons here, I can ask whether one would be justified in arguing that the baptism that John the Baptist preached implied an empty tomb being left behind? As far as I know, not really. The baptism water would symbolize death and burial, to be sure, but nothing about baptism necessarily implied leaving an empty tomb behind although, in theory, it's definitely possible. Finally, I agree that the rhythm and structure is an accounting of things done or experienced by Jesus; explicitly citing an empty tomb would not fit in well. The question, then, is does Paul imply an empty tomb is being left behind? Possibly so, but, as I keep emphasizing, not necessarily so. If readers are interested, I would be more than willing to elaborate on why I think Paul is not implying an empty tomb being left behind. Some of my reasoning is quite speculative but I do think it's reasonable.

At this point the question arises of necessity of whether Matthew would want to try to argue for some other alternative burial having actually been done to Jesus. (Maybe Crossan's "the dog ate it"[grin]?) I am arguing here (and with my citation of Paul) with the view that "buried in Joseph's tomb" does best fit the evidence. Yes, Paul's language could fit, say, a grave like one we bury people in today; but don't we need some story of Jesus being buried like that to at least start to match with the evidence we do have for a "Joseph's tomb" burial?

I probably need to read Dundes one of these days; I could use some of my lit background to check on how sound arguments are for declaring things "folklore" or not. I'd ask Matthew to elucidate on the first reservation a bit (if he does not do so later).

Second, J.P states that in ancient literary tradition, imitation was a value and it was a worth practice to report an event much like another did. I'd like to know more about this. Does J.P. have any sources or books that discuss the subject? In particular I would like to know just how imitation was carried out and in what aspects. I would like to understand the relationship between an author's knowledge and imitation and the source of minor and creative variations.

I pointed Matthew to some good stuff in Malina and Neyrey's Portraits of Paul. I also have a few good notes at this location with references.

In terms of how it was done: I haven't seen a discussion of technique, but I suspect it was done the way someone like Weird Al Yankovic does a parody, or the way I do them -- you start with what you see as obvious connections to make, then try to work in more parallels as you go. Let me give an example of how I'd do it, using one of Weird Al's songs. He did a parody of a song called "Lola" in which he installed elements from Star Wars and the character Yoda. In "Lola" a repeated refrain is a spelling of Lola ("L-O-L-A"). I imagine Al started out with an idea that "Yoda" and "Lola" both had 4 letters and built around that, picking out Star Wars events that he could describe in ways that sounded like the stuff in "Lola". That's how I would do it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ancients had a similar way of literary/oral imitation.

I'd agree that Kirby wasn't pursuing the point of equating proof with knowledge dependence, but once that comes up I always feel like it's a good idea to stress some basics for those who might not read my other stuff on it. I've done that in other articles too. At any rate this matter I don't think can be settled fully apart from arguing over literary dependence and whether it did occur. As you may know, I don't think it did except for Luke.

Fictional Characteristics in Mark

Kirby's next step is to disauthenticate Mark. An enormous quote is offered (in the online version) from Randel Helms, which contains in sum the principles of his thesis, which we have already addressed in detail here, and so we believe further comment is unnecessary. (Kirby does say that "not all the parallels adduced by Helms should be attributed to borrowing from the book of Daniel," but does think the evidence is strong enough to conclude that "the account of the discovery of the empty tomb was to some degree modeled after the story in Daniel." The book version notes ideas like those used by Helms, but does not quote Helms.)

Before I agree or disagree with Kirby here, I need to know more about Randel Helms. I do know that he is an academic of some sort but I'm not sure of his qualifications to be arguing on the subject. I know he is the author of Gospel Fictions which I have a copy of and while I find some arguments really interesting, much of his material seems to be old hat and questionable analysis. (More analysis later)

Kirby then turns to a comment by Leipoldt (online only), which refers to the story of the novelist Chariton. This comparison too we have previously adderessed, and so no further comment is needed.

Much of the section online hereafter simply follows upon Helms' principles that imitation or pattern-making somehow proves or indicates fiction. We say rather that it is an example of how ancient writers carefully used history to craft their accounts artistically, selecting from an authentic corpus of stories and facts that which would fit their pattern. Indeed, this in itself provides a needed answer to Kirby's prior argument concerning "silence" concerning certain events in different Gospels.

I'd like to know more about this. The only thing I know of on the subject is a book on a certain imitation and pattern-making by Dennis MacDonald but I am not sure if that's what J.P. has in mind. I am interested in the principles of imitation and pattern-making and how it affects the reliability of a given narrative that is modeled on another narrative.

We pick up where Kirby responds to the following note from Craig about why Mark's reported silence of the women was "surely meant to be just temporary" -- this quote is from the online version, but some of the same material is in the book version as well: See the helpful discussion of the women's silence in Bode, Easter, 39-44. He distinguishes five possible interpretations: (1) The silence explains why the legend of the empty tomb remained so long unknown. (2) The silence is an instance of Mark's Messianic secret motif. (3) The silence was temporary. (4) The silence served the apologetic purpose of separating the apostles from the empty tomb. (5) The silence is the paradoxical human reaction to divine commands as understood by Mark. But (1) is now widely rejected as implausible, since the empty tomb story is a pre-Markan tradition. (2) is inappropriate in the post-resurrection period when Jesus may be proclaimed as the Messiah. As for (4), there is no evidence that the silence was designed to separate the apostles from the tomb. Mark does not hold that the disciples had fled back to Galilee independently of the women. So there is no implication that the disciples saw Jesus without having heard of the empty tomb. It is pointless to speak of 'apologetics' when Mark does not even imply that the disciples went to Galilee and saw Jesus without hearing the women's message, much less draw some triumphant apologetic conclusion as a result of this. In fact there were also traditions that the disciples did visit the tomb, after the women told them of their discovery, but Mark breaks off his story before that point. As for (5) this solution is entirely too subtle, drawing the conclusion that because people talked when Jesus told them not to, therefore, the women, having been told to talk, did not. Therefore (3) is most probable. The fear and silence are Markan motifs of divine encounter and were not meant to imply an enduring silence. Kirby analyzes the 5 options, and rejects Craig's answer to (1) based on his proof of problematic silence in other sources, which we have addressed above. Hence his retort to Craig on (1) we do not consider effective. He agrees with Craig in rejecting (2), as would I, though for other reasons.

Kirby does not accept Craig's answer to (4); and as a matter of fact, I would not so easily dismiss it as an answer either. But the idea itself requires certain assumptions about what was happening in the background of Mark's audience. For this reason I would regard both Craig's option as well as Kirby's reply (that perhaps "Mark and his audience held as a matter of course that the disciples returned to Galilee without any knowledge of an empty tomb") as too speculative to endorse, though the use of (3) would perhaps undermine Kirby's view of (4). (5) Kirby says he does not hold to though he believes it is "possible." He adds another reason, "(6) that Mark's ending may be the final note on his theme of the failure of the disciples who knew Jesus. With their failure, the reader is challenged to do what was left undone by these disciples and preach the gospel." This is one that I do substantially agree with, though not as something mutually exclusive of (3) in terms of what happened in history.

As for (3), Kirby rejects this as "improbable for two reasons":

...[I]t does injustice to the fact that the author of Mark ends the gospel on this note. Of course there is some issue here of whether indeed Mark WAS intended to have ended where it does. For reasons I outline here I do not believe this to be the case; but since Kirby does not address any arguments for a lost original ending for Mark, we will merely proceed with his answer on this point. As I have noted, I do not think that Mark's potential literary purpose in ending the Gospel with the women's silence precludes the historical inevitability that the women would indeed not hold their silence. The dramatic effect (which Kirby seems to appreciate) would have done well to affect an audience of Christians who would regard the silence as tragic, and thus provide a jumping-off point for an oral performer to encourage them, in turn, NOT to be silent about the Gospel message.

Thus as well, we answer Kirby's second point: ...[I]t is inconceivable for the author of Mark to have believed the silence to be "temporary" and not to continue the narrative. Aside from the assumption that we do indeed have the full and genuine ending of Mark, and once again a reliance on Markan priority to make a case, the ending being made here is quite conceivable, for reasons we have laid out above (and others that are possible, but which we find less likely, at the link).

In all of this it is well to remember that Mark was written not as an apologetic to non-believers, but as a laudatory biography for the edification of those already believers. Kirby's point that it is inconceivable that Mark would end on this note (assuming that it did end there, again!), because he had so much more he could have offered as proof, fails if the audience was composed of persons to whom proof had already been provided. In this respect it would be like saying that Mel Gibson does not believe in the resurrection appearances because The Passion ended with a mere cameo in the tomb of Jesus getting up.

A few comments here are in order. First, I agree that Mark intends to end his gospel on this note. I simply disagree with J.P's analysis. I believe that Mark intended for the silence of the women to be understood as permanent. I would be willing to share my reasons for thinking so. I tend to agree with Kirby's arguments about why Mark intended to end his gospel with the silence of the women in addition to my own arguments on the matter. As for Mark not being written as an apologetic to nonbelievers but as a laudatory biography, I would tend to agree, but wouldn't Matthew and Luke, likewise be written as biographies for Christians who already believe? If not, why not? If the audience of Mark was composed of persons who were already persuaded before the gospel was written that Jesus had risen, then why would Matthew and Luke (not to mention John) go beyond Mark? I do not understand this, especially if Matthew and Luke are chosing to imitate the pattern of Mark as a worth practice. Wouldn't Matthew and Luke's audiences likewise be persuaded (or as J.P. would argue "to whom proof had already been provided"?) of the resurrection before their respective gospels were written? If so, why would they go beyond Mark? If so, why would Mark not go where Matthew and Luke went, assuming that their audiences, like Mark's had already been persuaded of the resurrection of Jesus before they pinned their gospels? I ask J.P. and others here: what am I missing here?

The first of these (online, but not in the book) that Kirby actually states "lower the likelihood of the story" runs as follows: Somewhat more troublesome is the statement that the women observed the tomb being covered by a stone yet that they seem to realize that nobody would be there to move the stone only while on the way there. Craig states in his essay, "This same devotion could have induced them to go together to open the tomb, despite the stone. (That Mark only mentions the stone here does not mean they had not thought of it before; it serves a literary purpose here to prepare for v. 4). The opening of tombs to allow late visitors to view the body or to check against apparent death was Jewish practice, so the women's intention was not extraordinary." Craig does not succeed in emptying this objection of all force. Certainly, nobody would state that tombs were never opened for visitors. Yet in allowing the likelihood that the women would have thought about the opening of the tomb before, Craig does not address the problem, if they had thought of this, why did they go to the tomb alone? It would seem more likely that they would have inquired at the house of Joseph for permission or assistance, or at least that they would have brought someone who would be able to help, rather than acting like the fools that Mark depicts them as. This tends to lower the likelihood of the story. I myself would not take Craig's tack, but rather respond with the idea that in times of exceptional grief, people like the women would hardly be in such a rational state that the practical concern of "Who will move the stone?" simply may not have occurred to them at once, but rather -- as depicted -- occured to them on the way.

Several things can be said in a way of comment. First of all, if the women witnessed Joseph of Arimithea preparing the body, why didn't they offer to assist him? Why, further didn't they reveal their own intent to visit the tomb and ask Joseph if he would be willing to accompany them? I am willing to grant that in a time of exceptional grief that the women would hardly be in such a rational state to ponder who would move the stone and as for that it "simply may not have occured to them at once, but rather, as depicted, occured to them on the way", why didn't they turn at that point and head for the house of someone like Joseph of Arimithea or even Peter? Why would the concern over someone helping to move the stone hit them and not persuade them to turn around upon having thought it through on the way there? I have to agree with Kirby here.

Perhaps Kirby would say that his reply of inquiring at Joseph's house would then kick in, but in addition to the point that emotion would have clouded their judgment, I suspect that it would have first occurred to the women to find out if someone was at or near the tomb first who could provide assistance; or perhaps they may have expected, upon reflection, Joseph and/or a party to already be there. Perhaps others were scared to be suspected of ritually mourning a condemned and dishonorably buried criminal. Perhaps most of the men who would've had any interest still just wanted to lay low out of fear, or were simply nowhere to be found at the time. Maybe factors related to Passover week and contracting ritual impurity from contact with the dead came into play in their attempt to recruit other men to aid them. Perhaps the women were doing something that simply wasn't customary in going to anoint the body - so that asking Joseph to collaborate wouldn't have been appropriate (especially given that he had already done so much to prepare the body). Thus there are too many alternatives to argue that the story's likelihood is lowered by this point. Indeed, it is quite possible that Mark's line for the women is merely a "setup" of the narrative reflecting one of many concerns or points discussed, rather than reflecting an isolated and singular ipissima verba by the women.

J.P suspects that it would first have occured to the women to find out if someone was at or near the tomb first? My word, that would've been dangerous! Consider the time of day it was; it was not smart to be out that early in the morning! Bear in mind the fact that it was also dangerous considering the problem of tomb-robbers and necromancers! I doubt that these kinds of people would be at a tomb at high-noon where they would be highly visible and likely to get into trouble for what they were doing. It seems to me that they would wait until night or very early in the morning "while it was yet dark" to do their thing. The fact of the matter is that there was an equal chance of (if not a greater chance!) running into danger or bad company as there was of friendly or sympathetic people. Thus I believe that they would've sought either Jospeh of Arimithea, Peter, John, or some of the other disciples to accompany them. As before, I agree with Kirby here.

Kirby then alludes to an "anachronism in the story" noted by Carrier, but it is one Miller has rebutted here and which we also discess here.

The next issue Kirby appeals to is one that also appears in the book version (online quote): Concerning the statement that the women "brought spices" on Sunday morning after observing the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, Hendrickx states that, "the embalming of a body was apparently not in accordance with contemporary custom, since there is not a single example available."[51] If what the women were understood to be doing was not embalming, what was it? There was no such thing as a second anointing. The body was washed and anointed before the body was placed in the tomb or grave. Not only is this Jewish custom for burial, but it is also common sense that a body would be cleansed of sweat or blood before being wrapped in the cloth (usually white). Again, there is no example available for people going to a corpse after it was buried, removing the shroud, and anointing the corpse for a second time (since it would have been already washed/anointed before). This would make absolutely no sense; it would not occur to anyone, especially not in a Jewish culture, to anoint the body after it had been buried properly (and Craig does agree that there is no indication of improper burial). Craig states in his essay, "what the women were probably doing is precisely that described in the Mishnah, namely the use of aromatic oils and perfumes that could be rubbed on or simply poured over the body." However, this obscures the fact that this was done prior to burial. Hans van Campenhausen writes, "The desire to anoint, 'on the third day', a dead body already buried and wrapped in linen cloths, is, however it be explained, not in accordance with any custom known to us..."[52] It comes as little surprise then that Matthew and John, who are usually thought to have more knowledge of things Jewish, do not state that the women came to anoint the body on Sunday morning. I believe that this matter is severely overstated. I see no more irregularity in the idea of coming to "anoint" an already-prepared corpse than in the idea of placing flowers on the headstone of an already-buried person today. Given what McCane shows to be a "shameful" burial of Jesus, further anointing of the body with spices and oils, which would mask the odor of decay, would provide an easy and accessible way, in the eyes of the women, to negate (even if in a very small way) the shame attached to Jesus' death and burial. It would perhaps not be "customary" but then again, the death of Jesus and hus burial were hardly "customary" either.

I agree with Kirby here. I agree that there was no such thing a a "second annointing". Why didn't the women simply ask Joseph if he intended to annoint the body and then ask to participate in it? Why didn't the women offer to help Joseph? As for placing flowers on the headstone of a buried person, J.P.'s analogy here fails. There was no such thing as a second annointing and any annointing was done to the body. Placing flowers on the headstone of a already-buried person is an example of tomb veneration, not "body-annointing". I'm afraid J.P. is comparing apples and oranges here and that Kirby's point still holds here; there is a difference in a "second annoiting" of the body which is irregular compared to our modern venerating of tombs or headstones such as on Memorial Day or the birthday/anniversary of loved ones, which is very regular. It is an American custom as far as I know. Another point I would like to add is why would the women think that annointing the body of spices and oils mask the odor of decay to negate the shame attached to Jesus' death and burial? If they believed that Jesus was innocent of any crime, then would they see the need to since there would be no shame to negate? Also, if they had watched Joseph of Arimathea annoint and bury the body, then wouldn't Joseph had negated shame attached to Jesus' death and burial with his spices? If they wanted to add their own, why didn't they offer to assist Joseph then before the body was wrapped up?

(As a bonus, it also provides an additional answer to the point about why the tomb was never venerated: It was a place of shame for Christians. We may also add the point that because the tomb would continue to be used by the family of Joseph -- and would contain dead bodies! -- it would hardly be suitable as a site for veneration.) My biggest surprise is that Kirby does not even show awareness of McCane in the book version!

Burial Traditions

Having by his reckoning disposed of the Gospel traditions, Kirby next moves to apocryphal documents seeing independent information that may support an alternate theory of burial. Since we believe we have vindicated the Gospel traditions, we would consider it superfluous to comment on these points in detail.

How does J.P. believe that he has vindicated the Gospel traditions? (Not trying to start an argument here; I'm just curious). As for considering it superfluous to comment on detail here, no problem! I am willing to grant J.P. his arguments here and just cast aside the whole question of Markan dependence/independence. Honestly, it wouldn't kill me if the idea of Markan dependence proved to be flawed.

However, we would suggest that critical study might not back up the contentions Kirby offers that certain of these documents are as early as he (or his source?) believe; for example, while Cameron may date The Secret Book of James (the only one Kirby looked at to make it into the book version) to the early second century, Philip Jenkins in Hidden Gospels [98-99] sees no viable reason to assign it such an early date. In addition, it is curious that Kirby is willing to allow for a second-century document to provide an "independent witness" yet rejects the idea that (say) Luke may be one in quality, merely because of literary likenesses!

Secondly, it doesn't matter when a second-century document like The Secret Book of James or any other book was written. The date of composition is not necessarily the same as the date of the origin of the document's contents. Thus, if a work like The Secret Book of James is a second-century document, or even later, that doesn't mean that its contents likewise originated at the same time it was composed. The material may be old, indeed, and may contain vestiges of precanonical gospel traditions.

So the evidence would indicate that the story of the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea was not seared onto Christian conciousness as an indisputable historical fact. But can we say that these other traditions are likely to be pre-Markan? There is reason to think so. After all, there is little cause for Christians to imagine that Jesus was buriedshamefullywhen in fact he was properly interred in the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. On the face of it, it is more likely that the tradition would develop in the direction of providing Jesus a more hospitable burial.Thus is it likely that the earlier tradition was that Jesus was buried in a shameful manner, what Reginald Fuller describes as "the final insult done to him by his enemies" ("The Case Against the Empty Tomb, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave pg. 248)

This to me is a powerful argument! Like I said before, it doesn't matterwhen the documents in question were composed. The documents can contain vestiges of traditions that are preMarkan. The Secret Book of James, for instance may well date into the second-century, but that doesn't mean that it cannot contain traditions or vestiges of tradition that predate Mark's gospel. I think Kirby's point here is rock-solid and I curse myself for not having thought of this argument independently (then, again, Kirby has been studying the issue a lot longer than I have; I have a feeling that had I not discovered this argument in Kirby's writings, I may well have reasoned my way to the same argument eventually).

Another point to be made: Kirby may simply not know about ancient literary practices and may even consider it historically probable that the other synoptics were dependent on Mark and may not be independent witnesses in their own right. Once again, that's for him to defend and argue for if he is so inclined to do so. I would think that for one thing, it's ultimately irrelevant when the canonical gospels were composed and when the apocryphal gospels were composed as long as the documents in question were composed in the first few centuries of Christianity's origins.

Appearance Traditions

This section is primarily a discussion of data offered by the NT text, and as such, requires only some comment, whch may be reduced to points: Some arguments are made about the "Resurrection 500" which mirror those we answered here

I have to comment more on this in the future. For now, let me state my own personal take which readers can accept or reject for what it's worth. Personally, I tend to think that the appearance to the 500 in 1st Corinthians 15 is an appearance tradition of Paul's group. I believe, initially, that there were three chief rival factions in the early Church: Peter's group, James' group, and Paul's group. Peter's group, I believe, was known as the "Pillars" or the "Twelve", while James' group, I believe, was known as the "Heirs", or the 'apostles', while Paul had his own group. Each group, I believe, claimed it's own group visions, which granted them the rightful claim of honor as to be Christ's successors. I believe that Peter's group originally claimed to have visions and attempted to legitimize them by claiming that Peter originally had a vision (as recorded in Mark's gospel). James' group, likewise, claimed to have visions and attempted to legitimize them by claiming that James had a vision. Finally, I believe that Paul's group (the reference to the 500, I believe) was suppose to be a greater number than both the 'Twelve' and 'Apostles' combined. My own personal belief is that the author of 1st Corinthains 15, might've assembled a creed out of a list of three rival factions, and took what was suppose to be a vision to "Paul and to more than 500 bretheren" and changed Paul from a third person reference to a first person reference to make it seem like Paul had inherited the creed from both Peter and James, unembellished.

It is argued that Mark puts the first resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee, based on Mark 16:7, which again assumes that Mark 16:8 is the original end. However, we would not reject the idea (as apparently Kirby allows for Luke) of some literary device in which a Galileean appearance was selected for reportage for a specific purpose.

Furthermore, it must be emphasized again that the Gospels are biographical, not kerygmatic, documents. To wonder why Mark (perhaps) or Matthew did not mention, as Luke does, that male disciples confirmed the empty tomb, is to ascribe to Mark and Matthew a purpose that they did not have.

This brings me to a very important question and this question serves a reason for my inquiry throughout my analysis here: note earlier that I had asked about the criteria for determining the knowledge pool of a high-context society. I suspect that J.P. will argue that the New Testament epistolatry was kerygmatic and the Gospels were biographical. I have to ask though, if for no reason then to satisfy my curiosity as a budding young historian and Bible student: both kerygmatic documents like the New Testament epistles and the biographical documents like the canonical gospels were both part of a high-context society. Bearing this in mind, I would have to ask why is it that the epistles would pass over mention of an empty tomb while the gospels would mention one? If both sets of documents were part of the high-context society, wouldn't both either mention the empty tomb or not mention it? What was it about kerygmatic documents in a high-context society that mention of an empty tomb is unnecessary yet, in the gospels, mention of an empty tomb seems to be necessary? What difference exists between the kerygmatic documents and biographical documents in which an event will be mentioned in the later yet not in the former if both of them are produced in a high-context society? I don't understand the reason. What am I missing here?

Finally, Kirby offers a "vague sense of implausiblity...which the reader may accept or reject for what it is worth, against the idea that the eternal Creator of the universe would suggest a temporary rendezvous in Galilee." I do not have this sense myself, given that Jesus already had headquartered himself in Galilee, and that this was where the disciples had family, friends, and property that had to be dealt with before, or at the same time as, they conducted their evangelistic mission.

The comparison of "expecting the average American to be able to recall the names of the senators in 1960" fails on the points that 1) Judaea was a much, much smaller place than America, and the place of lawmaking, far less remote from all citizens concerned; 2) ancient memories were, by all accounts, superior to our own; 3) the most critical point, that because of the distinct challenge Christianity made in its social world, there was distinct motive to check behind its claims, and thus the matter is as if the average American were challenged to, "Get the name of the Senator for Oregon in 1960 and I'll give you $500."

Here I have to agree mostly with Kirby. For one place, although Judea was no doubt a much smaller place than America and the place of lawmaking was far less remote, we also have to consider that America is more democratic than most honor-shame societies in the ancient Meditterranean. Even if the place of lawmaking was far less remote back then as compared to the more democratic country of America, in America we still have direct access through democratic means. I would only agree that ancient memories had the potential to be superior. Just because the memories of ancient people were amazingly retentive and capable of storing a lot more information due to the primacy of oral information, that does not mean everyone utilized the potential. I recall an argument made by Craig Blomberg in his interview with Lee Strobel in which he made a reference to Rabbis who became famous for their memorization of the Scriptures, but the problem is that Rabbis had to be trained to utilize this potential. Not everyone was born an walking encyclopedia in ancient times. It took years of specialized training to be able to tap into that kind of amazing memory potential. I'm not sure what distinct challenge Christianity made in its social world that would motivate people to check its claims.

Craig's appeal to the use of woman as witnesses, Kirby first answers with ideas that the women were simply inserted into the late record, based on traditions that there were women at the crucifixion. Obviously this sort of "reasoning" may be speciously applied to any historical record with just as much evidence, to get rid of any claim that we do not favor, so I am not inclined to take this argument seriously. Indeed, it is curious that Kirby argues this, and then also appeals to Carnley's idea that "the male disciples may not have been available to Mark for use in the burial and empty tomb narrative." But if the women can be invented, why not the men?

Kirby also appeals to the argument by Till(!) that "Mark's audience may be understood as consisting of Hellenistic Jews and converted Gentiles" who would not share the Jewish prejudice against women's testimony, but as we have shown and defended here the problem does extend into the Gentile realm as well. It is not a simple matter of a "negative view of women" as Till put it. (I am surprised thar Kirby did not see Till's example of the Sibyllines are irrelevant, since the Sibyls were regarded as speaking not for themselves, but for God.)

Well, I'd have to review Till's argument and decide for myself whether Till has a good case. As it is, personally, I am suprised that any skeptics might appeal to Till. Even if I agreed with Till's argument, I would simply modify his argument into one of my own, with my own thoughts, additions, changes, etc. In fact, I have done this in my own private journal(s). But if I find Till's argument unpersuasive, I'll leave it to Kirby to defend and justify his use of Till if he feels inclined to!

At the same time, it is also odd that Kirby argues from the basis that Mark was not written for apologetic purposes (where before, his arguments implied as much!). However, it remains that the use of the women must have derived from some idea to account for how the tomb was discovered empty, and this indicates, even if the Gospels are not apologetic, that there was some derivation from an explanation -- and all explanations of course are "apologetic" to some extent.

Appeal is made to the meaning of "Arimathea" in an argument we have answered here.

I would have to study the meaning of "Arimathea" in more detail; I am aware that Carrier has speculated on the meaning of it but I would have to cultivate a greater, detailed knowledge of Greek before I feel that I am in a position to comment on way or another. This, of course, means that if I find the Carrier's argument persuasive, I will have to start a thread on why I feel that J.P.'s answer is inadequate.

In conclusion, I have offered a detailed analysis of J.P's rebuttal. There are several gaps to fill in with time and there are other questions to be answered and some of those questions, may in time, become the subjects of future threads. I think that Kirby has some really strong points here and there and some other cases where he might have some good points but the strength of those points will have to depend on large part on how the questions I have posted above are answered. Indeed, I am expecting the answers and my own research on the subject to only strengthen Kirby's arguments! But for now, I would like to give the floor to J.P. Holding and any others who may have some great insights, interesting points, or, darn it, just a funny comment or two for good measure!