Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Resurrection: Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity

5.0 out of 5 stars He speaks the truth but more elaboration is needed., January 4, 2012

This review is from: Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (Paperback)

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus
The essay quoted is by William Lane Craig, originally published "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus." New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 39-67. It was accessed December 14, 2000 (URL:http://www.origins.org/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html).
Until recently the empty tomb has been widely regarded as both an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment for Christian faith; an offense because it implies a nature miracle akin to the resuscitation of a corpse and an embarrassment because it is nevertheless almost inextricably bound up with Jesus' resurrection, which lies at the very heart of the Christian faith. But in the last several years, a remarkable change seems to have taken place, and the scepticism that so characterized earlier treatments of this problem appears to be fast receding.{2} Though some theologians still insist with Bultmann that the resurrection is not a historical event,{3} this incident is certainly presented in the gospels as a historical event, one of the manifestations of which was that the tomb of Jesus was reputedly found empty on the first day of the week by several of his women followers; this fact, at least, is therefore in principle historically verifiable. But how credible is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus' empty tomb?
This is the question to which William Lane Craig applies his energies in the essay, "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus." While Craig writes as an apologist, I write as a skeptic. Craig invites his reader to go along with the flow of opinion, and I invite my reader to stand on firmer ground. If the tide is beginning to change now, the tide may change the other way again. I hope that I am not criticized simply for refusing to go along with a trend.
In order to answer this question, we need to look first at one of the oldest traditions contained in the New Testament concerning the resurrection. In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (AD 56-57) he cites what is apparently an old Christian formula (1 Cor 15. 3b-5), as is evident from the non-Pauline and Semitic characteristics it contains.{4} The fact that the formula recounts, according to Paul, the content of the earliest apostolic preaching (I Cor 15. 11), a fact confirmed by its concordance with the sermons reproduced by Luke in Acts,{5} strongly suggests that the formula originated in the Jerusalem church. We know from Paul's own hand that three years after his conversion (AD 33-35) at Damascus, he visited Jerusalem, where he met personally Peter and James (Gal 1. 18-19). He probably received the formula in Damascus, perhaps in Christian catechesis; it is doubtful that he received it later than his Jerusalem visit, for it is improbable that he should have replaced with a formula personal information from the lips of Peter and James themselves.{6} The formula is therefore probably quite old, reaching back to within the first five years after Jesus' crucifixion. It reads:
. . . hoti Christos apethanen huper ton hamartion hemon kata tas graphas,
kai hoti etaphe,
kai hoti egegertai te hemera te trite kata tas graphas,
kai hoti ophthe Kepha, eita tois dodeka.
Does this formula bear witness to the fact of Jesus' empty tomb? Several questions here need to be kept carefully distinct. First we must decide: (1) does Paul accept the empty tomb, and (2) does Paul mention the empty tomb? It is clear that (1) does not imply (2), but (2) would imply (1). Or in other words, just because Paul may not mention the empty tomb, that does not mean he does not accept the empty tomb. Too many New Testament scholars have fallen prey to Bultmann's fallacy: 'Legenden sind die Geschichten vom leeren Grab, von dem Paulus noch nicht weiss.'{7} Paul's citation of Jesus' words at the Last Supper ( I Cor 11: 23-26) shows that he knew the context of the traditions he delivered; but had the Corinthians not been abusing the eucharist this knowledge would have remained lost to us. So one must not too rashly conclude from silence that Paul 'knows nothing' of the empty tomb. Next, if Paul does imply the empty tomb, then we must ask: (1) does Paul believe Jesus' tomb was empty, and (2) does Paul know Jesus' tomb was empty? Again, as Grass is quick to point out, (1) does not imply (2);{8} but (2) would imply (1). In other words, does Paul simply assume the empty tomb as a matter of course or does he have actual historical knowledge that the tomb of Jesus was empty? Thus, even if it could be proved that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of the body, that does not necessarily imply that he knew the empty tomb for a fact.
Does Craig show it to be likely that Paul believed that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on Easter Sunday? The conclusion that Craig states is that, "There can be little doubt, therefore, that Paul accepted the idea of an empty tomb as a matter of course." On the contrary, I shall show that there can be a most reasonable amount of doubt.
Some exegetes have maintained that the statement of the formula 'he was buried' implies, standing as it does between the death and the resurrection, that the tomb was empty.{9} But many critics deny this, holding that the burial does not stand in relation to the resurrection, but to the death, and as such serves to underline and confirm the reality of the death.{10} The close Zusammenhang of the death and burial is said to be evident in Rom 6, where to be baptized into Christ's death is to be baptized into his burial. Grass maintains that for the burial to imply a physical resurrection the sentence would have to read apethanen ... kai hoti egegertai ek tou taphou. As it is the burial does not therefore imply that the grave was empty. Grass also points out that Paul fails to mention the empty tomb in the second half of I Cor 15, an instructive omission since the empty tomb would have been a knock-down argument against those who denied the bodily resurrection.{11} It is also often urged that the empty tomb was no part of the early kerygma and is therefore not implied in the burial.
Although these arguments can be defeated, it is instructive to note that they are here at all. Once again, I would ask, what court would accept as a witness someone whose very substance of testimony is a matter of legitimate debate? What jury would convict based on a witness who might have been saying the defendant is guilty but then again might have been saying the exact opposite? What judge would not throw out such ambiguous testimony at once?
Now while I should not want to assert that the 'he was buried' was included in the formula in order to prove the empty tomb, it seems to me that the empty tomb is implied in the sequence of events related in the formula. For in saying that Jesus died -- was buried -- was raised -- appeared, one automatically implies that the empty grave has been left behind. The four-fold hoti and the chronological series of events weighs against subordinating the burial to the death. {12} In baptism the burial looks forward with confidence to the rising again (Rom 6. 4; Col. 2. 13).{13} And even if one denied the evidence of the four-fold hoti and the chronological sequence, the very fact that a dead-and-buried man was raised itself implies an empty grave.
The "evidence of the four-fold hoti and the chronological sequence" is not explained very clearly. What does a four-fold hoti and chronological sequence establish? Well, what does the Greek word mean? It is usually translated "that," as in "that he was buried." And what is a chronological sequence? It means nothing but that one thing happened after another. How might this be taken to mean anything more than this? Does Craig suppose that, if Paul did not believe in the empty tomb, that Paul would have thought that Christ was buried after he was raised? Or that he made the resurrection appearances before he had died? What is "the evidence of the four-fold hoti and the chronological sequence"? Craig offers us one clue, that this is evidence against "subordinating the burial to the death," as many critics would see it. All the four things are on equal footing, as it were, each with their own hoti and none subordinate to the other. Craig provides clarification in a footnote, saying that, "The fourfold hoti serves to emphasize equally each of the chronologically successive events, thus prohibiting the subordination of one event to another." However, the very fact that there are four statements prefaced by hoti in a chronological sequence does not imply that they are all on the same order of importance. That is one way to see it, but one can see it another way. For example, one could consider the four to be grouped as a pair of pairs in the matter of importance. The burial serves to show the reality of the death, while the appearances serve to show the reality of the resurrection. In this view, the death and the resurrection are primary and the essence of faith, the burial and the appearances are secondary and the confirmation of faith. This view would tend to explain why the more important parts, the death and the resurrection, are described as "according to the scriptures." No, I am not arguing that this view is necessarily true, but I am offering the possibility. Another possibility, an obvious one, is that nothing is being implied about the relative importance of these events. Another possibility is indeed that Paul is emphasizing their equal importance. However, this is nothing more than a possibility, and a mere possibility cannot be used to make an argument.
Now, let us assume that Paul intends all four clauses to be taken as of equal importance. How should this be taken to imply that Paul believed in the historicity of the empty tomb? Craig implies that "the four-fold hoti and the chronological sequence" provides evidence that Paul accepted the empty tomb and that "the very fact that a dead-and-buried man was raised" provides a separate line of evidence that Paul accepted the empty tomb. But I should like to know the distinction between the two arguments. What evidence is present in the first argument that that is not also present in the second? In the first argument, in the aspect of importance, it is held that death is as important as the burial, which is as important as the resurrection, which is as important as the appearances. How should this be taken as evidence that Paul believed in the empty tomb? This is not explained. In the first argument, in the aspect of chronological order, it is held that the death happens before the burial, which happens before the resurrection, which happens before the appearances. How is this not present in the second argument about the "very fact that a dead-and-buried man was raised"? Does the second argument allow for a different chronological sequence, in which the man dies after he is buried or is raised before he dies? I would not agree that "the four-fold hoti and the chronological sequence" provides an independent line of evidence that Paul believed in the empty tomb. There is only one argument, and that is the argument that a dead-and-buried man who is raised implies an empty tomb. Craig relies on obfuscation to pretend that two separate arguments have been presented.
Grass's assertion that the formula should read egegertai ek tou taphou is not so obvious when we reflect on the fact that in I Cor 15. 12 Paul does write ek nekron egegertai (cf. I Thess 1. 10; Rom 10. 9; Gal 1. 1; Mt. 27. 64; 28. 7).{14} In being raised from the dead, Christ is raised from the grave. In fact the very verbs egegertai and anistanai imply that the grave is left empty.{15} The notion of resurrection is unintelligible with regard to the spirit or soul alone. The very words imply resurrection of the body. It is the dead man in the tomb who awakens and is physically raised up to live anew. Thus the grave must be empty.{16} And really, even today were we to be told that a man who died and was buried rose from the dead and appeared to his friends, only a theologian would think to ask, 'But was his body still in the grave?' How much more is this true of first century Jews, who shared a much more physical conception of resurrection than we do! {17 }
Here Craig indicates that Paul could not have believed in a resurrection of Christ that left the body of flesh unstirred, that Paul would not have been able to look upon the body of Jesus wrapped up in his tomb and yet still proclaim that Jesus had been raised from the dead. I tend to agree that such a scenario is unlikely.
Grass's argument that had Paul believed in the empty tomb, then he would have mentioned it in the second half of I Cor 15 turns back upon Grass; for if Paul did not believe in the empty tomb, as Grass contends, then why did he not mention the purely spiritual appearance of Christ to him alluded to I Cor 15. 8 as a knock-down argument for the immateriality of Christ's resurrection body? Grass can only reply that Paul did not appeal to his vision of Jesus to prove that the resurrection body would be heavenly and glorious because the meeting 'eluded all description'. {18} Not at all; Paul could have said he saw a heavenly light and heard a voice (Acts 22. 6-7; 26. 13-14). In fact the very ineffability of the experience would be a positive argument for immateriality, since a physical body is not beyond all description. Grass misunderstands Paul's intention in discussing the resurrection body in I Cor 15. 35-56. Paul does not want to prove that it is physical, for that was presupposed by everyone and was perhaps what the Corinthians protested at. He wants to prove that the body is in some sense spiritual, and thus the Corinthians ought not to dissent. Hence, the mention of the empty tomb is wholly beside the point. There is thus no reason to mention the empty tomb, but good reason to appeal to Paul's vision, which he does not do. Could it be that in the appearance to him Paul did not see a determinative answer to the nature of the resurrection body?
Yes. It is dangerous to leave one's own rhetorical questions unanswered! I agree that this could imply that Paul did not see a determinative answer to the nature of the resurrection body in the appearance of Christ to him. Yet this is less likely under the idea that Paul had a physical encounter with Christ, as Craig would suggest, and more likely under the idea that Paul's vision wasn't obviously physical. This would be more explicable if Paul held to the view of Hans Grass or Wolfhart Pannenburg, the views (1) or (2) of the resurrection deliniated in my "Spiritual Resurrection" discussion. The argument that Paul would have appealed to the ineffability of the experience to disprove the materiality of the resurrection body is overly subtle. If Paul's objectors did not hold to a material doctrine of the resurrection but rather objected to the idea of a resurrection because of its physicalistic implications, then Paul would not need to disprove the physicalism of a resurrection, which is common ground, but rather to show the philosophical plausibility of a resurrection of the physical body into a transformed spiritual, heavenly body. This is, indeed, what Paul sets out to do.
Finally as to the absence of the empty tomb in the kerygma, the statement 'he was buried' followed by the proclamation of the resurrection indicates that the empty tomb was implied in the kerygma. The formula is a summary statement,{19} and it could very well be that Paul was familiar with the historical context of the simple statement in the formula, which would imply that he not only accepted the empty tomb, but knew of it as well. The tomb is certainly alluded to in the preaching in Acts 2. 24-32.{20} The empty tomb is also implicit in Paul's speech in Antioch of Pisisidia, which follows point for point the outline of the formula in 1 Cor. 15. 3-5: '. . . they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem.' (Acts 13. 29-31). No first century Jew or pagan would be so cerebral as to wonder if the tomb was empty or not. That the empty tomb is not more explicitly mentioned may be simply because it was regarded as selbstverständlich, given the resurrection and appearances of Jesus. Or again, it may be that the evidence of the appearances so overwhelmed the testimony of legally unqualified women to the empty grave that the latter was not used as evidence. But the gospel of Mark shows that the empty tomb was important to the early church, even if it was not appealed to as evidence in evangelistic preaching. So I think it quite apparent that the formula and Paul at least accept the empty tomb, even if it is not explicitly mentioned. {21}
And it is here that Craig goes beyond the evidence of what Paul has said. Earlier Craig expressed the conclusion that one could draw from the fact of a resurrection in the words, "Thus the grave must be empty." But now the grave has been exchanged for a tomb without even an acknowledgment of the difference.
The words that Paul used neither exclude nor imply that Jesus was buried in a tomb. I will be the first to acknowledge that the words do not exclude tomb burial. But the idea of a tomb is only possibly in the mind of Paul. And one cannot argue to a solid conclusion on the basis of mere possibility. This is because the words of Paul in his letters do not imply tomb burial. While the concept of a tomb is not denied and it may or may not be there in the mind of Paul, it is not there in his words. The word used by Paul indicates burial in a general sense and does not have the specific meaning of "entombed." Paul's words cannot be taken as a testimony in favor of a tomb burial. Nor, for the same reason, should they be taken as a testimony against a tomb burial. In short, Paul's words are ambiguous.
However, if it cannot be argued that a tomb burial is found in Paul's words, perhaps it can be argued that Paul accepted a tomb burial because a tomb burial is, in fact, what happened. For this reason, I have already examined the arguments for the historicity of the tomb burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and found them to be insufficient.
A second possible reference to the empty tomb is the phrase 'on the third day.' Since no one actually saw the resurrection of Jesus, how could it be dated on the third day? Some critics argue that it was on this day that the women found the tomb empty, so the resurrection came to be dated on that day. {22} Thus, the phrase 'on the third day' not only presupposes that a resurrection leaves an empty grave behind, but is a definite reference to the historical fact of Jesus' empty tomb. But of course there are many other ways to interpret this phrase: (1) The third day dates the first appearance of Jesus. (2) Because Christians assembled for worship on the first day of the week, the resurrection was assigned to this day. (3) Parallels in the history of religions influenced the dating of the resurrections on the third day. (4) The dating of the third day is lifted from Old Testament scriptures. (5) The third day is a theological interpretation indicating God's salvation, deliverance, and manifestation. Each of these needs to be examined in turn.
Craig has taken on the burden of disproving all other possible explanations for the origin of the phrase "on the third day" in order to champion his own explanation that the phrase gets its origin from the discovery of the empty tomb on the third day after the death of Jesus. However, I would maintain that at least one of these remain a possible explanation. So I will criticize the arguments made by Craig to disprove them.
I will note here that the phrase "on the third day," outside of the Gospels and Acts, occurs only in the section of 1Cor 15:3-11 in the New Testament. As noted before, if this is considered an interpolation, then this argument cannot get off the ground.
1. The third day dates the first appearance of Jesus. {23} In favor of this view is the proximity of the statement 'raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures' with 'he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve'. Because Jesus appeared on the third day, the resurrection itself was naturally dated on that day. The phrase 'according to the scriptures' could indicate that the Christians, having believed Christ rose on the third day, sought out appropriate proof texts. This understanding has certain plausibility, for whether the disciples remained in Jerusalem or fled to Galilee, they could have seen Jesus on the third day after his death. If it can be proved, however, that the disciples returned slowly to Galilee and saw Christ only some time later, then this view would have to be rejected. A discussion of this question must be deferred until later. Against this understanding of the third day it is sometimes urged that the Easter reports do not use the expression 'on the third day' but prefer to speak of 'the first day of the week' (Mk 16. 2; Mt. 28. 1; Lk 24. 1; Jn 20. 1, 19).{24} All the 'third day' references are in the Easter kerygma, not the Easter reports. This is said to show not only the independence of the Easter reports from the kerygma, but also that neither the empty tomb nor the appearances of Christ can be the direct cause of the 'third day' motif.{25}
Craig has correctly noted that the theory that the origin of the phrase "on the third day" is due to an appearance on the third day would be disproved if the first appearance were not on the third day but instead a while later while the disciples were in Galilee.
But why could they not be the root cause? All that has been proved by the above is that the Easter reports and the Easter preaching are literarily distinct, but that cannot prove that they are not twin offshoots of an original event. The event could produce the report on the one hand; on the other hand it would set the believers a-searching in the Old Testament for fulfilled scriptures. In this search they could find and adopt the language of the third day because, according to Jewish reckoning, the first day of the week was in fact the third day after Jesus' death.{26} Scriptures in hand, they could thus proclaim 'he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures'. This language could then be used by the evangelists outside the Easter reports or actually interwoven with them, as by Luke. Thus the same root event could produce two different descriptions of the day of the resurrection. But was that event the first appearance of Jesus? Here one cannot exclude the empty tomb from playing a role, for the time reference 'the first day of the week' (= 'on the third day') refers primarily to it. If the appearances first occurred on the same day as the discovery of the empty tomb, then these two events together would naturally date the resurrection, and the 'third day' language could reflect the LXX formulation, which is found in I Cor 15. 4 and was worked into the traditions underlying the gospels. So I think it unlikely that the date 'on the third day' refers to the day of the first appearance alone.
Craig has only shown that it is possible that both the discovery of the empty tomb and the first appearance on "the first day of the week" or "the third day" could both play a role in the origin of the kerygmatic proclamation that Christ was raised "on the third day." However, Craig has not in any way shown that it is unlikely that the date "on the third day" refers to the day of the first appearance alone. Certainly one cannot exclude the role of an empty tomb, but just as certainly one cannot assume it. It remains a possible theory that the first appearance, for example to Peter, occured on the third day after the death of Jesus and that this is what led to the dating of the resurrection "on the third day."
2. Because Christians assembled on the first day of the week, the resurrection was assigned to this day. {27} Although this hypothesis once enjoyed adherents, it is now completely abandoned. Rordorf's study Der Sonntag has demonstrated to the satisfaction of New Testament critics that the expression 'raised on the third day' has nothing to do with Christian Sunday worship.{28} More likely would be that because the resurrection was on the third day, Christians worshipped on that day. But even though the question of how Sunday came to be the Christian special day of worship is still debated, no theory is today propounded which would date the resurrection as a result of Sunday as a worship day.
I would agree that this explanation, if not impossible, seems unlikely.
3. Parallels in the history of religions influenced the dating of the resurrection on the third day.{29} In the hey-day of the history of religions school, all sorts of parallels in the history of other religions were adduced in order to explain the resurrection on the third day; but today critics are more sceptical concerning such alleged parallels. The myths of dying and rising gods in pagan religions are merely symbols for processes of nature and have no connection with a real historical individual like Jesus of Nazareth. {30} The three-day motif is found only in the Osiris and perhaps Adonis cults, and, in Grass's words, it is 'completely unthinkable' that the early Christian community from which the formula stems could be influenced by such myths.{31} In fact there is hardly any trace of cults of dying and rising gods at all in first century Palestine.
I am not as sure as Craig that there could be no influence from pagan religions on early Christianity. How can we rationally denounce this as "completely unthinkable"? We do not know that Peter and the others had never come into contact with such cults because we do not know much at all about Peter and the others. The most that can be said, rationally, is that this is unlikely. It should certainly be considered thinkable that they had heard of some of the myths of these cults. Nevertheless, I do not consider it to be necessary to rely on this explanation, and I would also tend to prefer ones that do stay within the matrix of Judaism. If nothing else, however, the myths of Osiris and Adonis should teach us that no historical basis need be presumed for the belief to develop that an event occurred "on the third day" in some sense.
It has also been suggested that the three day motif reflects the Jewish belief that the soul did not depart decisively from the body until after three days.{32} But the belief was actually that the soul departed irrevocably on the fourth day, not the third; in which case the analogy with the resurrection is weaker. But the decisive count against this view is that the resurrection would not then be God's act of power and deliverance from death, for the soul had not yet decisively left the body, but merely re-entered and resuscitated it. This would thus discredit the resurrection of Jesus. If this Jewish notion were in mind, the expression would have been 'raised on the fourth day' after the soul had forever abandoned the body and all hope was gone (cf. the raising of Lazarus).
I believe that Craig's argument here is fair.
Some critics have thought that the third day reference is meant only to indicate, in Hebrew reckoning, 'a short time' or 'a while'.{33} But when one considers the emphasis laid on this motif not only in the formula but especially in the gospels, then so indefinite a reference would not have the obvious significance which the early Christians assigned to this phrase.
I do not consider this refutation to be sound. What if the earliest Christians had no real bearings for saying when the resurrection had occurred? If this were the case, because they would not have anything definite but would know that some time had passed, the single most likely candidate would be the phrase "on the third day" to indicate a short time or a while. The significance in the phrase would not be immediate but would be drawn from repeated use of the phrase in kerygma. This explanation may be supplemented with the compatible explanations in numbers (4) and (5). Or it is indeed possible that this explanation stands on its own as the genesis of the phrase.
4. The dating of the third day is lifted from Old Testament scriptures. {34} Because the formula reads 'on the third day in accordance with the scriptures' many authors believe that the third day motif is drawn from the Old Testament, especially Hos 6. 2, which in the LXX reads te hemera te trite. {35} Although Metzger has asserted, with appeal to I Maccabees 7. 16-17 that the 'according to the scriptures' may refer to the resurrection, not the third day,{36} this view is difficult to maintain in light, not only of the parallel in I Cor 15. 3, but especially of Lk 24. 45 where the third day seems definitely in mind. Against taking the 'on the third day' to refer to Hos 6. 2 it has been urged that no explicit quotation of the text is found in the New Testament, or indeed anywhere until Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos 13).{37} New Testament quotations of the Old Testament usually mention the prophet's name and are of the nature of promise-fulfillment. But nowhere do we find this for Hos 6. 2.
Craig does recognize below that Hosea 6:2 is the most likely source for "the language" used in the expression te hemera te trite. Thus, I consider the protestations conerning explicit quotation and the naming of prophets to be only so much hot air. The earliest Christians probably had Hosea 6:2 in mind, if not for the substance, at least for the language of the third day motif as expressed by Paul. With this recognized, arguments that the phrase have nothing to do with Hosea 6:2 should be seen as false by Craig himself.
And these arguments are false on their own account as well. No explicit quotation of the text needs to be made in order to make use of a text in the Jewish scriptures. No explicit mention of the prophet needs to be made in the use of Jewish scriptures. This is especially true for what Craig would stress to be a summary kerygma tradition in 1Cor 15. The expression in the formula used by Paul does say that this is found in the scriptures, without quoting or naming names, which in itself belies the premise of both arguments. Of course, it is possible that more than one part of the scriptures was thought by Christians to refer to the resurrection on the third day. But Hosea 6:2 is most likely one of them, since it is on all accounts the most clear example of one.
Grass retorts that there is indirect evidence for Christian use of Hos 6. 2 in the Targum Hosea's dropping the reference to the number of days; the passage had to be altered because Christians had preempted the verse. Moreover, Jesus' own 'predictions', written back into the gospel story by believers after the event, obviated the need to cite a scripture reference. {38} But Grass's first point is not only speculative, but actually contradicted by the fact that later Rabbis saw no difficulty in retaining the third day reference in Hosea.{39} No conclusion can be drawn from Targum Hosea's change in wording, for the distinctive characteristic of this Targum is its free haggadic handling of the text. And this still says nothing about New Testament practice of citing the prophet's name. As for the second point, Matthew's citation of Jonah (Mt. 12. 40) makes this rather dubious. According to Bode, Matthew's citation is the decisive argument against Hos 6. 2, since it shows the latter was not the passage which Christians had in mind with regard to the three day motif.{40}
The arguments of both Grass and Bode are suspect here. The argument about the Targum Hosea certainly does not provide a proof that Christians were using this text; it only provides an explanation for why this particular change could have been made. The fact of its free handling would have allowed the change to be made while later rabbis would retain it for respect of the text. I think that this argument can be used only in a defensive manner by Grass, not to prove that the text was used but to cast doubt on Craig's claim that the text wasn't used by early Christians (which he seems to conclude because it is first explicitly cited by Tertullian). Bode's argument actually shows that Christians more than likely had found, eventually, more than one scriptural precedent for associating three days with the date of the resurrection. The passage cannot be the primary cause of on the third day as found in Paul because, by inclusive reckoning, the passage of time of three days and three nights in Jonah would logically lead to the expres

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Report abuse | Permalink

Comment Comment

Customer Reviews

Resurrection: Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity

The most helpful favorable review

The most helpful critical review

This product

Customer Reviews Resurrection: Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity

The most helpful favorable review The most helpful critical review

This product

Customer Reviews

Resurrection: Myth or Reality? : A Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity

The most helpful favorable review

The most helpful critical review