Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
95 of 108 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Empty Tomb May Be Empty, but this book is not, June 12, 2005
The Empty Tomb is a collection of 15 essays by skeptical scholars on the historicity of the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection. Some two-thirds of the essays have been published in the past several years, but there are also several new works, including Richard Carrier's brilliant 100-page essay that spans the middle of the book, and completely redeems whatever weaknesses the volume may have.
The book is aimed squarely at the arguments of Christian apologists, a notion that sat very uncomfortably with the critic from Publisher's Weekly on Amazon.com, who obviously lacked both the knowledge and the patience to deal with the diversity of approaches in the book, and did not seemed to understand it at all, a fact which apparently bred resentment rather than admiration. The essays fall more or less into two groups, a set of a half dozen essays on philosophy and methodology, and another group that focuses strongly on the texts themselves, and the evidence they offer, as well as their historical and social context. The work is accessible to layman who are willing to make the effort to interact with the often complex and detailed theoretical, methodological, and evidential aspects of it.
The volume begins with three essays that explore the Resurrection from the historical and theological point of view. Robert Cavin's essay asks whether there is sufficient historical evidence to establish the resurrection of Jesus. Cavin's essay is actually an exploration of what it means to ask this question, breaking out the underlying assumptions of what "the Resurrection" means in great detail.
This is followed by Michael Martin's essay on Bayes' Theorem and the Resurrection as initially improbable. Martin explains things very clearly, and the essay is not difficult to follow. Martin makes a clever move in arguing that not only is the initial probability of the Resurrection low on the assumptions of naturalism, it is also low even if we allow supernatural events. Theodore M. Drange rounds out the opening section with a discussion of Christian theology and the Resurrection. This short essay is a response to the claims of the 19th century theologian Charles Hodge, demolishing them point by point.
The fourth article, Robert Price's article on the famous passage in 1 Cor 15 as an interpolation, begins a section that focuses on the textual evidence for the resurrection, and on early Christian history.
By far the best article in the collection is the next one, Richard Carrier's long essay on the spiritual body of Christ and the legend of the empty tomb. From the title and opening lines one might expect a dull discussion of the theology of risen bodies, but Carrier develops his theme with great fecundity, drawing evidence from ever farther afield and offering numerous insights into the gospel texts. In addition to solid methodological and textual viewpoints, Carrier's work is always full of insightful tidbits, and this one is no exception. Like me, the reader no doubt kick himself when he realizes how many times he has read Plutarch's Life of Romulus yet never spotted the parallel to the arrest scene in the Garden of Gethsemane. In addition to rapier thrusts like that into the heart of the Jesus legend, Carrier also bludgeons it with Orphic and other parallels. Unlike many who present evidence from the so-called history of religions school, Carrier is restrained in his presentation, and entirely free of the kind of triumphalism that has plagued adherents of that school of Jesus-critique. This is one essay that is destined to become a classic.
If Carrier is the brilliant Rommel, ranging across his enemy's flanks at will and unimpeded, Peter Kirby, the writer of the next piece, complements him perfectly as the competent, sturdy NCO who must direct the small-unit battles. Kirby's piece is a detailed review of the evidence from the Gospel texts, showing how it is most likely they are fictive constructions. Kirby's workmanlike piece is buttressed by copious references to a wide variety of scholarship, and should become a key source for anyone writing on this topic.
Jeffery Jay Lowder then follows with a demolition of William Lane Craig's writing on the Empty Tomb. The more-style-than-substance arguments of Craig, a well-known debater and Christian apologist, are ruthlessly exposed by Lowder in this piece.
"Taming the Tehom" is Evan Fales deconstruction of the Matthean version of the Resurrection account. Fales reads Matthew in light of both the Jonah story, other Bible legends, and myths and stories from across the Ancient Near East.
A short essay by Richard Carrier then discusses the plausibility of the theft of the body. This is also a response to apologist William Craig. Carrier shows that far from being history, Matthew's story is constructed off of Daniel 6. This piece, though only a few pages, is written in Carrier's clear and insightful style and is well worth a look.
Carrier follows this with another information-packed discussion of Jesus' burial in light of Jewish law. In this essay, a version of which was posted to Internet Infidels a while back, Carrier's review not only shows how fiction is the more plausible option for the origin of the story, but also locates the 'three-day" motif within the prescriptions of Jewish law.
Duncan and Derrett propose a model for the origin of the Resurrection story in their next piece, oddly entitled "Financial Aspects of the Resurrection." They argue that the story of the Resurrection and Ascension was invented because of the benefits it brought to the disciples and the new religion.
Robert Price's piece on William Craig's apologetics follows. This piece, highly polemical, is also very enjoyable. Price's essay dissects the underlying apologetic motives that drive 'scholarship' on the empty tomb and the Resurrection, showing how apologetics continues to inform, and distort, scholarly work on the topic.
Keith Parsons closes the long section on the nuts and bolts of New Testament texts, history, and related scholarship behind with an essay that argues that hallucinations could account for the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus. Parsons shows that apologists' objections to this theory are uninformed and poorly-argued.
Michael Martin is up next with a response to Swinburne's absurd argument that it is highly probable that Jesus was God incarnate and really was Resurrected from the dead. Martin, like Swinburne a professional philosopher, shows that Swinburne's claim is incoherent on almost every level.
Evan Fales then finishes with a philosophical look at Alvin Plantinga, reformed epistemology, and Biblical scholarship. Despite its formidable title, the piece is an accessible study of how a major Christian philosopher goes about attempting to discredit modern Bible scholarship so that he can continue clinging to beliefs that have been shown to be wrong by modern scholarship. Fales steers surehandedly through a difficult thicket of philosophical and methodological troubles.
The essays in this volume are all of very high quality and there is something here for readers of every taste. Skeptics in search of ammunition will find a plentiful supply. This idea of themed essays around topics of interest to skeptics of early Christian history has great potential, and I look forward to further compilations of this nature on similar topics from Price and Lowder.
|
|
|
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Natural Explanations for the Resurrection of Jesus, July 30, 2007
The Empty Tomb is an anthology of replies to Claims about the resurrection of Jesus. A great portion of it is focused on the Empty Tomb. In this volume there is a lot to be learned about these men's interpretations of the History in Palestine. Richard Carrier's treatment of Paul's view of resurrection is humble and friendly and honest. Carrier's historical fervor shines forth throughout his essay and in my opinion it makes it worth the money since he gives examples of legend making in detail.
Oddly enough the resurrection stories fall short of appearing embellished and legendary as much as would be expected if the stories were made up or invented in whole or in part. The resurrection stories are more straight forward, though Carrier argues that they still are unhistorical for the most part, with less legendary ingredients than the examples he gives such as the story of Romulus and others. Michael Martin's first essay is actually very redundant, in that miracles are initially improbable and thus the resurrection of Jesus is also improbable. Robert Price's first essay is a detailed look at the primitive creed found in I Corinthians 15:3-11 and his views on the subject as possible interpolations.
Robert Cavin's essay has to do with the fact that the resurrection body that Jesus was supposed to have was not verified or strenuously tested to have the properties Christians claim such as immortal, impenetrable, indestructive and so forth. Basically, Jesus' body was not tested in a lab, thus we can't say that Jesus' body had those properties. Theodore Drange's first essay is about how Jesus' life, style of death, prolongation of death, location of that death, burial location and resurrection was not the only way or path that God could have chosen. In other words God had other options, therefore why the need resurrect Jesus. Kirby's essay is an argument against the empty tomb story as authentic. Lowdry's essay against William Lane Craig's defense on the empty tomb is actually quite complementary as opposed to a conflicting response since Lowder agrees a lot with Craig. A funny thing, though, is that Lowder responds indirectly to a few questions and objections that support Kirby's hypothesis, which is just one essay behind Lowder's. Fales' first essay is a strange one in that it tries to review Mathew from a mythological stand point as events such as the sign of Jonah and the story from Bethany to the tomb as political/social symbols to the difficulties of the times and leaves the reader hanging at the end. He leaves the project unfinished and his essay incomplete.
Carriers' second essay focuses on the plausibility of a bodily theft for the explanation of the empty tomb and goes against William Lane Craig's arguments again and there is a small thesis on Matthew's account of Jesus being similar to the book of Daniel's account of the Lion's Den. Carrier's third essay is on the Jewish Law and its affects to the death and burial of Jesus. Derret's essay is on who benefits the most, financially speaking, if Jesus is said to have been raised. Price's second essay is basically an ad hominem attack on William Lane Craig, even though he does deviate a tad bit, correctly, on Craig's arguments as opposed to Carig himself for a short moment. Parson's essay is basically on Hallucinations as plausibility for post-resurrection appearances and how Peter Kreeft should have put a reference on one of his works. Martin's second essay is a critique of Richard Swinburne's view of God and how even with Bayes' Theorem the resurrection of Jesus is not so plausible. This compliments, Martins first essay on improbability of the resurrection. And finally, Fales second essay is on Planinga's view of knowledge in a Christian and historical setting.
A few problems are the fact that William Lane Craig is mentioned too much and other Christians are ignored, such as Gary Habermas, Norman Geisler, Michael Licona, or even Bruce Metzger, in terms of needed textual criticism. There is a problem with some writers as dismissing certain texts as embellished or mythology without bringing up supporting evidence such as Carrier, Price, and Kirby or taking away potential reliability by dismissing the text as copied from an earlier source thus ignoring the potential eyewitnesses like Luke, John, and Matthew, without supporting evidence for such a quick dismissal. I really wanted them to talk in detail why they reject a few texts as inauthentic, and unhistorical since they usually don't mention archeological finds that may conflict directly with the narratives to diminish the historicity of Gospels and the Book of Acts.
Carrier mentions the crucified man found in a Jewish tomb from around the time of Jesus named Jehohanan, but this seems to support the accounts in all the Gospels not against them. Archeological emphasis is something they desperately needed in order to establish the plausibility of their theories. Without these evidences their theories are possible but unsupported by direct needed evidence, as Robert Price admits in his first essay in his conclusion. More research needs to be done.
Anyways this is a great introduction to naturalist apologetics and their theories which are intelligible, sometimes smooth, other times rough, but over all enlightening, especially Richard Carrier's essays.
Here are the Essays and the authors found in this anthology (in order):
Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence To Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?
Robert Cavin
The Resurrection as Initially Improbable
Michael Martin
Why Resurrect Jesus?
Theodore Drange
Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation
Robert Price
The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb
Richard Carrier
The Case Against the Empty Tomb
Peter Kirby
Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig
Jeffrey Lowder
Taming the Tehom: The Sign of Jonah In Matthew
Evan Fales
The Plausibility of Theft
Richard Carrier
The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law
Richard Carrier
Financial Aspects of the Resurrection
J. Derrett
By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus
Robert Price
Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory
Keith Parsons
Swinburne on the Resurrection
Michael Martin
Reformed Epistemology and Biblical Hermeneutics
Evan Fales
|
|
|
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not an easy read, but a great one nonetheless, January 21, 2006
What happened after the crucifixion of Jesus? Was his body placed in a tomb, only to resurrect a few days later? Yes, if you ask a faithful Christian, then that's exactly what happened. But imagine asking a group of non-theists, non-Christian academics, philosophers, historians, and atheists. Then what'll you get?
You'll get The Empty Tomb, a serious analysis of many of the arguments that Christian apologetics (defenders of the Christian faith) put forwards at the end of the 20th century. Initially, the story about the resurrection might not be so very complicated, however, look closer and you'll find a whole lot of questions and inconsistencies; all of them discussed in The Empty Tomb. What if Jesus body was simply stolen? What did the authors of the New Testament really mean when they said Jesus had returned from the dead? Did the resurrected Jesus actually meet his followers? If there indeed was a God, why sacrifice your only son only to have him brought back to life right after? Is the notion of a resurrection a Christian invention, or did the Bible authors use earlier sources for their faith?
This questions, and many more, are dealt with mercilessly. The discussions are VERY academic, and many of the contributions throughout the book more or less requires a very deep knowledge of Bible issues, its authors, history, and content. I'm willing to admit that I don't know as much about that particular book as I'd want to, and it happened on several occasions that I had to, unwillingly, admit that I couldn't quite understand what was being said. No wonder, perhaps, because Bible quotes I've never even heard of are used constantly, and sometimes several pages are devoted to discussing how old Greek words should really be translated and interpreted.
But not all contributions are equally difficult to understand, and some of them are truly entertaining and educational. The ones that stood out most were "Swinburne on the Resurrection" by Michael Martin (a devastating blow against Christianity), "By This Time He Stinketh" by Robert M. Price (a wonderful critique against one of the most famous apologetics and his defence of the Resurrection), and "Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory" by Keith Parsons (who, among other things, discusses the similarities between ancient Christianity and contemporary ideas about alien abductions and close encounters with extraterrestrials; a fascinating idea that deserves to be discussed more closely).
In order to fully appreciate The Empty Tomb you better be VERY well-read in Bible research, apologetics, and Christian history. True, some of the contributions are easily understood by the common man, but the question is whether these contributions make it worthwhile to buy the book. Personally I think yes, most definitely, but I can absolutely understand if people choose to spend their money on a book that's easier to understand.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Earl Doherty
by Richard Carrier
by Bart D. Ehrman
See all 100 books this book cites
