Talk:Empty tomb

History v story

There is no question that the use of "mythology" to describe these accounts, very strongly implies that historicity is not relevant to them. This is clear where the single most decisive criterion for determining what constitutes a "myth" is the presence of some "supernatural" element in the story. The "truth" of a "Myth" is regardless of factuality. This is not the case, for history.

These accounts are received as history by most Christians - the meaningfulness of the events is tied specifically to their factuality. The explanatory power of these stories is specifically in the claim that they actually happened. This is why the term "Mythology" will always meet with objection. The use of the term suggests the point of view that the "truth" of the empty tomb does not rest in its factuality - which most Christians do not believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. Surely we can create a better category for events which are regarded as true by Christians, even if disputed by non-Christians. How about 'supernatural events in Christianity'? DJ Clayworth 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

FestivalOfSouls: you write that 'other users agree the category should stay'. Well if they had done they would have written so here, which does not seem to be the case. Please discuss the matter here, rather than just making your own changes. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Regrettably, it appears that some believe that their point of view is so obviously right that it requires no discussion, and that Wikipedia will be closer to the ideal world when their crusade is accomplished. As someone has already said, burying Christian historical belief under the extremely derogatory label of 'Mythology' is "not POV pushing". I'm sure that there are other atheists, agnostics and anti-supernaturalist religionists who feel just the same. That's all FOS means by "other users agree". If this opinion prevails, it gives permission to presumptively shout down the opposing perspective. And why not? It's all part of moving toward the "ideal world". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This article meets the definition of a myth : "myths: stories of a particular culture that it believes to be true and that feature a specific religious or belief system." as given by the headline article of category:mythology. As such it is entirely appropriate. Since some have expressed concern over my adding category:mythology, I have compromised and been putting the correct subcategories into the articles. FestivalOfSouls 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said elsewhere. While 'myth' is used in academic circles to mean an explanatory story (true or otherwise) it is commonly taken to mean an untrue story. Adding this category to items of fundamental Christian belief is therefore misleading. Festival, please take note that no-one has so far no-one on this page has agreed with you. If the discussion has taken place, and consensus been reached, then please include a link to the page where that happened. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But FestivalOfSouls, the problem is that this sub-category does not reflect consent. It represents your point of view, to which I for one cannot consent. I appreciate the effort to find appropriate categories, but can you not see that your project is doomed to fail in the long run? Wikipedia works because it takes seriously the idea of working together. Your edit history shows what happens when this idea is not given its due weight. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I was not aware that wikipedia did not attempt to be an academic endevour. I guess I was wrong to assume that wikipedia was a play on encyclopedia, and that it was trying to be an encyclopedia, not a biased website. Look through the histories of the articles I have edited. Other users have returned the categorization, as well as I have. Feel free to discuss on my talk page, as well. Their has been no real discussion, as no real oposition has come forth. I have yet to see a single valid arument against the categorization. Even here, you fail to do so. I maintain that since the article is about a myth, as defined in dictionary.com and on the good ol' wikipedia article that defines the category (mythology, the categorization is appropriate. FestivalOfSouls 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How do I "fail to do so"? Your use of "mythology" as though it were neutral in this context is disingenuous. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say "no real oposition has come forth" when this entire page is devoted to disputing your categorisation. I repeat, even if your categorisation were technically correct (in academic usage) the popular usage is not the same, and adding the category is misleading. If you really want a discussion about this lets choose a page and invite others to join in. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A user saying " I don't like you pointing out that my religion is based on myths" is not, in my eyes, a valid argument against doing so. I did not intend to say their was no opposition, just that their was no valid opposition, meaning those that oppose this do so for trivial, unimportant, and often irrelevent reasons. It is like me opposing a change YOU make because I have a cat. Irrelevent. FestivalOfSouls 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for the contiuation of this discussion, or the appropraite place, the talk paeg for category:mythology. I will not read nor reply to arguments here. FestivalOfSouls 18:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I must strongly caution you that asserting that any other users' practiced religion is "based on myths" on any wiki page whatsoever, is expressly forbidden by wiki policy, and in addition to your 3RR violations, is disciplinable. Codex Sinaiticus 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In violation of what I just said, I would like to point out that I never said that, only that people are using that as the argument against correctly classifying articles. I am making no remarks about the religion, only that particular articles meet the requirements of being labeled as about myths. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Now are you using 'myth' here in the sense that you are trying to imply that you always using it, i.e. an explanatory story that may or may not be true? If so no-one will have any objection. I suspect you mean something different, though. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See my talk page. Already answered that question. FestivalOfSouls 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Root of the problem?

I thought it was more "ideal" when people could co-exist with their differences without deliberately seeking to offend, and find a neutral path. I am sorry to see that this individual may think this is a tool to start provocations, because he received an absolutely terrible introduction to wikipedia. Particularly the way "Do not bite the newcomers" was cleverly altered to read "Don't let the grumpy users scare you off" (not at all the same thing!), and placed directly between "Be bold!" and "Play nice with others", "Contribute, contribute, contribute!"...etc. My gosh, if I had got that as my official introduction on day one, I might possibly be a little less diplomatic myself...! So perhaps we may be a little more understanding, considering that that practically looks like an official invitation for a new user to "act up", stir up controversy, and get directly "in your face" of other users... the precise opposite of what is desireable for an encyclopedia project!

I hadn't noticed that. Who placed the notice? Maybe we should ensure that "Co-operate, don't confront" and "Reach consensus" are given as much emphasis. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Para based on false evidence

The removed para starts with the sentence "John portrays Mary as stooping to view the tomb, but Peter as being able to walk into the tomb quite easily." This is just not the case. I will try to re-write to inclde the archaeological detail

Historicity and scholarly consensus

Here's what might be a stupid question, but the article doesn't answer it: William Lane Craig is famous for using the supposed historical accuracy of the resurrection of Jesus as a point in his debates. He frequently claims that the consensus among "new testament scholars" (by which I assume he must mean professional historians) is that the the early Christians' account of the empty tomb is a) truthfully reproduced through history and b) best explained by the actual ascension of Jesus. Now I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a majority of scientists would be so trusting of a story that wasn't even written down until decades later 'and' then make the completely wild leap to ascribe a figure in the story magical properties. Is there actually such a consensus, and if there is, is it among historians or among theologians? — Mütze (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance of "scientist"s opinion, historians and theologians are the ones that matter here, specially those that study early Christianity, or are you implying that non-Christians are impartial when arguing against Chrsitianity but Christians are partial and unreliable when arguing for Christianity. If that is it, your argument is self-defeating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.176.151 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, theologians don't "matter here". That is, when evaluating the historicity of a particular claim. While historians may not be scientists in the way physicists etc are, they're work is conducted systematically with the tools of their trade. This is not to suggest theologians can't or don't work in the same way or that they can't talk, write, argue, or even make valuable contributions to such an inquiry, but historicity is a question for historians. Now to Mütze question. It's instructive that historians of Ancient Rome, Judaism or Old Testament scholars are not included in Craig's consensus. Are we to believe that historians studying first century Judaism or ancient Rome aren't qualified to evaluate this question? It helps if you understand that the minimal facts approach, which Craig did not originate, is more tactical than analytical. Spiker 22 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's incredibly one-sided to include WLC but no one else. There are endless debunkers of his tenuous arguments and yet none included in the article... Intaminagag (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Secret Mark?

The article asserts "Most Christians and scholars before the discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark tend to the view that the figure was an angel. It is not possible to tell whether the "angels" supposedly were in the form of men."

Am I missing something? What does "Secret Mark" have to do with what Most Christians and scholars think about the identity of the "angels" Did most Christians and scholars change their minds due to some evidence in secret Mark or is the editor trying to insinuate this along with the idea that secret Mark is authentic or that it contains any reference to Jesus tomb. Their is absolutely no way this expansion can be authenticated and it certainly does not contain anything that would change the mind of "Most Christians and scholars'. I would suggest this statement, which relies entirely on insinuation, should be removed from the article. Spiker 22 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations please?

The first paragraph simply asserts that (1) tending to Jesus's body is something his disciples, not his female followers, "should have done," and (2) women are portrayed more favorably in Mark than men are. Both of these need citations, particularly the first one: I don't know what the custom of preparing a dead body for burial involved in early 1st-century Judea, but if the article is going to assert such knowledge, it should provide a citation. --Tbanderson (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Apotheosis & Jewish tradition

I'm surprised that the discussion of the importance of apotheosis doesn't mention its relevance in Jewish tradition. One authority, IIRC Raymond Brown, points out that at the time was an empty tomb was believed to be a sign the individual was a holy man because he was taken up to Heaven by God. Or an angel. He also mentions two relevant & well-known examples of this phenomena: Enoch, & Elijah. If I could remember the authority who wrote this, I'd add it to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

POV of Historicity section

The "Historicity" section only presents arguments in favour of the historicity of the empty tomb, and only one scholar (William Lane Craig)'s views at that. He is not the only scholar to have made contributions to this question, and as well as those who argue in favour of its historicity, there are those who argue against it. The section should spend less time going into detail of Craig's arguments; rather, it should give a survey of the breadth of scholarly opinion on both sides of the issue. SJK (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect from Appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdalene

That article was formed by splitting off contents of appearances of Jesus&oldid=751089681 Post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus. I have redirected it here since it significantly overlapped this article and Noli me tangere, and was without references (and much appeared as WP:OR). Previous version is Appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdalene if there's something to save (and reference!). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

@Achar Sva: @Tgeorgescu: Could you stop reversing my edits? I sourced the works of Raymond E. Brown, N. T. Wright, E. P. Sanders and James Dunn, who are recognised to be some of the most respected scholars of the historical Jesus. Instead, you insist in quoting Arie W. Zwiep, a minor scholar. --Karma1998 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: It is you who WP:CITED Zwiep (misspelled as Zweip) for a claim which fails WP:V. You do have a problem with WP:V, don't you? tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: actually I didn't. I added sources from other scholars, who are far more reliable than Zwiep. But you just keep ignoring them. It's the same as the story of the United Monarchy, you simply don't give a damn about sources that contradict your claim, even when they come from reliable and major scholars. --Karma1998 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: You have to obey WP:V like everyone else. I am afraid you regularly violate WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I am obeying to Wikipedia rules. You were already told by others to stop stalking and threatening me. I suggest you do. -Karma1998 (talk)

@Karma1998: You're talking rubbish. And here is why:

You changed and it is preserved also in Luke 23:43, where Jesus tells the penitent thief, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise".{{sfn|Zwiep|1997|pp=76-77}} to Other scholars disagree and state that the empty tomb is a late development:{{sfn|Zweip|1997|p=76-77}}. As far as I can see from Google Books, the citation supports neither version.

So, you have changed an unverifiable sentence to a completely another unverifiable sentence.

You failed to provide page numbers for [1] despite being specifically asked for page numbers at User talk:Karma1998#Jesus. Failing again at [2]. Not to mention again the older discussion at WP:NORN#Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998:

Try to gather as many diffs of edits that fail verification, as that seems to be Karma's biggest issue. I'll do a write up on it to take to ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998:: you want to add three sources to support your statement that a majority of scholars believe in the historic reality of the empty tomb. The first is Raymond Brown's "Death of the Messiah": this was published in 1994, a quarter of a century ago, and therefore does not represent current scholarship; in addition you provide no page number in the text. The second is Tom Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God"; again there's no page number, and a search shows Wright saying that the empty tomb is "completely secondary", i.e, unhistorical. The third is Gary Habermas: again no page number, but I did a search of the text and found nothing about the opinion of the majority of scholars. Achar Sva (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, no one would disagree that the empty tomb is a late development - it first appears in Mark, written about 70 AD, and is absent in early sources such as Paul.Achar Sva (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Meanwhile Karma1998 has pleaded guilty for violating WP:V and promised betterment. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with Karma1998 and will be happy to discuss any problems with him - he seems to be civil and to really care about the project. Achar Sva (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Yup, they thought I had something personal against them, but in fact it irritated me their continual violations of WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: @Tgeorgescu: I will explain my point:

• you say that the book is from 1994 and that therefore it no longer represents current scholarship. However, many of the books quoted as sources in the Jesus article are from the '90s (check it if you don't believe it).
• "secondary" does not mean "unhistorical", they are two different terms;
• the fact that Paul doesn't mention it doesn't mean it's not true: it's an argument from silence;

Still, you are right in asking sources, and I will provide them. Until them, I'll do no further edits.--Karma1998 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: We don't write there is a majority just because we find four scholars who agree with a POV. The conditions for an academic consensus claim or majority view are stipulated at WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to say that a majority of scholars believe the empty tomb to be historical fact you need to need to find a scholar saying exactly that - and it has to be someone more recent than 1994, since that's a bit old to represent current opinion. But I wonder if you realise that the article isn't addressing the issue of whether the four gospels are telling a real history? What it's trying to do is trace the development of resurrection belief in the early church, as reflected in the NT documents, which, after all, are the only evidence we have. There simply is no evidence that the empty tomb was historical, it's a matter of faith, and we don't deal with faith. Achar Sva (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: @Tgeorgescu: What did I write in my previous post? I won't make any more edits until I have the adequate sources. There's really no reason in arguing about this. -Karma1998 (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm discussing with you - or at least that was my intention. Achar Sva (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: You are mistaken. Many of the sources cited within Wikipedia disagree about the late invention of the empty tomb narrative and say so. Allison & Aune argue against Markan composition. This needs to be reflected in the article. Rusdo (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo: Just stick to WP:V statements from WP:RS and it will be good. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Oh I am. How about you actually read the sources first before providing links to Wikipedia rules pages? Rusdo (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo: You're mistaken that the stable version denies your criticism. It doesn't. Your should carefully read the text before criticizing it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You should carefully read the sources. The current version reflects what the sources actually say. Rusdo (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo:It follows that the story of the empty tomb must have originated after Paul wrote. — it doesn't mention Mark, does it? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Allison criticizes that argument in the source that's cited. We cannot use Allison as a source for It follows that the story of the empty tomb must have originated after Paul wrote. and not include the fact that he considers this argument underwhelming. The current article is misleading. Rusdo (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo: So, maybe the citation does not WP:V that Allison believes that, but it verifies that many scholars believe that. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Yes and it is in no way inappropriate to include what Allison says on the subject. What concretely is your issue with my edits? The current phrasing of the paragraph is misleading and doesn't reflect what the sources say.Rusdo (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo: If you want to state that some scholars disagree, it is okay to do that. However, most other changes seem to hammer some point about Mark, while Mark is perhaps not the source of such claim. So, that the claim of the empty tomb is a later development should be disentangled from it being an invention of Mark. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Ok what about this?

Some scholars suggest that the story of the empty tomb must have originated after Paul wrote, even suggesting that Mark invented it, his intention being to signal not Jesus's resurrection but his assumption into heaven. Other scholars find this unpersuasive. Helen Yarbro Collins, for example, believes that the story of the empty tomb is not simply a Markan composition but a Markan deduction from an early Christian belief in the resurrection. She classifies the Markan narrative as a "translation" story, meaning a story of the removal of a newly-immortal hero to a non-Earthly realm, triggered by the Greco-Roman interest in the graves of heroes. Furthermore, if the general scholarly belief that John wrote independently of Mark is correct, then these are two independent attestations of the empty tomb story, which in turn suggests that both Mark and John used already-existing sources, although this cannot be taken to imply that the story is historical. Rusdo (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I see your point about separating Markan invention vs later development, but the sources cited really focus on whether or not Mark invented it. Any thoughts? Rusdo (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo: I don't know, I will let others chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo:, I've tried to take your points into account. If you want to continue the discussion, could you open a new thread, as this one is getting too long to be easily edited.Achar Sva (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Peter Carnley - reliable source?

Opinions please on whether Peter Carnley is a reliable source. I've just added his book "Resurrection in Retrospect". Then the publisher looked a bit odd - claims to be an academic outlet, but....? Carnely himself is a retired bishop (Archbishop of Perth). I'd be pretty dubious. I can look up the sources he quotes, notably Adela Yarbro Collins (rock solid credentials), but that would be a really arduous job. Achar Sva (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather have a citation of the original quotes from Adela Yarbro Collins. I'm not saying Peter Carnley is unreliable, but I agree with you. The publisher makes me cringe a little bit. Rusdo (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Focus the article on the Empty Tomb

This article seems to double as a resurrection article. The two concepts are certainly intertwined, but I think it would be better to shorten this article a bit more and focus it on the empty tomb specifically. What are the thoughts of others? For example, comparisons between resurrection narratives are more appropriate for an article on the resurrection. We should just have texts that mention the empty tomb narrative. Rusdo (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I still think we need to discuss the origins of the texts in terms of the cultural context of resurrection-beliefs in the ancient world. And we also need to discuss the integrity of the texts - I was surprised, for example, to learn that there are two traditions within the four gospels. Achar Sva (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A brief discussion is appropriate, but I wouldn't want to get too into the weeds as the differences between Jewish and non-Jewish understandings of resurrection and especially bodily resurrection would take up an entire article in and of their own. Rusdo (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I've added some edits that I think you may find controversial. However, if you look at the sources they are well cited. I know you've put a lot of work into this article. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm not attempting to undo what you've worked on and I do believe that a proper context within cultures is appropriate and germane to the article. Rusdo (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: The gospels differ on more than just what happened after the women left the tomb. Your statement that John is inventing is an assumption, certainly accepted by some scholars but not by all. But that doesn't matter. The source incorporates this viewpoint as well. Please don't remove reliable and credible sources. Rusdo (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream Bible scholars, comparing the Gospels, speak of their authors playing fast and loose with the facts, while Licona is speaking about their motivation (authorial intent), which eventually determined them to play fast and loose with the facts. MBS claim the Gospels are historically unreliable because these have differences, while Licona claims these have differences because of literary customs. MBS take those differences seriously, while Licona tries to explain them away. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Assumption Narrative

Daniel Smith's article “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q" pp. 130. states the following:

On the other hand, the most important element of Mark's Empty Tomb story that is not consistent with assumption narratives is the word (Greek word) "He has been raised."

On pp. 134 he says:

This is all somewhat conjectural, however, and a detailed tradition-historical analysis of Mark 16:1-8 is impossible here (in the article).

In the article, Smith quotes Collins (who is already quoted in the Wikipedia article), but discussions of a possible assumption narrative in Mark of the empty tomb needs be established by more sources before it warrants inclusion. It seems that Smith himself admits, at least in his earlier work, that this explanation is problematic. Rusdo (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Full article can be found here: www.jstor.org/stable/1561013 Rusdo (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rusdo: I don't understand your intent here. The paper you cite (Smith 2003) outlines at pp. 130-135 how Elias Joseph Bickerman in 1924, Neill Hamilton in 1965, and Adela Yarbro Collins in 1992 all suggested that Mark may have adapted a source in which the empty tomb story functioned as an assumption narrative to his own resurrection theology, and also defends that view himself (both in his 2003 paper and in his monograph on the subject, Smith 2010). In the 2003 paper, he actually cites no other scholar that objects to it, only making some hedging remarks himself, which you quote here. It would be quite undue to take these hedging remarks as somehow representing the standard view, and all the sources he cites, as well as his own argument about it, as somehow representing a minority view. It's only a hypothesis, and seems to be treated as such by all parties involved, but apparently multiple scholars view it as a likely hypothesis. The current paragraph in the article is less than clear, but it seems that we cite only Dale Allison as opposing the hypothesis? If we have four scholars arguing for it and only one against it, I don't understand why we would need more sources to include it? Shouldn't we rather need more sources arguing against it to exclude it? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction between Allison's position and Smith's. Allison seems to be arguing just against the idea that the empty tomb story was invented by Mark not that it come from a tradition separate from the resurrection appearances. LittleJerry (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I'm a little surprised at your reading of the article. The two scholars that are cited are from the early to mid 20th century and their understanding of the assumption narrative comes from the context of resurrections in mystery religions, a notion long since abandoned in scholarship. Smith in his article cites numerous scholars who see the empty tomb as a resurrection narrative, not as an assumption narrative. These include Rudolf Bultmann. The fact that these scholars don't argue directly against assumption indicates that they don't find this hypothesis widespread enough to even warrant a response. Most scholars will respond and treat the empty tomb narrative for what it (if I may be so bold) obviously is - a story of resurrection.

As for Allison, he doesn't argue against assumption. He's talking about an entirely different subject, which is why it makes no sense to include the information about assumption where it currently stands. It's a different topic altogether. That's why the current structure of the paragraphs is confusing and very misleading. Collins' view is already represented in the article. The current structure is incoherent.

Here are the issues with the information as it currently stands:

1. A lack of qualification of the assumption narrative. Smith admits that this hypothesis has its holes.
2. "Many people in antiquity" is not applicable when it comes to Christian resurrection belief. Christian resurrection belief originated from Jewish resurrection beliefs. This is the mainstream view in scholarship, represented by multiple scholars in the first paragraph.
3. A completely illogical and incoherent structure. The information is just thrown into the section without regard for logical transitions between different ideas.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem including the potential assumption narrative here, but it must come with the necessary qualifications that are brought up by the scholar who's being cited. If we're going to delete any all qualifications and present the material with more confidence than does the scholar himself, I'm sorry, we're going to need some more sources here. Rusdo (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with #3, i.e., that the paragraph is currently incoherent and needs to be rewritten. As for the rest, it is you that is going to need to come up with sources. You're right that Smith 2003 cites Bultmann as a scholar who disagreed with Bickerman's classification of the empty tomb story as an assumption narrative in footnote 38 on p. 131, but in that very same footnote he cites no less than 4 (!) other scholars who agree with Bickerman's view. I overlooked that in my first reading, simply because the general tenor of Smith 2003 is so overwhelmingly contradicting your suggestion that the hypothesis of an assumption narrative would be a tiny minority view. Just like with your completely undue focus on Smith 2003's hedging remarks (every self-respecting scholar points out the weaknesses in the hypothesis they defend, but this type of scholarly details is generally ignored by Wikipedia's summary style), your focus on 1 rejecting scholar in a footnote that cites 4 defending scholars is quite baffling. I feel I should warn you that such blatant misrepresentation of sources is not acceptable here.

Furthermore, how are you arguing at the same time that the hypothesis is not widespread enough to warrant a response and that Rudolf Bultmann rejected it? Obviously, Bultmann did respond to Bickerman, as did the other scholars cited by Smith 2003, p. 131, n. 38. More generally too, Bickerman's views are very well respected and still often cited (which of course doesn't mean that they are always accepted; many of them have long been abandoned). Collins is likewise very well-respected. I don't really know about Daniel Smith, but he published a whole monograph on the subject with Fortress Press (Smith 2010). I'm sorry to say so, but the idea that the views of these scholars would be entirely ignored by others just seems preposterous to me. They certainly are reliable sources, and per WP:NPOV what is due and not needs to be established on the basis of sources. We already have Bultmann as a source who rejected the hypothesis as formulated by Bickerman. It is very likely that there are others rejecting Collins' and Smith's more recent formulations of it, so we just need to find them.

Finally, it seems like you are confusing the idea defended by Smith that the empty tomb story originated in an assumption narrative that was adapted by Mark to the Pauline (and generally Christian) resurrection theology, with (A) the idea that the empty tomb story does not represent a belief in resurrection, or with (B) the idea that Christian resurrection theology itself has a Hellenistic mythological background rather than a Jewish one. Bickerman 1924 and especially Hamilton 1965 came close to (A), but this was specifically denied by Collins 1992 and Smith 2003, while (B) is a view that was defended by Bickerman (and actually also accepted by Bultmann), but that has since been more generally abandoned. All Mettinger 2001, p. 221 (as cited in the first paragraph) says is that B is incorrect (as do all modern scholars, though in another vein Troels Engberg-Pedersen has recently argued for an important Stoic philosophical influence on Paul's thinking about resurrection), and –on a completely different note– that he is not convinced by Collins's argument that the empty tomb story is Mark's invention. But other scholars who defend the assumption narrative hypothesis do not argue that the story is Mark's invention, and this actually has nothing to do with it.

I'm not commenting on the actual strength of the assumption narrative hypothesis (I'm really quite ignorant on this subject), but as you know, the fact that you personally believe it be weak is of no relevance here. I suggest you look for some sources who cite Smith 2003 and Smith 2010 (you can do that by clicking on "cited by" in Google scholar, e.g., clicking on it here gets you this), and see what other sources are saying about him. However, please don't jump on every clause you might find that aligns with your personal POV while ignoring all the rest that a source might be saying, like you did with Smith 2003. Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite startled at your response and your insinuations that I'm misrepresenting sources. I've looked over the articles and read more research by Smith and I've realized that that's not the case. I'm fully understanding his position and he needs to be quoted accurately. You're right. Selectively quoting from sources is quite common on Wikipedia, but this is a problem, not something to hold up as an example. My focus on his remarks has to do with citing him correctly. Scholarly points of view need to be presented accurately and within the proper context. Distorting and cherry-picking quotes is not summarizing).

I'm beyond frustrated that you haven't taken the time to understand my points. I have no qualms with Bickerman, nor with Collins. But their views need to be presented within a proper context. The article as it stands is grossly misleading. It needs proper qualifications. I repeat: cherry-picking quotes is not summarizing. Ignoring qualifications isn't summarizing, nor is it accurate.

On another point, I haven't confused anything! Smith states multiple times throughout his article that assumption stands in tension with resurrection.

I've spent an entire hour browsing through and looking for direct responses to Smith. Either they're all behind paywalls on sites that I don't have access to, or this plethora of articles discussing an assumption origin just doesn't exist. A Google search for "Empty tomb assumption narrative" turns up Smith's articles and this Wikipedia page. That's it! Pardon me if I choose not to devote any more time to this.

Anyways, I'm willing to concede inclusion of the assumption narrative as long as we properly cite the scholars. Might I take the liberty and offer a few suggestions on the article page for you to observe. Rusdo (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, you can keep your comments about POV pushing to yourself. As you can imagine, they really bother me. You've reminded me before how important it is to assume the best of the other person in a text only format. I'd appreciate it if you do the same with me. I'm trying to accurately represent what the sources say and present only the best sources on the page. I know you're trying to do the same. Rusdo (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Bear with me as I move things around. See if you'll like how it looks in the end. Rusdo (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I can imagine that you don't like being accused of POV pushing, but as I said, I find it baffling how you take two hedging remarks to turn an author's entire argument on its head, and when that has been kindly pointed out to you, you cite one source that agrees with your POV and completely ignore four others that don't. You continue to baffle me by not trying to explain how you came to ignore those four sources and by rather claiming that ... we should not cherry-pick sources? Then you can't seem to find any source (beyond Bultmann) rejecting a view for which we have, what is it, eight different sources, and you deduce from this that you can't find anything because maybe the view is not very widespread? It's all ... extremely baffling. As I said at the start, I just don't understand your intent. Note the question marks. But I do understand that the result is potentially damaging for the project. Yes, I tend to take WP:AGF more seriously then most other editors, but AGF is not a suicide pact. I don't want to vex you, but if I honestly believe you are badly misrepresenting a source, it is in the best interest of everyone involved that I point this out.

Anyways, I like your rewriting of the section, and have made only some small changes to it. In the future, you might try immediately fixing (there's a thing here called WP:SOFIXIT) the whole section as you ended up doing: achieving consensus through editing often works very well, if the edits are done after some diving in the sources and if they directly take a structural approach rather than just removing or adding bits and pieces. Thanks for your efforts, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it was too much to expect you to comb through the revision history of the article before engaging in the talk page. Had you done that you would've realized that achieving consensus through editing was the first thing that I tried to do. I'm not turning the author's argument on its head. You're missing the point. I was bringing up elements up the author's argument left out of the page as it stood. Bringing up missing elements doesn't mean that I misunderstood the author; on the contrary, it means that I read through and understood fully what he was saying and how he was qualifying his argument. I don't understand why it's necessary to go out and look for more sources when the author himself qualifies his own argument. Yes, all good scholars do that and therefore, good articles on Wikipedia should be nuanced. Otherwise, we are cherry-picking data which is common on Wikipedia, but that's not a justification for doing so. So if the qualifications are removed then the source material should be removed as well. Otherwise, the page is dishonestly and incorrectly presenting the point of view of the author.

Again, my expectation was that you'd comb through the history of the page and the edits made. My comments were within the broader context of the edits and discussions going on here. But I guess I had to spell it out for you. Glad you like the page as it stands.

And by the way, this isn't about WP:AGF. It's about taking the time to understand my point of view before accusing me of POV pushing. Bringing out the charge of POV pushing without actually understanding what's being discussed isn't helpful to anyone. It's in the best interest that you take some time to fully grasp what the other person is saying instead of jumping to conclusions like you so unceremoniously did right here. Again, happy that you're fine with the end product. I would've appreciated a little more understanding before hurling accusations. It's a text medium someone once told me. Tone is important. Rusdo (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing and removal of references

@Rusdo: I don't know why you are taking this matter so seriously to the point of deleting sourced content with reliable references at your will simply because you don't like what those sources state, but removing sourced informations with cited references from the encyclopedia, repeatedly and most importantly without consensus while other editors have clearly stated that they disagree with your edits, qualifies as a violation of the WP policies WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:REFREMOVAL, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOVHOW, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCENSORED. GenoV84 (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw, instead of reverting other people's edits with lengthy accusations of POV editing and original research, as you did on this article multiple times towards me and other users before, I suggest you to try to assume good faith and be more collaborative with other editors and avoid disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate your point. GenoV84 (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84 Cease your disruptive editing. This is your second warning. If you feel strongly about your edits, defend them on the talk page or find a second source. Editing a source to fit your POV won't be tolerated. Rusdo (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rusdo: Although Jews, Greeks, and Romans all believed in the reality of resurrection seems to me a pretty far-fetched claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Read the sources from Kandida Moss and Tom Wright. Rusdo (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rusdo: Quoting cited references is not disruption; accusing other users and violating WP policies is, as you just did. GenoV84 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the sourced content written by me months ago that you keep deleting regardless of other editors' objections to your accusations of disruptive editing:

According to some biblical scholars, the original account of the empty tomb in Mark contained no mention of an angel, the resurrection of Jesus, or his appearances in Galilee, describing instead the women's coming to the tomb, finding the tomb empty, and fleeing from the tomb in terror and silence.

Please explain what is disruptive about this, because it's a quote taken from an academic source, and I can't find a good reason to delete it. GenoV84 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@GenvoV84 I deleted it because I felt it was unnecessary since the first sentence of the paragraph conveys the same information. IMHO, the two sentences should be combined: they're paraphrases of each other.

This is the content you wrote:

In the original ending of the Gospel of Mark, considered the oldest of all canonical gospels, a young man tells the women who discover the tomb that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee. The women then flee, telling no one. Matthew introduces guards and a curious doublet where the women are told twice, by angels and then by Jesus, that he will meet the disciples in Galilee. Luke changes Mark's one "young man" to two, adds Peter's inspection of the tomb, and deletes the promise that Jesus would meet his disciples in Galilee. John reduces the women to the solitary Mary Magdalene and introduces the "beloved disciple" who visits the tomb with Peter and who is the first to understand its significance. According to some biblical scholars, the original account of the empty tomb in Mark contained no mention of an angel, the resurrection of Jesus, or his appearances in Galilee, describing instead the women's coming to the tomb, finding the tomb empty, and fleeing from the tomb in terror and silence.

This is how I combined what you wrote with the opening sentence of the paragraph. You can confirm this in the article history.

According to some biblical scholars, the original ending of the Gospel of Mark, considered the oldest of all canonical gospels, didn't mention an angel, the resurrection of Jesus, or his appearances in Galilee. Instead, a young man tells the women who discover the tomb that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee. The women then flee, telling no one. Matthew introduces guards and a curious doublet where the women are told twice, by angels and then by Jesus, that he will meet the disciples in Galilee. Luke changes Mark's one "young man" to two, adds Peter's inspection of the tomb, and deletes the promise that Jesus would meet his disciples in Galilee. John reduces the women to the solitary Mary Magdalene and introduces the "beloved disciple" who visits the tomb with Peter and who is the first to understand its significance.

My goal was not remove the sourced material but rather to prevent information from duplicating itself in the article. That said, if you really want to keep the sentence as it stands at the end of the paragraph, I won't fight about it.Rusdo (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Afterlife vs resurrection

To modern readers, these seem synonymous, but these are two different concepts. Resurrection (coming back to life after death) and an after-life (an immaterial soul or something like that living on after death) are not the same. Jewish concepts of resurrection included dying again after rising from the dead (like some of the stories in the Old Testament.) This is not an after-life which often meant going up to a heaven-like place and living with deities. As Tom Wright says, resurrection is life after life, not life after death. Both sources from Wright and Moss discuss this further. Rusdo (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

False statement about the reason why the women came back

The statement "Mark and Luke tell the reader that the women visited the tomb in order to finish anointing the body of Jesus, but this explanation seems artificial given that it could have been done on the evening of the crucifixion rather than 36 hours later" is not what the source says. The source says "In Mark, the end of the passion narrative offers no explanation why they could not finish the task on Friday, so that their reason for returning seems artificial." Later the source says "Here [in Luke], in contrast to Mark, they have a reason to return Sunday morning to finish their anointing: the first sundown of sabbath was already beginning while Jesus was being buried (v 54), and the women were observant of sabbath regulations (v 56)." SanctumRosarium (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to talk - edit wars do no one any good. Thank you also for taking the time to make a close reading of the source. The sentence to which you object is this, I believe:

• Mark and Luke tell the reader that the women visited the tomb in order to finish anointing the body of Jesus, but this explanation seems artificial given that it could have been done on the evening of the crucifixion rather than 36 hours later; in Matthew the women came simply to see the tomb...

Page 207 of Osiek (the source) says: The reason given for their return [the subject here is the women], the unfinished anointing of the body, is highly suspect. This supports the first half of the sentence, "Mark and Luke tell the reader that the women visited the tomb in order to finish anointing the body of Jesus ... It occurs only in Mark and Luke". ... Their reason for returning seems artificial...". This seems to me to support the first half of the sentence. Osiek continues by taking into account apologetic explanations for the delay, and concludes: "[W]hen this anointing is to be done more than 36 hours after burial, it still strains credibility." You seem to be trying to push the apologetics over the conclusion of the source, which to my mind is not acceptable.

Thank you for your response. After reading carefully the controversial sentence and what the source, it appears that your interpretation is not correct and that the sentence needs to be rephrased in accordance with what the source says.

Let's see in detail what the source says (quotes from sections Mark 16:1-8 and Luke 24:1-11 in the source):

• (1)In Mark and Luke, the women come back to the tomb to finish the anointing of the body ("It occurs only in Mark and Luke").
• (2)In Mark, no reason is given to explain why they could not finish the task on Friday ("In Mark, the end of the passion narrative offers no explanation why they could not finish the task on Friday").
• (3)In Luke, a reason is given to explain why they could not finish the task on Friday ("Here, in contrast to Mark, they have a reason to return Sunday morning to finish their anointing").

Therefore, the statement "Mark and Luke tell the reader that the women visited the tomb in order to finish anointing the body of Jesus, but this explanation seems artificial given that it could have been done on the evening of the crucifixion rather than 36 hours later" is false, as it implies that no explanation is given in Luke to explain why the task was delayed, which is exactly the opposite of (3)! Therefore the sentence has to be modified.

Now regarding the sentence you quoted from the source ("The reason given for their return, the unfinished anointing of the body, is highly suspect"), it is not immediately relevant here. First, the false statement in the article has to be changed. After the statement is correct, we can discuss whether it is relevant to include additional information regarding the "credibility" of the accounts and the fact that the reason given for the return of the women seems "highly suspect". Sorry for being long, hope it makes sense! SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please indent your responses and posts, it makes it easier to follow the conversation.

I've re-read the source and it still seems to me that it supports our article. Here's the sentence in the article:

• Mark and Luke tell the reader that the women visited the tomb in order to finish anointing the body of Jesus, but this explanation seems artificial given that it could have been done on the evening of the crucifixion rather than 36 hours later; in Matthew the women came simply to see the tomb.... The source is Carolyn Osiek, 2001, p.207; the link gives or should give, the page,, and I'll quote the entire paragraph adding my own comments:
• The reason given for their return, the unfinished anointing of the body, is highly suspect. This supports that part of our sentence that says the women visited the tomb to finish anointing the body. It occurs only in Mark and Luke.This supports the statement that "Mark and Luke tell the reader...". In Mark, the end of the passion narrative offers no explanation why they could not finish the task on Friday, so that their reason for returning seems artificial. The supports the statement in our article that "this explanation seems artificial given that it could have been done on the evening of the crucifixion rather than 36 hours later." Moreover, reopening the tomb to anoint the body nearly two days later has been seen by most commentators as incredible. This means that the perception of artificiality is notable and should be in our article. It has been objected that what is envisioned is not complete anointing, but rather a general honorific sprinkling [...] But when this anointing is to be done more than 36 hours after burial, it still strains credibility. This is the source of the "36 hours" in our article.

The quotations you give don't seem to be in the book I'm looking at. Can you give a link? Achar Sva (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, this is a link to the full article: Osiek 1997

Please see the inserted comments in your text:

The reason given for their return, the unfinished anointing of the body, is highly suspect. This supports that part of our sentence that says the women visited the tomb to finish anointing the body. Yes. It occurs only in Mark and Luke.This supports the statement that "Mark and Luke tell the reader...". Yes. In Mark, the end of the passion narrative offers no explanation why they could not finish the task on Friday, so that their reason for returning seems artificial. The supports the statement in our article that "this explanation seems artificial given that it could have been done on the evening of the crucifixion rather than 36 hours later." Yes but in this sentence it applies to both Mark and Luke while the source explicitly says it applies to Mark only, as confirmed by what the source later says about Luke. Moreover, reopening the tomb to anoint the body nearly two days later has been seen by most commentators as incredible. This means that the perception of artificiality is notable and should be in our article. Yes but this is only for Mark and not for Luke. It has been objected that what is envisioned is not complete anointing, but rather a general honorific sprinkling [...] But when this anointing is to be done more than 36 hours after burial, it still strains credibility. This is the source of the "36 hours" in our article. Yes but this is only for Mark.

SanctumRosarium (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:SanctumRosarium. The source says the unfinished anointing is in Mark and Luke. But the rest of the commentary (e.g. artificiality, 36 hours, etc) refers to Mark's account only. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium - ok, you've convinced me. I'll re-write the paragraph tomorrow. Achar Sva (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)