Another Reason Paul Doesn’t Mention The Empty Tomb

 Paul’s audience in Corinth wasn’t doubting Jesus’ resurrection; rather, they were doubting their future resurrections (1 Cor. 15:12-13, 29, etc.). The empty tomb wouldn’t be evidence for the general resurrection that Paul’s audience was doubting. Indeed, an empty tomb is just a by-product of the general resurrection, since it is a bodily event. 

Bibliography For Exploring Reality's Resurrection Stream

 A few months ago, some of the staff here at ThinkChristianTheism participated in a live stream presenting a case for the resurrection of Jesus. There have been a lot of technical issues that involve posting some of the sources we cited. Given that, I thought I would just post them here. Some of the titles mentioned below are papers, so if you don't have access to them and would like to, don't hesitate to comment or email me. I also may have missed some material, so feel free to ask about that as well! 

• Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate 
• NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
• Caleb Jackson, Undead
• Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus
• __. The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History 
• Craig Keener, Christobiography 
• Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach 
• Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Transdisciplinary Approach
• JD Atkins, The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church
• Christopher Bryan, The Resurrection of the Messiah 
• Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus 
• All of the sources discussed for the burial (and some for the appearances) section of the stream are linked on my previous post. 

Recent Trends in Scholarship Favorable to Christianity

 This post will cover various topics. Some will be broad, some will be more specific. As the title of this post suggests, I'll be linking to some material in contemporary scholarship that I think is important for the apologist to have in their arsenal. 

• Recent commentaries on Isaiah 53 agree that the servant in question is a single person. Of course, not all commentators will agree that it is Jesus, but how many candidates fulfill the passage in such a way as Jesus does? 
• The argument that Paul didn't know of or believe in an empty tomb is now untenable thanks to the work of James P. Ware and John Granger Cook. See also my quote and additional commentary from Dale Allison's recent book on the resurrection. 
• The burial of Jesus has been convincingly argued for by scholars such as Byron McCane, Craig Evans, Jodi Magness and John Granger Cook. 
• The debate about Christology, of course, rages on, but here are some papers that are rarely discussed, at least in online circles. Jason Combs on Mark 6:49-50, Brian McPhee's paper on Jesus walking on the water, and Thomas Keiser's paper on the divine plural in the Old Testament.

If I linked a paper that you can't access, send me an email - which is available on my blogger profile. 

Dale Allison And The Maximal Facts vs. Minimal Facts Debate

 I am finally getting around to reading Dale Allison's recent book on the resurrection (The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History). In his discussion of the empty tomb, Allison makes a valuable point about defending the Gospels as it relates to the empty tomb. Before I provide the quote, it should be noted that Allison doesn't fall into either the minimal facts or maximal data camp. He thinks that several naturalistic theories can explain the minimal facts. As for the Gospels, he states, “Although the Gospels contain mythical elements, they are not on the whole mythological constructs” (p. 21). Of course, this doesn't mean that Allison doesn't believe we can learn a lot about the historical Jesus from the Gospels, but it's not the type of confidence that could get you to a maximal data approach. With that aside, here is the relevant quote:

“As a footnote, I should observe that the immediately preceding paragraphs assume, for the sake of argument, what so many modern scholars take for granted, namely, that those whose names are now attached to the canonical Gospels did not write them. If, however, as some still hold, that John Mark known from Acts… Who is named as a coworker of Paul in Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm. 24, wrote the second gospel, and/or if the Luke mentioned in Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm. 24 composed Luke-Acts, everything changes. If Paul’s close associates included the author of Mk. 16:1-8 or of Lk. 24:1-12 or both men, the odds that the apostle was unacquainted with a story about an empty tomb approach zero.” p. 145

A lot of skeptics tout the argument that Paul didn't believe in an empty tomb because it isn't mentioned in 1 Cor. 15. Of course, the minimal facts crowd can point out (correctly) that Paul's usage of "egeiro" in 1 Cor. 15 necessitates that Paul would have believed in an empty tomb (see here for more on "egeiro" and 1 Cor. 15). However, this does not mean that Paul was familiar with the same empty tomb narratives in the Gospels. Although, yes, this is still inferential when defending the Gospels, it makes Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb traditions in the Gospels much more likely.

For more on the maximal data approach, see this playlist put together here, by Lydia McGrew. This playlist includes multiple videos from Lydia herself and Erik Manning of Testify.