![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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)
@ Achar Sva: @ Tgeorgescu: I will explain my point:
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
Daniel Smith's article “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q" pp. 130. states the following:
On pp. 134 he says:
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)
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)
@ 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)
Although Jews, Greeks, and Romans all believed in the reality of resurrectionseems to me a pretty far-fetched claim. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
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)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. [1]
References
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)
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 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):
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)
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.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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.
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)
@ Achar Sva: @ Tgeorgescu: I will explain my point:
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
Daniel Smith's article “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q" pp. 130. states the following:
On pp. 134 he says:
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)
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)
@ 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)
Although Jews, Greeks, and Romans all believed in the reality of resurrectionseems to me a pretty far-fetched claim. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
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)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. [1]
References
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)
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 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):
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)
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.