This already seems a little dubious. What I think needs to be established is that it's a mere literary device. I see no reason to think that X being a literary device implies that X is unhistorical (or ahistorical).
Perhaps Reddit is making an abductive argument. It is established that this list of authors (a1, a2, a3, . . .), in this list of genres (g1, g2, g3, . . .), use the Empty Tomb Motif (ETM) as a mere literary device. The best explanation of an ETM by an author A in a genre G is that ETM is a mere literary device (MLD). And if ETM is an MLD, then ETM is unhistorical or ahistorical. It'll be impossible to fully address Reddit's argument without an analysis of the provided list of A's and whether or not the A's mentioned are relevantly similar to the A's of The Gospels in how they use ETM within the context of a particular G. And much of the argumentation overlaps with and can draw inspiration from The Pagan Copycat thesis to various degrees.
Let's just look at one. Reddit brings up Aristeas (circa 7th century BC), mentioned in book IV.13-16 of The Histories (440 BC) by Herodotus. Wikipedia mentions that Aristeas was "a semi-legendary Greek poet and miracle-worker, a native of Proconnesus in Asia Minor, active ca. 7th century BC." Also mentioned is that Herodotus mentions Aristeas 240 years after his death! Already similarities with The Gospels (not to mention Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and not to mention the 15th chapter's including the quoted oral tradition that's older than the letter) are absent. There's a contested quote from Longinus (from the 1st century A.D.) of Aristeas, but it's once again so far after his contested existence that a parallel with the New Testament is too strained for me. And consider the G within which Aristeas worked: mere poetry. Paul's letters are epistolary; The Gospels are ancient biography. There are poetic elements within these works, but the ETM in The Gospels and Paul's letter isn't used poetically at all. It just sounds to me like 'matter of fact' reporting. In terms of poetic ornamentation, it's just bland and banal. For me, this strains credulity even more. I bring up these dissimilarities because Reddit implies that if I accept the Aristeas-account of ETM as unhistorical, then I'm rationally obliged to accept The Gospel-accounts of ETM as unhistorical. That doesn't follow for me. Work W in one G1 by A1 could utilize ETM, and because of (1) the wider gap between attestation of A1's W and the composition of A1's W, and (2) the difference between another work W* and W in terms of W*'s G2 (which suits historical authenticity much more than G1) implies (for me) that I just can't feel the pull of Reddit's argument, in this case.
Reddit argues that the many instances of Greco-Roman motifs (ETM) explain why the N.T. authors would be motivated to use their own ETM. This is also highly dubious to me. Due to G-differences (motivated in part by the main thrust of the 3rd Quest for the Historical Jesus that He and His accounts ought to be understood from within the context, not of Greco-Roman society, but in terms of Palestinian Judaism) and the above-mentioned historiographical point regarding the gap between composition and attestation (and a host of other reasons for thinking the historicity of the Empty Tomb is more probably true than not), I just see no good reason to think Reddit's argument has this implication. There isn't an indication that Reddit is familiar with the reasons for thinking ETM is historical. Mentioned is that it's a 'story'. But if that is what Reddit thinks constitutes the reason why the majority of N.T. scholars believe ETM to be historical, then I think he is just uninformed. And the crude way Reddit represents The Synoptic Problem is just too quick and unsophisticated for me. The dismissal of St. John's eyewitness account is also too quick. Reddit wants to deny multiple attestations for ETM and make that a reason for thinking ETM is a mere literary device. But I just find his reasons for denying multiple attestations unpersuasive, especially because it ignores Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
We can simplify the argument as follows by asking ourselves the question "what would we expect to see given if the empty tomb was a historical fact vs what would we expect to see given that the authors were simply employing the "missing body" motif?
ReplyDeleteBoth explanations equally explain the data so there has to be a tie breaker. Given the evidence, It's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they were reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its own historicity.
Do you have any other evidence besides the story itself? Keep in mind, Matthew and Luke copy Mark (so not independent). Paul doesn't mention it and John was written so late that he cannot be demonstrated to be wholly independent due to the Markan narrative being in circulation for 20 years or so before John composed. There is also evidence that John was familiar with Luke or Lukan traditions which mitigates against independence.
The point of the argument was not to show the empty tomb story is false but to show the literary theme explanation accounts for the data just as well as historicity. This means that the empty tomb proponent can no longer claim historicity is the most probable explanation.
I'll respond to a few of your points:
"Already similarities with The Gospels (not to mention Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, and not to mention the 15th chapter's including the quoted oral tradition that's older than the letter) are absent...."
Where does Paul mention any of the details regarding the empty tomb story? Where is there any hint of this "oral tradition" regarding the empty tomb in Paul's letters? Keep in mind "implying" an empty tomb is not sufficient because that doesn't therefore mean Paul corroborates the empty tomb story from the gospels.
"Due to G-differences (motivated in part by the main thrust of the 3rd Quest for the Historical Jesus that He and His accounts ought to be understood from within the context, not of Greco-Roman society, but in terms of Palestinian Judaism)"
The gospels are Greco-Roman biographies written in Greek. As far as I'm aware there is no evidence of a "Palestinian Jewish" source for the empty tomb story. Some apologists appeal to the story in Matthew where it says the Jews said the disciples stole the body but the problem with this is that the Jews could have just been responding to the Markan narrative that was in circulation before Matthew composed. Thus, their response wasn't necessarily to a historical empty tomb, but rather, the Markan claim of an empty tomb.
"and the above-mentioned historiographical point regarding the gap between composition and attestation (and a host of other reasons for thinking the historicity of the Empty Tomb is more probably true than not), I just see no good reason to think Reddit's argument has this implication."
Not sure why the time gap matters. The point is the theme already existed in Greco-Roman literature and was used of heroes, divine figures, and to signify supernatural intervention. Thus, it's just expected that the authors would apply it to Jesus.