We are discussing the historicity of the empty tomb, there is nothing supernatural there.
Well since Matthew had to invent guards to prove no one had stolen the body it looks like a resurrection narrative.
It's part of a myth so it isn't part of history. There is no "historicity of the empty tomb" in history? They do have the question about Jesus because he may have been a Jewish teacher. Gospel narratives are not historical.
The text in Mathew implies that there was a polemic for trying to explain the empty tomb.
It implies people heard about Mark and were like "sounds like the body was stolen". So Matthew had to invent guards and a space creature who paralyzed the guards to show no one could mess with the tomb. See, fiction.
Also Mark says directly that there were no witnesses. Mark himself gives us a clue that he is fabricating when he conveniently lets slip that no one witness to it ever reported it—evidently, “until now” (see
Mark 16:1-8).
That is funny, since your own source uses the same logic to reject the Q hypothesis
Non-sequitur. Gospels are not demigods. Gospels exist and people see them.
There are 7 main arguments for the Markan priority. They are listed here:
https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
So according to your source:
-no one has ever seen Q therefore Q doenst excist
By that logic
No one has ever seen a document showing that the tomb was not empty therefore the tomb was empty
So it’s the same logic, so ether accept both or reject both
That is one big old strawman. The argument is detailed and has 7 main points all covered here in far greater detail:
https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
these are from a less scholarly article on stack exchange
Abstract
The primary argument for Markian priority is the strong evidence that both Luke and Matthew redacted Mark's material. If Mark were a summary of Matthew, we would expect it to smooth out any rough edges. However the reverse is true. In the triple tradition, it's invariably Mark that has the rough edges that are smoothed out by Luke and Matthew.
Agreement in Wording
While Matthew, Mark and Luke differ slightly from one another, when the tell the story, on the whole, they use the exact same words.
Agreement in Order
Stories are often arranged topically or non-chronologically in Matthew, Mark and Luke. And yet in their topical arrangement of stories Matthew, Mark and Luke exhibit remarkable similarities in order.
Agreement in Parenthetical Material
Parenthetical material are things clearly written by an author and not imbedded in the story itself. When parenthetical material appears one or more gospels it again suggests that someone was copy the other.
Unusual Agreements
The gospel writers occasionally differ in their quotations of Old Testament Scripture. However, when they do differ with Old Scripture they typically agree with one another.
Luke's Authorial Testimony
Luke also indicates that a literary relationship existed between his gospel and others (1:1-4)
Mark’s Poorer Writing Style
Colloquialisms and inferior writing style
In Mark 10:20 the rich young man replies to the question of Jesus concerning the commandments, “All these I have observed (ephylaxamen) from my youth.” The parallels in Matthew 19:20 and Luke 18:21 change the verb to ephylaxa.
In Mark 1:12 we read that after Jesus’ baptism the Spirit “drove” (ekballei) him into the wilderness to be tempted. The word in Mark is almost always negative. Thus, Matthew 4:1 reads “Jesus was led up (anechthe) by the Spirit,” and Luke 4:1 states that Jesus “was led (egeto) by the Spirit.”
No Paul does not mention an empty tomb. Period.
But even if it wherent the case, so what? the gospels where written by very well informed men who knew a lot of stuff about 1st century Palestine, so why not trusting them?
We don't know the gospel authors.
They were clearly writing fiction (Mark) as shown by his obvious use of Pauls work, copying narratives from Psalms and other fiction and use of myth style writing, Markan sandwiches, triadic inversions, impossibly improbable chiasms and allegories and parables.
The rest copied from Mark.
The main character scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale, higher than King Arthur.
The story is about Gods and supernatural events.
We do not trust mythic stories about demigods, angels and miracles from any culture, ever, as historical.
The religious ideas in the story just happens to be taking theology directly from 2 nations who invaded them. Persians and Greeks. Messianism, resurrection for everyone, apoctalyiptic senarios with all sorts of magical creatures.
None of this was in the Torah or was part of the theology in Judaism until the Persian invasion.
"During the period of the
Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian
Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the
Diadochi, and finally the
Roman Empire.
[32] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.
[32] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.
[33][34] The idea of the
immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy
[34] and the idea of the
resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.
[34] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.
[34] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.
[32] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the
Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).
[29] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.
[29]"
We know that romans and Jews where persecuting Christians, and at least the Jews considered them a mayor thread, so why not exposing the body and harm (if not destroy) the Christian movement?
Because, again, the gospel stories took place around 30AD. Written 80 years later. As fiction. The events did not happen. There may have been a man named Jesus teaching. Or it's entirely made up. There is no reason to even believe it happened and in 30AD there was a small cult who were telling stories. Possibly like other similar religions, the story took place in the celestial realm. Many demigods defeated an evil spirit in the heavens and the followers go to the afterlife. In 30 AD the Christian story may have been the same. Paul only knew of a spirit Jesus and visions, other followers and scripture. Nothing on Earth.
Now since you seem to like logical arguments if you think they can help your case (but reject many brought up that don't help it) there is explanations of the burial rituals of the Romans and Jews at the time 1/2 way down this article titled -
What’s Really the Case about Burial Customs of the Time?
. The burial story does not make sense at all.
Ms. Christian Apologist on Empty Tomb Stuff • Richard Carrier
