The fallacy of the missing body

When I was but a wee baby Christian, I attended a devotional service for college students in my church wherein evidence for the truth of Christianity's claims was presented. One of the linchpins of this so-called evidence was expressed in the form of the question, "What happened to the body?"


We were given a few choices, each of which was easily refuted as a realistic or logical possibility. The Romans took it? Why wouldn't they have produced it to disprove the claims of Jesus' resurrection? Jesus wasn't really dead? Then how come blood and water came out when the soldier stuck the spear into his side to make sure he was dead? The disciples took it? Then why were they so willing to die for something they knew to be a lie? Etc.

Looking at these evidences now, I see that they all have the same fundamental weakness. They are like the house of cards described by Vinny Gambini:


"Let me show you something. (he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy) He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you. (turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy) When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick."

Here's the trick: They cleverly begin their argument with the assumption that any of the details of the story have any credibility whatsoever. In a court of law they would have to prove every bit of it as a foundation for their argument. In effect they're saying, "We know that all of this really happened as described. So, where is the body?" Hold on a minute! We don't "know" any such thing.

Here you have a story that wasn't even written down until decades after the purported events, whose authors are unknown, whose accounts are contradictory, and whose assertions are uncorroborated in the historical record. (Check out Bart Ehrman on this topic.)

This is a common tactic with apologists. Take the "Lunatic, liar or Lord" false choice as another example. How about "Legend"? The moral of this post is, look at the cards side on before accepting the premise of the argument.


Follow me on Twitter. Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.