1 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 5 (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

The Women and the Empty Tomb


So, on Ludemann’s account, how do the stories of the women at the tomb found in the canonical gospels come to be told? As many scholars I’ve read have pointed out, having women, who were considered untrustworthy witnesses, as the first to see the risen Christ, was not exactly a way to get people to believe the stories. So why would the gospel writers tell the stories with the women in such a prominent place?


I’m not sure how Lüdemann would answer your question (I.e., I don’t recall off hand how he deals with it). But I thought that maybe I should give it a shot. I am not responding here with a long-held position that I have carefully thought through and worked out. I’m really just “thinking out loud” (well, thinking silently, at my keyboard, in any event).

I have indeed heard this argument for many years. In fact, I used to make it myself. The argument is that since women were not considered reliable witnesses (since their testimony was not acceptable even in a court of law), then no one would have invented the idea that it was precisely women who discovered that Jesus’ tomb was empty and that he was, therefore, raised from the dead.

I have lots of comments about that view – the one I used to hold – but will give them only in short order now.

FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PIECE!!!

You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.

Paul and the Resurrection of the “Flesh”?
Paul’s View of Resurrection



  1. Avatar
    RonaldTaska  October 9, 2012

    Fascinating conclusion.

  2. Avatar
    Xeronimo74  October 9, 2012

    Couldn’t it be that especially women were attracted to this new belief and therefore legends involving women came into existence? If I recall correctly then a big part of the early Christian community (when they still only met in private people’s places) apparently were women and that the faith got taught by the women to the children, the husbands often being rather indifferent about that new faith?

  3. Avatar
    Dennis Steenbergen  October 9, 2012

    We have Dr. Luedemann’s email address. We could ask him if he wanted to chime-in on this topic. gluedem@gwdg.de

    • Avatar
      Xeronimo74  October 10, 2012

      Now that would be cool! And we would be spoiled even more ;D
      I doubt he will but asking doesn’t hurt, right?

  4. Avatar
    Dennis Steenbergen  October 9, 2012

    I take back my last post. Dr Ludemann does talk about women finding the tomb and offer an opinion how it came to be written.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qCdv7VCunE (0:36:55)

  5. Avatar
    proveit  October 9, 2012

    If nobody went to the tomb and found it empty, wouldn’t we have relics? Maybe a talking skull in the Vatican? There are body parts of saints held and enshrined.

    The shock of finding the tomb empty would have probably provoked visions in the people who were most bonded with Jesus. They wouldn’t have said, “Oh, he has been moved,” they would have been aghast.

    I suppose, with regard to the story, it is a matter of which came first: the empty tomb or the visions. I thought you accounted for the empty tomb elsewhere, but here it seems you are saying it is myth.

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 9, 2012

      My sense now is that visions came first, and that hte empty tomb tradition came about by those wanting to stress that the body really was raised (as believed on the basis of the visions).

  6. Avatar
    andrew0410  October 9, 2012

    Might it not be the case that one or more of Jesus’ female followers experienced visions of Jesus after his death, as you have argued was the case with Peter and Paul? The tradition that Jesus had appeared to one or more women then got fed into and developed in the stories of the women coming to the empty tomb. (Even though there was in fact no empty tomb.)

  7. Avatar
    Scott F  October 9, 2012

    Another thought of mine is that the status of women in Palestine is not really germane. If the gospels were written for a Greek-speaking audience (they were written in Greek, after all) then the role of women in the wider imperial world (filtered through diaspora attitudes?) is what matters most.

  8. Avatar
    Jim  October 9, 2012

    I know this is a bit off the topic, but it may be distally related. Mark ends abruptly with some freaked out women and an empty tomb. What is the current consensus regarding this abrupt ending. Did Mark’s dog eat part of his homework? Is it highly probable that this document ended here and the other (later) gospels subsequently built on this ending based on what you suggest in this post. Or could the women/empty tomb scenario already have been part of an oral tradition from an early Christian community near Galilee (a possible origin of Mark) that Paul did not know much about during his time but that finally went to press in the 70s?

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 9, 2012

      There’s a split among scholars. Some (I *think* this is a minority, but possibly not hugely so) think that hte last page was “lost.” Others (probably more?) think he meant to end it there. That’s my view as well (the latter).

  9. Avatar
    toddfrederick  October 9, 2012

    I’m not sure where to ask a general question, so I’ll try here. It’s not related to the women at the empty tomb.

    I hope I can explain this adequately….my question is: “When did the term Christian come into use?”

    This is why I am asking: when I went to the hospital ER about a year ago they asked me for my religion in the event I died. I could not give them an answer. Even though I was born into a Christian home, attended Christian churches, studied at a Christian seminary, worked in Christian churches, I do not want to label myself “Christian.” When I label myself I put put myself in the “Christian Box” and there are Christian expectations placed on me. My freedom to believe is limited. I’m “boxed in.” If I went to a church and picked 10 people at random and asked them what it means to be a Christian, I would probably get 10 different answers. I’m currently debating this with some friends now on Facebook and in the church I attend, and am getting very mixed responses. I do not see myself as a Christian who is set apart from a Muslim, a Sikh, a Hindu, an atheist, a Mormon and on and on. I’m just a person who is seeking to find meaning in life. Jesus was not a Christian, I doubt that Paul called himself a Christian, and I’m not even sure those in the early church used that term. Now days we see many accusing Obama as not being a Christian, Romney is a Mormon, I’ve heard people say that our Catholic friends are Catholic and not Christian, and that the United States is a “Christian Nation.” I’m uncomfortable using that term.

    Do you have any information on the origin of the use of the word Christian (in its many linguistic forms), and any other thoughts you might have on this issue.

    Thank you, Todd Frederick

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 9, 2012

      Good question. It first gets used in the New Testament, in the book of Acts and in 1 Peter (so a total of two occurrences in the NT). In both instances it simply means someone who is a follower of (one committed to) Christ. What that might *mean* depends on all sorts of things. I know of Christians who say that if you don’t believe in the literal word-for-word truth of every word in the Bible you cannot be a Christian; others who say if you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth and Bodily resurrection (literally) you cannot be a Christian; others who say that they are Christian and who believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, and who do not think Jesus pre-existed, was born of a virgin, or was raised from the dead. So, well, there are differences of opinion out there (with most people who think one of these things or the other wondering either how someone who thinks something else could “really” be a Christian or wondering how so many Christians could be so hard-headed and wrong about whta they believe!)

      • Avatar
        zemi  October 13, 2012

        I believe the term “Christian” is used 3 times in the NT:

        ● Acts 11:26 (Χριστιανούς)
        ● Acts 26:28 (Χριστιανὸν)
        ● 1 Pet 4:16 (Χριστιανός)

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  October 14, 2012

          You’re right! Sorry, I was thinking two books, and mistakenly said two occurrences.

          • Avatar
            zemi  October 15, 2012

            Oh, I knew you knew this! : )

  10. Avatar
    Adam  October 9, 2012

    Thank you for this post.

    Another very very popular evidence put forward for the resurrection is “the disciples would not have died for what they knew was a lie, therefore it must have happened.” I hear this all the time. You note that they really believed they saw Jesus after he died so they were not lying. However, is there evidence (historical or literary) that they were killed because of their belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 9, 2012

      Great quesiton! I’ll deal with it on a post in a day or so.

    • Avatar
      donmax  October 9, 2012

      Hi Adam,

      I’ve heard this sort of claim coming from “Christians;” too. It’s evidence only for mindless and primitive fanaticism. Religious martyrs come in all sorts of guises, be they Christians, Muslims or Jews. Their willingness to die for fanatical beliefs says nothing about the rightness of their cause or the truth of their faith. Even Vikings chose death over enforced conversion when Charlemagne gave them the option. And lets not forget the Japanese in WWII, either.

    • Avatar
      Xeronimo74  October 10, 2012

      Also, people are willing to die for all kind of crazy beliefs. Doesn’t mean that those beliefs therefore are based on something real and thus true?

  11. Avatar
    toddfrederick  October 9, 2012

    Thanks for the answer to the term “Christian” question. Right now, the Pastor who endorsed Paul Ryan is saying that Romney is not a “Christian.” That’s how it gets all twisted. Who cares.

    I also second Adam’s question about being a martyr…..Why would anyone die for Jesus unless they were convinced that there is something very vital about being a believer. I will be interested in your comments.

    This is a great blog and I just discovered your video collection. I’m learning so much. Thank you for doing this.

    • Christopher Sanders
      Christopher Sanders  November 23, 2012

      Donmax’s answer to your question is something I can agree with. People have visions all the time.. Literally, ALL the time. It’s very common and really nothing we should be surprised at. People also act fanatical all the time too.

  12. Avatar
    Yentyl  October 9, 2012


  13. Avatar
    SJB  October 10, 2012

    Ok granted that Paul doesn’t mention the women or the empty tomb specifically in 1 Cor 15:3-8. But he does write that Jesus “died” and was “buried” and he was “raised on the third day”.

    I’ve always assumed that since he knew James and Peter that Paul must have gotten this tradition statement from them or their close associates. And I assume the greek here is is being translated straightforwardly.

    What does “buried” mean in this context? Is he implying they know for certain that Jesus was buried and that his body was not anonymously disposed of (the normal fate of executed criminals I gather) or is that reading too much into the statement?

    I think everyone agrees they thought Jesus was raised from the dead but where did they get the idea that it was on the “third day”? They seem to making a distinction between the specific resurrection “event” which happened on the “third day” and the subsequent appearances which by implication at least must have occurred over some length of time. I will assume that the followers of Jesus interpreted the appearances as evidence that the resurrection event had occurred and perhaps the empty tomb story arose because it was deemed necessary to have someone from the movement be a witness to the actual resurrection event. But again, why the “third day”?

    Is it possible there is a core memory that served as a common ancestor to both Paul’s catechism and the eventual development of the empty tomb story?

    I’m totally fascinated by this so feel free to add a discussion of 1 Cor 15 to your long list!


    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 10, 2012

      Yes, I think Paul definitely learned that Christ was “buried.” (Though he doesn’t say anything about Joseph of Arimathea.) That was the tradition early on. The question is whether it is historically right or not. My hunch is that Peter and Co. didn’t really know, personally, since they had already fled and were probably back in Galilee at the time it would have happened. But this is the tradition that was soon circulating. “The third day” is often attributed to a fulfillment of Scripture: Hosea 6:2.

      • Avatar
        Scott F  October 11, 2012

        Could the term “buried” have been Paul’s (and early Christians’) way of emphasizing that Jesus was completely dead, not just MOSTLY dead?

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  October 11, 2012

          Yes, it certainly would mean that for Paul! In 1 Cor. 15:3-5, though, it also functions as *verification* of the death, just as inthe next part of the saying, “he was seen” functions as a *verification* of the resurrection (both death and resurrection are also said to be “in accordance with the Scriptures” -=- so that the two statements are neatly balanced.

      • Christopher Sanders
        Christopher Sanders  November 24, 2012

        Interesting.. So you think the element of Jesus rising on the “third day” could have originated completely from interpretations of old testament scripture as prophecy? That seems totally plausible to me, I’m wondering if you’re aware of any other examples of such a thing happening.

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  November 26, 2012

          Lots of examples in the Passion narrative. You might look at John D. Crossan’s Who Killed Jesus? for lots of other places.

  14. Avatar
    ERHershman  October 10, 2012

    Thank you for answering this so thoughtfully and in detail. Your questioning of the scholarly “consensus” about the value of women’s testimony, is thought-provoking to say the least. I’ll have to look into this some more…

  15. Avatar
    ZachET  October 10, 2012

    Have you watched Ludemann’s debate with Craig? That was an interesting one

  16. Avatar
    toddfrederick  October 10, 2012

    1. I recently was trying to make sense out of the 3 days (3rd day) issue (and also the 4 days for Lazarus’ raising). I came across a comment that Jesus was in the tomb only 1.5 days…that is with regard to how Jews counted days.

    If Jesus was buried before sundown Friday, Friday would count as one full day. Then Friday through Friday before sundown would count as one full day 2. Then Saturday evening to Sunday morning would count as day 3.

    Thus, the Jews are counting days starting at sundown the day before. Jesus was in the tomb no more than 1.5 days, depending upon when his body vanished.


    2. If I recall, James Tabor speculates on a 2 Sabbaths (one for Passover and the Saturday Sabbath if Jesus was crucified in the year when Passover was on the Friday prior to the regular Saturday Sabbat) and the last supper was not the Passover meal since a Jew can’t be executed on a Sabbath.

    This gets rather confusing. Any thoughts?

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 11, 2012

      Yes, by *our* counting it is 1.5 days; by ancient Jewish reckoning it is 3 days. I don’t know about Tabor’s claim.

      • Avatar
        toddfrederick  October 12, 2012

        I read quite widely and many of these issues, and the directions the historians and archaeologists and textual scholars and theologians take can be quite confusing. Thank you for your responses.

  17. Avatar
    zemi  October 13, 2012

    You write:

    “[E]veryone knew that the disciples (the men) had themselves fled and gone into hiding (probably back home, in Galilee). So they obviously couldn’t go to the tomb on the third day.”

    But what about Peter? There doesn’t seem to be an indication he fled. If the story of finding the empty tomb had to be invented why wouldn’t Mark use Peter? (Well, my answer would be: because in Mark Jesus’ identity is grasped by some of the least expected characters.)

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  October 14, 2012

      Yup, that’s my response too. Plus, I think the stories of Peter tagging along till the trial are probalby not historical. In any event, there’s nothing to suggest that he was there for the crucifixion, and my sense is that he and the others feared for their lives and got out of Dodge.

      • Avatar
        zemi  October 15, 2012

        Thank you!

      • Avatar
        zemi  October 15, 2012

        One more thought – if Peter’s “tagging along till the trial” is probably not historical, what about his betrayal of Jesus? That did most probably happen, right (criterion of embarrassment)? Was his betrayal historical but then simply added to the passion story?

  18. Avatar
    sleonard  October 20, 2012

    Richard Carrier deals with this question in his book “Not the Impossible Faith” in Chapter 11 entitled “Did No One Trust Women?” He argues that the testimony of women was trusted, citing biblical (John 4:39), and non-biblical sources. One of the many reasons he offers for Mark’s use of women finding the empty tomb was a continuation of the “the least shall be first” idea found in Mark 9:35 and 10:31.

  19. Avatar
    gavm  February 1, 2014

    have you come across the book “The Trouble with Resurrection ” by Bernard Brandon Scott? if so what did you think of it?
    Thank you

  20. Avatar
    john76  June 3, 2016

    Maybe the women discovering the empty tomb was just a theological literary device. Because it was Jesus who died, women could be thought as reliable witnesses because Jesus was all about breaking down barriers. Recall Paul said “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). This would fit in with the tearing of the curtain in the temple (Mark 15:38), and the Roman soldier saying ““Truly this man was the Son of God! (Mark 15:39).”

You must be logged in to post a comment.