(18 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I received a question in the comments recently that I’ve gotten a lot before. Wouldn’t the Gospel story about women being the first to realize Jesus had been raised be contrary to what Christians would have *wanted* to say, possibly even embarrassing? If so, isn’t it likely that no one made it up but that it’s actually what probably happened? It’s been a few years since I posted on the question, so it seems like a good chance to post on it again. Here’s what I’ve said before:
******************************
Who in the ancient world would ever try to *prove* the resurrection by making up a story that women, in particular, discovered Jesus’ empty tomb? Weren’t women seen as complete unreliable witnesses? Their testimony never even accepted in a court of law? If someone want to prove that Jesus had been raised — and that therefore the tomb was empty — they would have invented *men* at the tomb (reliable witnesses) rather than *women* (untrustworthy). Right?
The reason anyone ever has this question is because it is a favorite claim of Christian apologists wanting to prove that Jesus really was raised from the dead. Proof? The tomb really was empty. How do we know? We have witnesses. How do we know we can trust the reports of these witnesses? No one would have made them up: the witnesses in the stories are always women and no one would invent “unreliable” witnesses (as women were widely considered to be) to back up “proof-claims.”
When I was an evangelical Christian, I too used that argument (with some vehemence, I might add). But even when I had become an agnostic I thought it was probably a historical tradition, that women must have found an empty tomb: it’s found in all four Gospels, for example, and the fact that the stories indicate precisely it was *women* who found the tomb did not seem like something Christians would want to make up. And so, as an agnostic, I had to come up with alternative explanations for why the tomb was empty.
But when I actually got down to *think* about it (very few people reflect much on arguments they have heard so often), I ended up changing my mind. Completely. And for reasons I continue to think are compelling. It is dead easy to realize why the story started to circulate in early Christian circles. I first realized this
You interested in this? Keep reading. If you’re not a blog member, you’ll need to join. But it’s no burden — at all. You get five posts like this each and every week, masses of interesting information and reflections on the New Testament and earliest Christianity. All for a small membership fee. And the entire fee goes to charity. So go for it! Click here for membership options
There could, of course, be many reasons for inventing such stories, but they would all be necessarily rather nefarious reasons. (Actual invention precludes mere innocent accident.) If we allow for such reasons, the more interesting question then becomes what Mark, or the inventor, would have for doing so. And suggestions for such reasons would need to make sense in that time, and not from the perspective of a religion that is now well-established and with power and money.
It needn’t be nefarious. Given that, first, the idea of the tomb itself had come to be taken for granted (though the tomb, as Bart points out elsewhere, is itself very unlikely) then all we need is for someone in conversation coming up with the idea that, since tending to the dead is women’s work, it must have been women that would have discovered him no longer in residence. “Ah, yes, that must be what happened!” would be the response, because it just makes good sense. The idea gets passed around, and before long the conditional phrasing falls away, and the idea becomes the story of how it happened.
your comment is the only one that makes sense to me. This was my post at the end of this blog.
“Although I have read all the comments up to the ending here, the first comment on the blog is the most perspicacious. Either the story is factual or it’s made up. If made up, then one’s motives are nefarious, as is the case whenever a person lies. (Perhaps there might be an exception to this when e.g., talking to someone on their deathbed or for social decorum, e.g. Sweetheart, do I look fat in this dress?) But if the story tellers made it and lied, then admit that. Don’t gloss it over and say it is a literary device, or a theological statement, etc. I don’t care which side one chooses (it is history or made up?) but call a spade a spade. My two bits. ” scott roberts
“ Mark makes a special point throughout his narrative that the male disciples never do understand who Jesus is.”
Why do you think Mark had it out for the disciples? Is this perhaps due to the schism that was happening between the gentile and Jerusalem movements? Seems like it’s Marks way of showing his readers that Jesus’ disciples were a bunch of fools so their views on Christ don’t really matter.
I’m not sure! Are they Jerusalem apostles in his own day who don’t really get it? Is he trying to show that it is only after the resurrection that people fully understood? Is he explaining why no one called Jesus messiah in his own lifetime? Is e promoting a view of Jesus not supported by the disciples themselves? Lots of theories aout there!
Aren’t the mourning women in Mark just another detail adopted from Ezekiel 8 (along with Son of Man and the abomination in the Temple)?
Also note the wailing wives in Zechariah 12 in a passage that also mentions armageddon (link to revelation).
Throughout the passion narratives there are both obvious an very subtle allusions to the Hebrew prophets. Sometimes it is hard to demonstrate that these are what the author had in mind, but they often can be illuminating.
It is easy to think Paul in ~53 is right : first Peter, then the Twelve experience a risen Jesus.
You can see the pressing need to answer the question : “What happened to his body?” (esp. if like Paul they were all preaching a physical resurrection).
Dr. Ehrman may I please ask for an expansion of :
“my suspicion is that it was a story Mark inherited from his tradition”
The issue to me is that Mark comes up with an answer for this pressing question.
Vs. Mark has +/- 15 years from Paul to receive a made up a story about women and a tomb that was floating around before – in the Apostles lifetimes. Why would Peter and the 11/12 be cool with a story that literally stole their specialness? They jump on their donkeys to race to fix judiazers but are fine with made up stories about Jesus rising that cut them out?
It drives a natural harmonizer crazy : either Paul is wrong about the appearances and/or Mark kind of writes down a “logical” explanation story that gets picked up by the other synoptics. The complication that there was a totally secondary tradition kills me.
My view is that there’s little reason to think we ever have teh smoking gun for the origins of a tradition, and that unless there’s compelling reasons for thinking one of the Gospel writers is the one who came up with a story, it’s more likely they inherited it — since so many thousands of stories must have been floating around. In this case, we don’t know if Mark would have known Paul’s account or not, but since he, Mark, wasn’t one of the twelve, we shouldn’t think he’s minimizing his own role by speaking of the women. Peter and the others didn’t come up with the story, and we don’t know if they were cool with it or not. But the other point is that it is indepenently attested by others who were not relying on Mark, so it’s unlikely to be one he invented. (We have other variations of it in other Gospels, including John whcih wasn’t dependent on Mark)
It is easy to understand embellishing a story in today’s world. Authors and Writers do it lots. So why not understand that it was totally possible that the writers in ancient times could embellish their stories. It makes sense when you take away the inerrant and infallible boundaries to the text.
Mr. Ehrman, do you think William Lane Craig purposefully marshalls arguments, in the validity of which he doesn’t really believe, just to score points in the debates?
I know that, in the heat of the moment, you may cite a known argument that supports your case, even though you don’t really believe in its might, but I feel he in particular does this an awful lot of times.
And if you do agree on this, isn’t that contradictory to his religion? That is, to purposefully be deceitful in order to gain anything? How do you think he rationalizes it?
Sorry for the multiple questions.
My sense is that he genuinely thinks what he says.
That’s one of the most shocking answers of yours I’ve ever seen in this blog. But I trust in your judgment.
My view is that most people who are passionately wrong about things really think them, at least on the conscious level.
If he read HJBG (big if) after your debate, do you think it could have changed his mind? Because I think the evidence you’ve put there is quite compelling.
I think there’s no way it would. THat’s not how a mind like his works.
Let’s assume there is some historical basis for the Gospel accounts. The women see Jesus placed in a tomb on Friday evening with the sun setting in the west. They return Sunday morning with the sun rising in the east. This is only the 2nd time they have been there. The lighting and shadows are entirely different. They go to the wrong tomb and find it empty. The men didn’t see Jesus buried, so they later go to the tomb indicated by the women and confirm it is empty. This story proves nothing. (I doubt there was a tomb at all; I think the women were the 1st to have visions of Jesus and that’s why they figure prominently in the stories that were generated to fill out the story. )
this is only 2 evenings
Great post, I never thought about though I had read women were the ones supporting his ministry.
I don’t know where to post this question(s) or if any one would be interested but I am curious about a couple things. Please excuse my poor grammar and punctuation.
If the apostles were illiterate who began writing the letters to share , speaking about Yeshua and his ministry that Mark, Matthew and Luke got their information from? Was it just oral traditions spoken about (and stories embroidered upon to make them more dramtic) until maybe before maybe before Paul wrote about his Christiology.? ( I read this somewhere) Did someone start writing letters that got into the hands of people along the trade routes and interest grew from there? Or with women hosting ‘home’ churches/services the ‘good’ news was then told to husband and when a husband adopted a new god it was required of the whole family to worship that god.
Thank you.
It’s a good question. Christianity was spreading throughout the Mediterranean in the decades after Jesus’ death. The only way to convert someone to believe in Jesus was to explain who he wsa. This was almost always done by word of mouth. The Gospel writers heard a bunch of the stories. Mark wrote some of them down and put them in a coherent narrative; Matthew and Luke used his account as the basis for theirs and added other storeis they had read and heard. So ultimately, yes, it all goes back to oral traidition. I talk about that a good deal in my book Jesus Before the Gospels.
My biggest question is what even does a conversation look like after this? Presumably everyone is (putting it in modern terms) traumatized, weeping, guilty for fleeing and devastated beyond all hurt.
In that process, they might have felt that insult “King of the Jews” bite them and aggrieved, at least some of these early followers start saying, hurt and devastated, he’s not just the king of jews who you jews denied, he’s greater than the Roman Empire, he’s been elevated to God and he’s the son of God lord of all humanity now. I can kind of imagine a hurt and devastated follower responding with this in guilt and anger-and then following up his own emotionally charged response by just assuming he’s correct.
So they start preaching. Because they’re hurt, angry and devastated and so it has to mean something. It has to mean he is more than the Messiah ruling earth and more than the emperor of Rome. Now he’s ruler of the cosmos and you can’t really top that. God has taken a child and you better know it.
Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that this kind of thing is how human reasoning works. https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2019/02/01/reason/
I’m not sure I agree with any of this. The theory that women invented the story seems to do no credit to either the female or male leaders of the early church. In fact, it actually bolsters the ancient idea that women were unreliable witnesses. As for Mark’s Gospel, the idea here seems to be that Mark told the truth right up unto the tomb episode and then inserted a fabricated story, or perhaps made up nearly everything in his Gospel for “literary reasons.” On what basis can we make that judgment about Mark (or whoever wrote Mark) while giving the benefit of the doubt to other NT authors, most especially Paul.
I’m not sure I”m following your reasoning here. I think it’s because I don’t know what you mean about Mark “telling the truth” up to this point and then putting in a fabricatied story. Mark is writing a coherent narrative with numerous literary themes, and the ending fits very well with those themes. On the literary level it’s brilliant I think. The problem is when we think of it as an attempt to show “what really happened.”
Dr. Ehrman. Let us not forget Martha and Mary at the tomb of Lazarus. In fact, Lazarus was the first man ever to be resurrected.
God sent Elijah to a poor widow in Zarephath, but afterwards her son died. According to tradition, her son was none other than Jonah.
Jonah was swallowed up by the Leviathan and brought down to the center of the earth – Jonah was brought down to hell. But before that, Jonah had slept in the boat when he fled from the Lord.
Jonah was dead to the Lord also the day he slept in the boat. Jonah was dead to the Lord for four days, even though he was only three days in the belly of the fish. In the same way, Lazarus first slept before he was later said to be dead.
The poor widow of Zarephath was more concerned with her own existence and poverty than with the man of God, as Martha was.
Elijah was a type of Christ in this allegory, and how?
The Son of God is Himself the arm of God. When God is to perform an action, he sometimes uses a holy man, in this case Elijah.
Like the arm performs the action of a man on the orders of his soul, a holy man carries out the command from God
God sent Elijah to resurrect Jonah, and thus the Son of Man was Glorified.
Hell opened its gates and Jonah was spit out. Martha witnessed this miracle.
What about Mary? Almost the exact same miracle happens to Elisha and the Shunammite woman. The Shunammite woman showed all her attention to the man of God, and did not think of herself. She chose the good part that should not be taken from her. It seems that this woman became synonymous with the Shulamite woman in the Song of Songs who anoints the groom with precious nard ointment. She became the church of the Gentiles.
The Shunammite woman also witnesses the resurrection of her son.
When the Shunammite woman sought out Elisha, Gehazi pushed her away. Elisha replied to Gehazi, “Leave her alone.”
Gehazi disrupted the sacred relationship between Christ and His Church.
Why could not the rich woman from Shunem pay the poor woman from Zarephath, instead of spending all her wealth on the man of God? Well, charity was important, but even more important was the love given to God.
Jonah went out of Nineveh and made himself a tabernacle.
There he witnessed the judgment of this world! The ruler of the world was about to be thrown out of the hearts of anyone who believed in Jonah’s message. By believing in Christ, people were healed of their present sickness, encouraged to hope for the future, and to seek healing for their souls.
At the same time, punishment was to come upon all those who were rebellious. The gourd that withered over Jonah was a metaphor for this coming judgment. The fig tree should never bear fruit again. The ax was already at the root of this tree.
God sent Christ, in the form of a worm, to prick the tree so that it withered early the next morning. Jesus was thus identified with the worm described in Psalm 22:6
The Church Fathers identified the gourd with the synagogue. They had the holy scriptures, that is, the leaves on the fig tree, but not the spiritual fruits.
Now, the gourd also mysteriously pointed to the cross with the worm in it. The cross was also hinted at when Jonah slept on the wood(in the boat).
Jonah was sent out by God, as God’s extended arm, and consequently he was also a type of Christ.
Jonah was a Jew whom God sent to Nineveh to warn them that God would soon destroy them. But Jonah understood that God was merciful, and that if Nineveh repented, the punishment would come upon Israel. Therefore, he fled. Jonah would rather warn the Jews.
Didn’t the day consist of twelve hours? It was still time for the Jews to turn to the Lord. It was still day, but the night was not far away.
Even though Jonah disobeyed, it gave the Lord the opportunity for a miracle. No one had survived three days in a womb without being digested. Surely he stunk now. God showed mercy and Jonah was resurrected.
The poor son of the widow of Zarephath, who had scarcely had crumbs on the table, while the kings and priests of Israel had lived in abundance, was now exalted. The Gentiles – the dogs – in Nineveh had licked Jonah’s teaching about the path of suffering to salvation. Was not a single drop left on his finger to the Jews? No, it was too late. The day was over. The night had come.
After Jonah’s resurrection, he learned that it was wise to obey the Lord’s command.
The next day he was sent again to Nineveh, and the Gentiles immediately received his message. Jonah was received as a savior. Blessed was he who came to Nineveh in the name of God. Both the men and the cattle (sic!) in Nineveh dressed up in sackcloth and sincerely cried out to God.
In this way, Jonah rode two horses, or rather two donkeys, both the donkey of the Jews and the donkey colt of the Gentiles – both Jerusalem and the daughter of Zion. Where the daughter of Zion was the church of the Gentiles, born of the Jews.
– Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, your King comes, sitting on an ass’s colt.
The Gentiles had begun to hate their lives in this world, and were rewarded with eternal life. The Gentiles had learned the way of suffering to salvation, and the sufferings of Jonah were the very model.
Jonah suffered when he saw his own people perish. He would rather die than live. But in Jonah’s own suffering, the Lord was glorified.
If the trinity existed why didn’t Paul ever refer to it? Wouldn’t that be the most damning evidence against the Trinity even being a thing? He writes about Christ and God but never once refers to the Trinity does he?
The doctrine of the Trinity did not start to develop until the second century (TErtullian is the first to use the term) and was not worked out until the fourth century, in ways Paul would not have recognized. So that would be why he didn’t mention it.
Very interesting.
Some Jewish observers have indicated there are two problems with having the women find the empty tomb.
Both problem deal with the reason for their attendance at the tomb. A good reason would be to pay respects. But, to attend the body appears problematic.
First, it is reportedly very rare for females to anoint the body of a male jew as it was not seen as being appropriate. It would be males who would attend to the body of a male. Women would attend to female bodies for the same reason.
Second, the time to anoint the body had totally passed. The reason for the scents and spices was to keep the body of the deceased from smelling in the heat of the day. This was deemed to offend the honour of the deceased and hiding the odour was important. But that was done while the body was “in state”. It wasn’t performed after burial. There is no reason for it after burial.
These problems would indicate that women were introduced to provide a plot device to enhance the story.
Any truth to these comments?
I’d have to see some reasons for thinking these two points are correct. I’m not aware of any sources from the time that says either thing. Do these writers give their evidence and name some sources of information?
Do you think that Mary Magdalene’s inclusion in all the gospels’ list of women going to the tomb indicates that she was prominent among Jesus’ followers and also possibly played a significant role in the early belief that Jesus was resurrected?
I don’t think it shows she was a prominent disciple (if she was, surely she’d be talked about in teh Gospel narratives themselves beforee the passsion; she shows up in only one mention — Luke 8:1-3 — along with other women); but I do think she probably reportd having a vision of Jesus that convinced people he had been raised from the dead.
Sorry for the off-topic question but I just joined the blog and I’m not quite sure how to do this yet!
I recently watched your lecture on Revelation and I’m curious about the fascinating argument that 666 (or 616) refers to Caesar Nero. Do you know who was the first scholar to make this discovery and when it was made? Love your work, Daniel
The first commentary we have on Revelation was already in the second century, by a fellow named Victorinus, and he already makes the identification!
What I’m trying to figure out is why it’s a different group of women in each gospel. The authors of Luke and Matthew had access to Mark, and yet Matthew removes Salome from the equation and calls Mary the mother of James “the other Mary.” Luke substitutes Joanna for Salome and adds a bunch of other women. Then John comes along and says “enough! That’s too big of a crowd it was just Mary Magdalene!”
This of course is assuming that the wording of the version of Mark that Luke and Matthew had access to closely resembles the text that we read today …
I’d assume they’d all heard different versions….
As a life-long atheist, these “criterion of embarrassment” arguments I had never heard before five years ago or so. I can easily see how it wrapped up with other apologist arguments but it never informed any of the religious types I encountered. With the rapid increase in “Nones” in America, I’ve been curious about the role of widespread information availability in pulling people away from being captive to arguments from trained apologists and having only limited ability to contextualize–much less counter–them. Now, blogs like this and a jillion YouTube videos open up the discourse in a way it never has before.
I recently heard a Rabbi argue that it’s absurd to think that *anyone* (women or men) would prepare a body for burial, a day and a half after death. He said that it had to do with decomposition, and without modern refrigeration, the smell would be unbearable. Is he mistaken?
Well, I don’t know. We have lots of records of bodies being in wake for a day or two or more before burial in the ancient world; and wasn’t that a custom even in Vicotrian times — to wait for three days before burial?
I also heard a Jewish historian say the same, went further and said that doing so was profaning a tomb, let alone to prepare a body that was previously prepared and wrapped in a blanket while the women were watching from afar.
Read John 4:39. I don’t believe this story ever happened, but apologists do. I don’t know why none of them mention this passage, which suggests that a woman’s testimony wasn’t useless.
Also, touching a dead body, required a pious Jew to perform long and complex purification rites?
No, not particularly long and complex. It brought ritual impurity, and there was a ritual cleansing that was then required; but as you might imagined, it (necessarily) happened all the time, whenever someone died.
Do any of the 27 NT books suggest that after his resurrection, Jesus visited his mom. Surely she must have been grieving horribly since learning her first begotten son had been crucified in Jerusalem. Why didn’t Jesus appear to his mom to let her know he was alright? He appeared to his brother James but not his mom? How unspeakably cruel. What other siblings did Jesus appear to according to NT? So Jesus appears to several other Marys but too busy in the post-resurrection forty period to visit his mother Mary? Should not evangelicals be troubled by Jesus’ disrespect towards his mom, especially in Chapter 3 of Mark? Ditto for telling his followers to abandon their families.
No, there is no record of that — either the mother or the other siblings. And no, most believers in family values pass over those texts or explain them away.
Clarification: You think James claimed Jesus appeared to him and that James was his flesh/bio Brother — don’t you Dr. E?
Yup and yup.
why can’t get the whole answer.
Usually readers who don’t see an entire post need to renew their membership. If you’re having trouble, click on Help and ask Support, and they’ll help you.
Bart, I was raised in fundamentalist Christianity and then gave it up 55 years ago (at age 17) because I believe its main beliefs were historically untrue. That one must believe that something (such as that Jesus was divine and was crucified and resurrected from the dead) that supposedly happened in the past is historically true in order to gain reward or escape punishment has never made any sense to me. If I don’t believe something is factual, I can’t “make” myself belief it’s factual. I could say that X is true, but I wouldn’t believe it to be true.
QUESTION: Before early Christians taught that belief in certain things as facts was a prerequisite to receiving salvation and avoiding eternal punishment, what other religion taught that believing the “right facts” to be true was essential in order to receive the rewards that religion offered? Would that other religion have influenced the early Christians to require a belief in the “right facts” (in addition to whatever else the specific Christians required)?
None that we know of!
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I actually have a question about Mark and Paul. I have been looking at the gospel of Mark in Greek and looking closely at different words. I keep coming across words that seem to only be in Mark and Paul. A few examples so far are ἀχειροποίητον used in Mark 14:58 for “not with human hands” that is also found in 2 Corinthians and a different form of the word in Colossians. Another example is ἀχειροποίητον found in Mark 7:34 for “a deep sigh” with a slightly different form of the word in Romans and 2 Corinthians. I have come across other examples but need to find them again. The two letters that keep coming up with these unique words are Romans and 2 Corinthians. Is it possible Mark used Paul? Or maybe Mark just knew and read those letters of Paul? Or because they are early sources they use similar language and writing style? Thanks.
It’s possible. It’s also possible that they were words sometimes used in Christian discourse. We always have to remember that the 27 books we have in the NT were a tiny fraction of what would have been written, let alone spoken, in the early Church; my view is that it is impossible to connect all the dots, since we no longer have the vast majority of the dots.
Bart thank you for your work. Your question about suffering is the question that I have about God except how does he allow the rape/ torture of kids when all children all God’s kids. He could’ve easily kept that out of people’s minds.
I’ve been talking to a Christian friend about that along with this fiery hell. This is his last answer to me – “Bottom line is God is a just God and cannot allow sinners into the the kingdom. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice which completely falls in line with the Torah. Isaiah 53 was even removed from the Torah because it confirms Yeshua.”
I’ve read that Isiah 53 was removed and wasn’t removed. All I understand about the Torah is that it’s the Hebrew book of Moses with 5 chapters and Isaiah isn’t one of them. Why would the torah and Isiah not being in the torah have any importance in today’s Christianity?
My thought is the book of Enoch [1 & 2] and the book of Thomas were kept out of the Bible. Why aren’t they important?
Thanks Scott
Isaiah 53 is not in the Torah (it’s in the prophets) and it was never removed from the Bible. I’m not sure what your friend is talking about.
Propaganda from Jews for Jesus!
Wow.
Good morning Bart, I trust that this finds you well.
My question regards the Apostle Paul’s omission of the women witnesses in 1Corinthians 15.
Did Paul know about the women witnesses? If not, then how not? I’m struggling to accept that the entire women witnesses accounts were constructed later. That is, some time after Paul had written his letters. They may well be of course, but the consistency of the gospel accounts in recording the presence of the women suggest that there is at least some element of truth here. Having said that, the gospel accounts of the empty tomb, and the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus are of course significantly inconsistent!
If Paul did know about the women witnesses then why exclude them in 1Cor 15? I no longer accept the view that Paul was under cultural/theological pressure to omit women witnesses – Wright and Bauckham and many others express this view I think. Was Paul still working through latent misogyny and wanting to emphasise the male priority?
More to come…
I don’t think we can say he “omitted” them unless he knew about them. Why didn’t he know about them? I don’t think there’s a way to know definitively, but it is worth pointing out that we ourselves don’t hear about them until years after Paul’s writings. Maybe they just weren’t common knowledge. Paul seems to know very little about what ended up in the Gospels.
Part 2:
Why does Paul say the resurrected Jesus appeared first to Peter? Curiously Luke – who does mention an appearance to Peter (24:34) – doesn’t make anything of it. That is, there is no narrative account to back up the claim, which I think would be an obvious thing. Nor is there any gospel record of an appearance to James.
Additionally, in what world is the ‘appearance’ to Paul commensurate to the appearances to Peter and James. Acts 9 records a body-less voice spoke to Paul. I assume (and it is only an assumption as we have no narrative account) that the appearances to Peter and James, if they happened at all, were bodily.
Appreciate your help to see through the fog.
Thank you
Edward
Paul’s tradition was indeed that Peter was the first to see Jesus. And he believed his experience was just the same. Paul saw Jesus, just as the others did. The book of Acts narrates the event differently, but that’s coming from the pen of Luke, not from the pen of Paul who, ironically, I suppose, disagreed with him.
The late Bishop John Shelby Spong claims that the whole passion narrative could not be taken literally, but rather as a 24 hour liturgy. He argues that the Gospels are not a biography about who and when and who, but rather narratives of why and what and the meaning of Jesus’ life from a Jewish point of view, as they relate his life to their own Hebrew scriptures, such as Isaiah 22, and the second Isaiah from 40-55.
It could be interesting to hear if you think there is a possibility that the stories of passion and beyond are a liturgical text that is not meant to be taken literally ?. And if there is such a possibility, would the stories of the women at the empty tomb fall into the same category?
I’m afraid I don’t agree with Spong about the liturgical origin and function of these texts. The reality is that we know almost nothing aobut Jewish liturgy at the time of the Gosple writings. And our earliest account, Mark’s, was written by someone who wasn’t Jewsih.
I’ve noticed apologists also like to say why the women witnesses *weren’t* mentioned in 1 Cor 15 is due to the same reason – women’s testimony was embarrassing. But if that were the case, and would make an early Christian omit any mention of them, then *why* didn’t Mark do so? This seems to present us with an obvious inconsistency – either:
a. women’s testimony was embarrassing and would prompt an early Christian to make no mention of it (1 Cor 15).
or
b. women’s testimony could be used (Mark 16).
What exactly changed about the status of women between the Corinthian creed and Mark’s gospel so that they were omitted from the former but retained in the latter?
As you note, all the male disciples previously “fled” in Mk. 14:50. And it seems they fled in the sense that they “abandon” Jesus, at least temporarily. So they simply weren’t an option to come back in the story anymore. That leaves us with the women as the only option.
Finally, since the women disobey the command and “say nothing to anyone” then this is actually consistent with the apologist’s claim that women’s testimony was unreliable. Maybe this was Mark’s way of letting the readers know why they had never heard the story before.
Yeah, I don’t think anything changed. Paul heard one set of traditions and Mark and the others knew of others. Good thought about Mark!
Bart,
An interesting thought experiment.
I think the ideal made-up story would have the stone left in place, and then rolled away when the women arrive. Matthew’s account seems to do this with the stone being rolled away by an earthquake caused by an angel. Other accounts have the stone already rolled away but with an angel(s) present. The presence of angels would make the story authentic to those who believe in angels.
But at the least Luke is being consistent, for if angels were present at Jesus’ birth to tell the good news of Jesus’ birth to the shepherds then it follows that angels should also be present at Jesus’ tomb to tell the good news of Jesus’ resurrection to Jesus’ followers.
Dennis
Why is there no record of adverse reaction to Mark’s story from children of the disciples or others who were juveniles at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and were adults when the gospels were written? Did no-one realize that the stories were false?
We have no idea. We don’t have any record or reactions to the Gospels by people living at the time, pro or con. In any event, Mark was written many hundreds of miles away from where anyone connected with Jesus woudl have lived. We have no record of his account getting to Israel for a very long time. Till when? 3rd century?
If the author of Mark did invent the empty rock tomb story, the original ending of Mark tells us why no one had ever heard of an empty rock tomb until circa 70 CE (when the first gospel was written): the women had told NO ONE.
Women finding an empty tomb but telling no one about it is the perfect cover for inventing an empty rock tomb that no Christian (including Paul) had ever heard of before.
You say “In the end, we simply cannot say that there would be “no reason” for someone to invent the story of women discovering the empty tomb.”
OK, you have identified possible reasons why women at the tomb was not invented. But the reasons don’t seem very strong. It seems just as easy to posit that because women found the tomb their story is believable.
It’s a judgment call. My point is simply that the argument that “no one would invent th estory of women finding an empty tomb” is just wrong.
If someone has other reasons to believe the story (as opposed to trying to prove that the alternative is untenable), that would be fine. There do seem plenty of reasons to doubt the story (including the contradictions between teh various accounts at every point and the fact that Paul never mentionis it).
I just saw your interview with Michael Shermer so I will read the triumph of Christianity. Thank for your time.
Personally I have no problem siding with the Christian apologists on this one. I find it easier to believe there really was an empty tomb than that all the stories about it were invented. However, that some women found a tomb empty does not warrant leaping to supernatural resurrection as the explanation. Perhaps plans were made to place Jesus in a tomb, but some Roman commander didn’t get the message to save the body, and it was simply dumped on the fire with the other two crucified men. Or Jesus really was placed in the tomb, but the Romans planned all along for his body be removed and burned so as not to become a shrine/rallying point for followers. Other scenarios might be imagined. When the tomb was later found empty, resurrection “experiences” might have been natural for emotionally bewildered people who so missed their beloved teacher. Who knows, perhaps without the empty tomb such experiences would never have developed, and Christianity might never have emerged as it did.
Wasn’t there a tradition that the location of the tomb of Moses was lost? What do you think about the idea that early Christians wanted to show that the tomb of Jesus was known (and empty) making him superior to Moses since his tomb’s location was lost. Similar on how the author of Matthew’s birth stories compared the birth of Jesus to the stories and traditions about the birth of Moses to show Jesus was superior.
I guess to figure out if that’s the best explanation we’d have to see if any of the early Christians hinted at something like that. Nothing comes to mind. I’m not sure not knowing where teh tomb of Moses was would help that much, since at least as far back as we have reocrds no one seems to have known where Jesus’ tomb was either.)
So we have independent attestation (Mark and John) of women at an empty tomb right? What you are pushing back on is dissimilarity right? That it may not be as dissimilar or “scandalous” so to speak as some scholars or theologians think for there to be women there? That makes sense. My question is regarding context. Is it contextual? Is it contextual for Jewish women to visit a tomb shortly after burial?
I don’t think we have records of others who are buried without rites just before thee Sabbath. But if anyone knows of any, let us all know!
I”m not arguing for or against dissimilarity per se in this post — I’m just saying the argument that no one would invent the idea that women found teh empty tomb just isn’t any good.
Professor, the presence of women involved in dealing with Jesus body appears multiply attested Synoptics + John. Of course there probably was a convergence of wide spread oral tradition; but, Could that mean the kernal about the (or a) woman is not “made up”? Your and Croissan’s well made argument that Jesus remained on the cross, was (per Croissan) eaten by dogs and later unceremoniously thrown in a common grave… would not necessarily preclude the women, who remained in Jerusalem, from eventually perhaps retrieving the carcass and entombing it so the bones could later be put in an ossuary snd buried with his family for Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Tabor to write about (tongue is in cheek). Point being, if there was a real story of the women dealing with the ghastly remains circulating those spreading the gospel would have to counter it with a “just the opposite lie.” In fact, is there a literary criticism tenant That says if a known prevaricator speaks, the opposite must be true? If not I propose we establish it and ( in honor of the just late PJ O’Rourk) name it the MangoMagaMan principle of inverted truth!
I think it defintely does say something historically — that possibly a woman (Mary Magdalene) washt e first to declare that Jesus was raised from the dead.
For mini1071:
As a new blog member, I thank you for your comment. For I had not known that this was an actual scientific theory: “Jesus remained on the cross, was eaten by dogs and later unceremoniously thrown in a common grave”.
My first thought was: well, THAT escalated quickly! 😗️
And yes, I know this is a very sad and serious topic. But still. (And where did these dogs suddenly come from?)
Anyway, it seems that it is at least a worthy competitor for the glorious Lettuce Theory:
“Supposedly the gardener at the tomb where Jesus was buried was upset with all the curiosity seekers who were trampling over his newly planted lettuce seeds. This caused him to remove the body from the tomb and bury it elsewhere. When visitors came to the now empty tomb they assumed that Jesus had risen from the dead. This explains why the body of Jesus was missing.”
S_P
The “no one would invent” arguments always seem a bit circular to me anyway. Couldn’t some one make up a story and just add “no one would invent” facts to try to give credibility to their story for just that reason?
Yup. It’s truly amazing what people can and do invent…
Another aspect of this argument that I’ve always found odd is that in both Luke and John the women immediately tell the male disciples about it, and then Peter or Peter and John, then run to the tomb and confirm it. Luke 24:11 even says that the men didn’t believe them because it sounded like nonsense, so Peter goes and confirms it. So in Luke and John we are not only relying on the women’s report as the men confirm it.
I would think then that if you lived in a society where women’s witness didn’t hold much weight, then you would make up the story exactly like that found in Luke and John. Women find the empty tomb first as they typically were the ones to anoint the body, then tell the men that the body is gone, the men think they’re being crazy/talking nonsense, but then the men go and confirm they are correct.
I’ve heard, plenty of times, that women’s testimony wasn’t acceptable or believed in the second temple era. I did some research years ago and no longer have the scholarly paper that debunked this. Basically, women were not trusted with knowing or pronouncing on Halacha law but ordinary testimony? Yes, the often testified to what they witnessed in civil law cases. They were trusted in these cases and testified in court. True, women weren’t often called into court if it could be avoided but, we’re used when needed. There’s even a case where a woman acted as a lawyer on a case.
Don’t let apologists get away with saying women weren’t trusted in testimony as to what they saw. It’s crap!
This goes back to how the “tradition” of the resurrection took place. Perhaps while pondering the significance of his sudden death on the cross, it was one of these women who had “visions” of a resurrected Jesus. The visions were compelling and soon the men too began to have similar visions. Somehow the story morphed into women visiting a tomb and saw an angel. This also possibly explains Paul insistence on his apostleship as he too had visions. IMHO..
Bart,
2 questions :
Many Christians put a great deal of *faith* in 1 Cor 15:6 that >500 witnesses couldn’t be wrong. A simple google search will find page after page of believers including popular authors (Strobel, etc) appealing to this as convincing evidence of Jesus resurrection.
But Paul neither mentions the exact place or the exact day this event took place. We can make fuzzy guesses based on the seq of events leading up to it but thats all. Its was too vague to be disproved even way back then when he wrote it.
Just in my lifetime there have been large scale eyewitness attestations of miracles/supernatural events of some kind by the Indian guru Satya Sai Baba for example.
(1)Did Paul inherit this story you think or did he make this up from whole cloth?
(2)What are your thoughts on the importance placed on this verse by many modern Christians?
TY!
It’s weird that someone thinks it couldn’t be wrong. Why couldn’t it be wrong? Anyway 1. I’m pretty sure he heard it (or at least remembered hearing it); 2. I can see why they do it, but if it really happened, wouldn’t one of the Gospel writers thing it was important enough to mention?
I’ve always found it ironic that the story of the women at the tomb ends with them ‘telling no one’.
Obviously, they did tell someone, else we wouldn’t have the story…
This leads me to a larger question: how do believers who insist that the gospels are the product of eyewitness accounts explain the numerous instances where eyewitnesses would be extremely implausible or impossible e.g. women at the tomb, the back-and-forth between Pilate and Jesus, Jesus’ trials in the desert?
They generally say that these writins were inspired by God and so the authors knew things that didn’t have any human source.
If they do want to name a human source, they say that the women told the others, that Pilate told others — or his guards tid, that Jesus told about the temptation, and so on.
Perhaps the author of Mark’s Gospel was actually a woman. The portrayal of the 12 disciples as clueless, the mostly positive portrayal of women throughout (e.g., the poor widow, the woman of Bethany, etc.), coupled with Mark’s theme of the suffering servant at least opens up the possibility that the author of Mark’s Gospel could have been a woman. Female authors did exist during this period.
Why not?
It’s certainly possible. It is a bit odd, though, that many of the most important women are never named, and that women play such a small role in the story until the crucifixion and resurrection. In any event, the reason for thnking *probably* “not” is that there are very, very few women authors from the ancient world at this time and place. Think about all the authors we have in Greek during, say, the first and century (not just in Christianity — for which we have none — but even in the world at large. And so for Mark it’s certainly possible, but it usually is thought to be unlikely.
Agreed. But just the prospect of a first-century George Eliot is so enticing that it’s fun to think about the ‘What if…’
Thank you for the response, Bart.
I’m with you on that! Among other things, George Eliot is the most perceptive novelist of the 19th century and ties for my favorite of all time (with Dickens). For another, she transalated David Friedrich STrauss’s The LIfe of Jesus Critically Examined — before she started writing novels!
The obvious to me is that Mark learned his tradition from a woman and wrote it down as he learned it. That is why the women were at the tomb. Nothing nefarious there, the author wrote what they learned. Having worked in the mortuary trade a body that has been at moderate temperature, hidden from the sun does not have an objectionable odor after two days, although at three days you notice it.
The anointing of a body takes place when the person has just died and usually performed by family members. Going to anoint a body on the 3rd day would not have been Halakhah because of decay. Plus hadn’t Jospeh and Nicodemus already anointed the body of Jesus?
No, they hadn’t. And the rules of Halakah are from a couple of centuries later, so we don’t know what hte “rules” were at th etime or if, indeed, there were any rules at all. I doubt it.
Although I have read all the comments up to the ending here, the first comment on the blog is the most perspicacious. Either the story is factual or it’s made up. If made up, then one’s motives are nefarious, as is the case whenever a person lies. (Perhaps there might be an exception to this when e.g., talking to someone on their deathbed or for social decorum, e.g. Sweetheart, do I look fat in this dress?) But if the story tellers made it and lied, then admit that. Don’t gloss it over and say it is a literary device, or a theological statement, etc. I don’t care which side one chooses (it is history or made up?) but call a spade a spade. My two bits. srr
I don’t think made up stories are necessarily nefarious. there’s a whole academic field devoted to studying “rumors” and these, common as they are, almost never start out as intentional lies.
thank u Bart for the response. Do you address this “rumor mongering” in any of your books? I have enjoyed probably about 15 of your books, found them fascinating and I so wish they had been around when I was in college and graduate school in the 70’s. Keep up the good work. srr
YEs, my best book that no one has read: Jesus Before the Gospels.