The Resurrection of Jesus Fact #+4, part 1: The Empty Tomb

 Ah, Jesus's tomb. Its discovery being the start of Easter Sunday, Christian churches depict the power God has over death: He raised His one and only beloved Son. Jesus left His grave in His glorified body, assuring the same for everyone who will believe in Him.

But is there any credible evidence to believe that Jesus's tomb really was discovered empty soon after His crucifixion? I have read a number of details which seemingly appear unlikely to be something that actually happened. Do skeptics have a point when they say we can't know?

Preliminary doubts

In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel asked William Lane Craig why the women visited the tomb in the first place. It doesn't look sensible to try to anoint a body if they were wondering who would move the stone. But Craig made a handful of points: these devoted, grieving women could have a "forlorn hope" to anoint Jesus, maybe guards would be there or other men could move it, and their actions fit contextual credibility(discussed below)(1). But this raises the question: why would they still be loving and devoted after Jesus was crucified? (Refer fact #1 and #2, which have the power of crucifixion.) We will see more details in part 3 of alternative theories, but the women definitely knew Jesus -- He was a kind preacher from Galilee, whether or not He is the God-man who could care for them infinitely or someone like Ehrman's idea of an apocalyptic prophet. However, they hadn't followed Him around like His twelve Disciples. They weren't in His closest group. See, for example, Mark 15:41, where they had cared for Him (in Galilee) and followed Him up to Jerusalem along with some other women and watched Him get crucified. So just because He was proven to be cursed by God didn't prove to them that He was, like, a demon. Had a big problem in His ministry, yes, but they also were sinners. (A fact which he might have helped to point out.) 

Something else Craig said is he doesn't "think we're in the right position to pronounce judgement on whether or not they should have simply stayed at home." This makes me think of when Ehrman mentioned the women supposedly not needing to fear arrest, unlike His twelve followers. "It would have been the women who had come with the apostolic band to Jerusalem but who presumably did not need to fear arrest." (2) I sincerely doubt that a group of women who weren't as close to Jesus as the Disciples would be worth the Jewish leaders arresting. They shouldn't get any problems from them: they killed their Hero. Now the Disciples could (yet perhaps didn't because they already put them down?) still irritate them, but they weren't going to pick on women. Furthermore, in a culture where females were looked down on, why would they have to bother? It is definitely not demonstrable that they would be in danger. 

And of course, ultimately none of these objections could outweigh good, clear evidence in favor of the tomb being empty. 

Why were there women in the first place?

I have read a number of ancient Jewish traditions which are... degrading, to say the least, of women. However, my favorite to use is Josephus's Antiquities 4.8.15, because he is a great Jewish historian whose understanding is pristine of the first-century. 

“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.” (3)

But what about the fact that they are not talking about an actual court(4)? This, I believe, is a misleading indication. Even granting that they did have good reasons for inventing the women, the early church would have had to discern them to be better than the cultural appeal. 

James D.G. Dunn, recognized English professor of the New Testament, wrote:

"In our day, accustomed as we are to the drive for sexual equality, that may not seem anything out of the ordinary. But in Palestine of that time a woman's status and testimony was not as highly regarded as a man's. Indeed, women were probably regarded as unreliable witnesses in first-century Judaism, simply because they were women. A recent announcement in Iran ruled that a woman's testimony was only half the value of a man's. A very similar attitude was dominant in the eastern end of the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus." (5)

Something imprinted in my mind, from the year that I had started reading about reasons to believe in the Bible, is how a good piece of evidence for the empty tomb is that it is based on the report of women. For a while, I didn't have any examples of evidence (like that from Josephus) to support the claim. I just went by the fact that I read it in multiple sources who would know and surely had evidence, and I thought, "Is it so hard to believe that ancient religion looked down on women?" Isn't that kind of a stereotype of religion? My suspicion was supported last school semester when I read an article called "Why feminists are less religious." (6) 

It doesn't make sense that in the first-century, Jewish women would be proving themselves to be unreliable in court, but otherwise they have a reputation good enough to be equated with a man. What did they do, sign some coalition to harass courts, buy otherwise were good? Actually, someone forgot that both male and female are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), or thought that women should morally not be permitted in court, or something. As Dunn put it, they probably were put down just because they were women. 

So, Dunn goes on, explaining this popular piece of Christian evidence: 

"That being so, we must conclude that a testimony in which women are presented as the primary witnesses must be based on sound fact. A contrived narrative would hardly have given the leading testimony to women. Why attribute it to women? Who would believe that? The only good reason for attributing the report of the empty tomb to women is that this was the way it was remembered as having actually happened." (5)

But Ehrman demands (he says it has a "real flaw") that this argument "suffers, in short, from a poverty of imagination." (4) 

I found it interesting that along with other observances, Ehrman used the arguments I learned previously from atheist Keith Parsons and skeptical scholar Micheal Goulder. 

Ehrman explains Parsons (and a point of Craig's argument, from above):

"Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn't the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty." (2)

Then, Goulder and Ehrman both observe how only the women were at the crucifixion, so they only would serve to discover His empty tomb(7). (Well, such was the case at least in Mark.)

William Lane Craig has a powerful response, which was leveled at the latter argument but works for both:

"But this response is most peculiar. Since when are legendary fictions so concerned about faithfully sticking to the facts? Why not have a few male disciples at the cross as well? If they weren't around, just invent somebody to be there! [Luke had male followers of Jesus, but he didn't name anyone of the twelve (23:27, 48-49).] How about Joseph of Arimathea? It is strange how much creativity skeptical critics can ascribe to legend and redaction when they need to and how unimaginative and conservative they take it be on other occasions." (8)

This is a nail which I think can be driven even further into considering the fact that Jewish custom had anointing bodies usually be women's work. Even if someone had bothered to think of that years after the body had disintegrated, I find it difficult to believe it is likely this would be viewed as important enough to create them as witnesses. Furthermore, especially demanding historical invention of what would actually happen (as strange as it sounds), Licona and Habermas point out that in all four Gospels Nicodemus and/or Joseph of Arimathea buried the body(9). In all three synoptics it is Joseph, and the women were watching. Their time to anoint Him was before the stone was rolled in front of the tomb, and only Matthew mentions other people there to move the body: namely, the guards. And he doesn't even say that they wanted in! (Matthew 28:1)

It is also argued that the fact that women were honored in the early Christian church, as shown by Romans 16 and their partaking in His ministry in the Gospels (as they should be), so women could very well have invented the story(10). This is topped with both the other arguments also used by Parsons and Goulder. I do have to say that women are arguably more likely to be aware of these things and consider them when inventing a story. But the next sentence after one reads "female storytellers," Christians are "mak[ing]the best sense of the realities of history." (2) In and of themselves both ideas are practically a contradiction in terms. The women may include the facts in the report, but the report itself would be based on whether or not it could appeal as a legend.

I believe the best argument is that it's demonstrable that legend would have the men, no matter what. As Craig observed, skeptical scholars often consider the visit to the tomb in John as growing legend(8). Even Ehrman recognized the significance of this, referring to Luke 24:12 (albeit he thinks later scribes wrote it): "This is a significant addition, because now the report of the empty tomb is not simply an idle tale told by unreliable women: it is verified by the chief of the apostles." (11) As was written in Truth in a Culture of Doubt, which levels its arguments at specifically Ehrman's skepticism, "The real issue is how the public would respond to an unpopular doctrine being promulgated by people who did not culturally count as witnesses. No one trying to keep hope alive would have invented it this way, as it would not have been persuasive." (12) 

Now I am aware of what I call "theology theory." It is another option Ehrman espouses, and featured quite prominently in a debate between very historically liberal Christians and William Lane Craig(13). Basically theology theory says an author had a motive to invent something for theological reasons, and so a historical invention is at least not their primary priority. Ehrman gave an example about Mark, which I deal with in detail in the next post. 

I find it ironic that I can adapt to Ehrman's scenario of elevated women and storytellers sticking to fact. Another response Habermas and Licona gave to Parsons argument is that "the women need only have played a secondary role." (9) However, taking into account women having distinguished value in the Christian church, the male followers could and should have played the secondary role.

I'll quickly say that Ehrman's explanation for Mark doesn't fit because the followers of both genders had the same level of belief. Then, what about Matthew? He had an appearance to the Disciples, after Jesus appeared to the women on their way from the tomb! John reports Peter and an unnamed Disciple visiting it with Mary Magdalene. As for Luke, Ehrman thinks Luke 24:12 doesn't belong there(11). I don't know what he thinks about 24:24 though, which doesn't name any Disciples but indicates some men also went later, because of their report. I could guess he thinks it should be deleted too because the detail that goes along with it shouldn't be there. But whatever, it just drives my point further if only men go in John. Why is this legendary overlapping only showing up in later accounts? They could have gone to the tomb first and then the men followed, persuaded the men to go with them just out of hope or maybe to move the stone (oh, that compliments women and even the men, once someone takes into account the historically accurate doubt), or convinced the men to go see after they came back, as in John. This fits into both Ehrman's scenario and the idea that the stories are meant for insiders. Then, inventors in the church might respect women enough to put them first, but what about those outside the culture who might hear this story, or even some Christians inside the culture? I doubt even dedicated women would invent themselves as the only discoverers, much less that other men would overlook it! 

Unfortunately for these types of arguments, Christian apologists actually don't have "a poverty of imagination." 

The special case from Luke

This case specifically decimates the idea that any empty tomb story cannot be verified by the principal of embarrassment.

Bart Ehrman provided a criteria for discerning the genre of the Gospel of Luke. Although this is about Acts, it does give out an idea of what kind of works Luke aims to write, with a specific strong piece of evidence to his first book: 

"There may indeed be fictional elements in the account, as we will see; but judging from the preface to volume one [Luke's Gospel], from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and from the main characters themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Christianity, not a novel. Moreover, all of the ancient Christian authors who refer to the book appear to have understood it in this way." (14)

The start of the Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) is the author having "carefully investigated" Christianity so someone (probably a government official) "may know the certainty [they] have been taught." 

I find this a vital piece of the puzzle in discerning the accuracy of Luke's empty tomb account. See, he doesn't only acknowledge their anointing the body and have the women experience the empty tomb by themselves (at least before talking to the Disciples), he also includes 24:11: "But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense."

Now doesn't that sound embarrassing?

Although, this story can be argued to fit logic, and I get the idea that this indicates it would fit invention(15). An empty tomb doesn't indicate a resurrection, right?  How is it embarrassing when they are actually being smart? Moreover, doesn't considering the women's report this way fit the Disciples loss of faith? 

Well, not for a Gospel, and certainly not for a Gospel legend! Interestingly enough, only Luke is the one to fit the exact words of Jesus's prophesy of His resurrection with the appearance of the two men in the tomb (24:7). They were told this more than once: Luke 9:22 and 11:29-30. It is embarrassing because even though the Disciples heard this report from women, because they are the only ones who would go, the Disciples still didn't -- wouldn't -- believe! 

Furthermore, well, this response obviously fits cultural attitude. "These women can't be trusted," thinks Peter and the rest. "There's no way a crucified liar could be alive again, and anyway, these witnesses are women." (Keep this in mind: Luke 24:11 is important for part 3 of alternative theories.)

In one verse, Luke includes one piece of evidence fitting the criterion of dissimilarity and contextual credibility. Imagine an argument that claims Luke really had those verses to verify the empty tomb with male witnesses and the story of the women came out of female invention. Well, verse 24:11 throws a monkey wrench into any such theory. What this report really looks like is that someone trying to be a really good historian got a hold of a highly evidenced story. Today, we see it as having two pieces of historical context and two embarrassing claims. Legend theories grind to a halt. 

Now I can try to debate myself. Doesn't it make sense as an invention, and a legend writer trying to stick to the facts (practically self-contradicting, but whatever), that the Disicples would reportedly doubt the women? But it is interesting how in Matthew there is no hint that they doubted the women's report: instead they just went to Galilee to see Him (Matthew 28:7, 10, 16). (Only some doubt after seeing Jesus.)

Furthermore, there could be other ways around fitting the desired theological construct Luke reports (supposing it is a theological invention, not actually complete historical fact): they could believe in the empty tomb and the report, but still have their eyes closed (Luke 24:15-16, 31), have only the lesser Disciples disbelieve, or even have all the Disciples believe because of the tomb but then doubt with the group appearance! I mean, they claimed to have believed because of only Peter's meeting with Jesus, but right afterward needed their faith strengthened (Luke 24:34, 36-47). Legend works to cover up embarrassments, that's why historians find the criterion of dissimilarity to be convincing. It would have been invented a different way even before it reached Luke. Furthermore, there is no good reason to think that even Luke would bother to include something embarrassing like that just to be a good historian. For scholars know he used Mark, and his account of the empty tomb deviates from it and skeptics would claim contains errant embellishment (more detail in the next post). I also think of John, where after Mary meets Jesus, she tells them. Even though it is implied that they needed Jesus to restore their faith (compare John 20:20 and verses 26-20), it never is explicitly said like Luke 24:11. Rather John ends it just with her report. True, in 20:9 it is bluntly explained that they still hadn't believed, but my point is still the same. Never was it clearly claimed that they didn't believe Mary when she reported having proof from Jesus Himself.

In the end, it is as Craig said: legend writers do not need to faithfully stick to the facts. I add that this especially goes for the embarrassing ones. For argument's sake, not every detail of Luke's empty tomb account make be factual, but that it was vacant and the women didn't influence the Disciples is clearly true. 

Citations:

1. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2016), 237-38.

2. Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne: 2014), 167.

3. Josephus, The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, ed. and trans. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987). Cited in Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 72.

4. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 166.

5. James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Westminster Press: Louisville, Kentucky 1985), 65.

Habermas and Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 289.

6. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/29/why-feminists-less-religious-survey

I cited it in my second school essay on the resurrection>

7. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167; Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 101.

8. Copan and Tacelli, Fact or Figment?, 177, emphasis mine.

9. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 289.

10. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 166-67.

11. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 51. As for Luke 24:12 not being in the original manuscript, he cited Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 212-17.

12.  Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN. 2014), 177.

13. Paul Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. 1998), pages 77-98 by Robert J. Miller and 117-28 by Marcus Borg.

14. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 124. Cited in Habermas and Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 294.

15. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 185.