Outline -- Lecture 10
The Resurrection-What Historians Can’t Know
Without a doubt, the Resurrection of Jesus stands as the lynchpin for
the entire Christian faith. If no one had ever come to believe that
Jesus had been raised from the dead, Christianity would probably
never have existed. Given the fundamental importance of the Resurrection
for the beginning of Christianity and for understanding Jesus himself as
a divine figure, it is necessary for us to ask: What can we know about the
Resurrection historically? What can historians say about what happened to
make the disciples come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? And
what can historians not say about this key event that ended up changing the
history of the world?
I. Centrality of the Resurrection
A. The Resurrection of Jesus is obviously central to the Christian faith.Indeed, if no one had ever come to believe that Jesus had beenraised from the dead, there probably never would have been anysuch thing as Christianity
B. During his lifetime, Jesus himself was a Jew, and his followers wereJews. Jesus preached a Jewish message based on his understandingof the Jewish Scripture and the Jewish God. He proclaimed that inhis own generation, God would intervene in history to destroy theforces of evil and establish his long-awaited kingdom on earth.
C. If Jesus had been arrested and crucified for crimes against the stateand no one ever came to think that God had raised him from thedead, he would have been, at best, a footnote in Jewish history,another ill-advised prophet who made predictions that never cametrue and paid the price for it with his life. His followers wouldmerely have been a small sect within Judaism that would have diedout in time.
D. It was the belief in the Resurrection that changed everything. Oncethe disciples of Jesus came to think that God had raised hi1n fromthe dead, they understood everything he had ever said and done ina new light.
E. Recall that in the ancient world, someone who was exalted toheaven and sat on a throne next to God was himself seen as divine.And that’s what the disciples immediately came to see Jesus as-adivine being.
1. Jesus had taught that the Son of Man was soon to come fromheaven to earth; after his death, his disciples said that Jesuswas that Son of Man.
2. Jesus had taught that he would be the king of the futurekingdom, the messiah; his disciples now said that he wasalready the king, not just of Israel but of the whole world, theLord of heaven and earth.
3. Jesus had presented himself as a prophet who knew God’s will;his disciples began to say that he was far more than that--that he had been exalted up to heaven by God and that he wassitting on God’s throne as a divine being himself.
4. This was the beginning of the proclamation that Jesus was God.
II. History versus the Past
A. Given the fundamental importance of the Resurrection, what canwe say about it as historians? To answer this question, we need tolook at the historical method and at what historians can and cannotdemonstrate about the past.
B. The first point to note may seem a bit confusing, but it is of centralimportance: History is not the past.
1. When we talk about “the past,” we mean everything that hasever happened before now. When we talk about “history,” wemean everything that we can show has happened before now.These are obviously not the same thing because most of the pastcannot be shown to have happened with anything like proof.
2. In some cases, we lack adequate sources. For example, wecannot show historically what my grandfather ate for lunch onMarch 3, 1951. That event is in the past; it almost certainlyhappened, but we have no access to it.
3. There are other things we cannot show historically sin1plybecause they are not the kinds of things that history can show.For example, history cannot show that the square root of 144 is12. That is a mathematical question, and if you know that it’strue, it’s not because you’ve done a historical investigation, butbecause you’ve done the math. Further, history does not haveaccess to internal emotional states.
4. Thus, the past is everything that happened (what mygrandfather ate at one time, the fact that you answered amathematical question correctly, and so on), and history iswhat can be shown to have happened in the past.
III. Historians’ Presuppositions
A. Among the things that history cannot show happened in the pastare miracles, including the miracle of the Resurrection. This is notbecause historians must be secular humanists with anti-supernaturalistbiases, as some Christian apologists sometimes claim.
B. Instead, there are two reasons that historians cannot demonstratethat miracles happened-even if they did happen. The First has todo with the presuppositions that historians bring to their work whenthey are working as historians.
1. All of us have presuppositions. The question is: What kindsof presupposition are appropriate for the task at hand? Whenit comes to reconstructing the past-which is the work of thehistorian-some presuppositions are acceptable and othersare not.
2. Historians presuppose, for example, that the past did happen.There’s no way to prove that it did, but historians assume, justlike virtually everyone else, that it really did happen.
3. Historians also presuppose that there are ways of showing whatis likely to have happened in the past-primarily by appealingto historical sources and criteria.C. Other presuppositions are not appropriate for historians for thesimple reason that they are not shared by other historians engagedin the investigation.
1. For example, historians-when they are engaged in doinghistory-cannot conclude that the Mormon religion startedwhen the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and revealedto him the golden tablets. That event may have occurred, butbelieving that it did requires the historian to believe that angelsexist, that Joseph Smith had a revelation from an angel, andso on. Those are theological beliefs that are not shared byeveryone, and thus, they cannot be among the presuppositionsof the historian.
2. The same thing applies to belief in the Resurrection. Evenif it is a past event, it cannot be established historicallybecause it presupposes matters of belief that are not shared byall investigators.
IV. Historical Probability
A. The other problem with trying to prove on historical grounds thata miracle happened is that one of the presuppositions appropriateto historical inquiry is that it can establish only what probablyhappened in the past.
B. We cannot prove the past in the same way we can prove a scientificexperiment. Thus, historians establish levels of probability forthe past based on surviving evidence. Some events are so highlyprobable that we may call them certain; others are very probable,fairly probable, possible, unlikely, and so on.
C. The problem with miracles is that they are, by definition, if notimpossible, then possible only in the most infinitesimally remotedegree. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be miraculous. Many peoplebelieve that Jesus walked on water, but they would also admit thatsuch an event happens so rarely that it must be called miraculous.
D. Historians, though, can establish only what probably happenedin the past, and if miracles are by definition the least probableoccurrence, then historians cannot show they happened.
E. This does not mean that historians must be nonbelievers. It means ifthey believe in miracles, it is on the basis of faith, not on the basisof historical knowledge.
F. In short, even if Jesus was raised from the dead in the past, thereis no way for historians to show it historically. People who thinkthat he was raised think so not because of historical evidence, butbecause that is their belief
V, The Tradition of the Resurrection
A. Even though we cannot establish historically that God raised Jesusfrom the dead, there are some things we can say about the traditionsof Jesus ’s Resurrection from a historical standpoint. Some of thesethings are historically unlikely, and others are probable. One thingthat is virtually certain, as we will see in the next lecture, is thatwhether or not Jesus was actually raised from the dead, some of hisfollowers believed he was.
B. Other things, however, are not so certain. For example, we havealready seen that it is unlikely that Jesus was buried in a knowntomb. Thus, it is also unlikely that the tomb was discovered by hisfollowers to be empty.
C. We also don’t know when the disciples first said that Jesus wasraised from the dead. The tradition in the Gospels indicates that itwas three days later, but that’s difficult to know.
1. If the Gospels are correct that the disciples fled from Jesus atthe time of his arrest, it’s likely that they would have returnedto Galilee, a seven-day walk from Jerusalem.
2. If they came to believe that Jesus was raised once they were inGalilee-as suggested by Mark (and indicated by Matthew)-then this belief emerged at least a week later and possibly muchmore than that.D. It is also impossible to know who was the first to believe thatJesus had been raised from the dead. Different sources suggestdifferent people: Paul indicates it was Peter; the Gospels suggestit was Mary Magdalene.
E. Finally, it is impossible to know how many of the disciples of Jesuscame to believe that he had been raised. According to the Gospels, itwas all of the remaining disciples, along with J esus’s female followersfrom Galilee. But it is striking that in every instance ir1 which Jesusappears to his disciples ir1 the Gospels, some or all of them doubt.This may be most easily explained on the grounds that some ofJesus’s followers never did come to believe in the Resurrection.
F. In short, historianscannot establish that God raised Jesus fromthe dead, although theologians, with their different sets ofpresuppositions, may well argue that he was, and believers certainlythink he was. But this is not a historical claim-even if it didhappen in the past. It is a theological or religious claim. In addition,there are many aspects of the stories of Jesus’s Resurrection that arehighly doubtful, but there are also some things that are certain, andthose are what we will discuss in the next lecture.
Suggested Reading
Allison, Resurrecting Jesus.
Brown, The Wrginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus.
Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation ofa Jewish Preacher jiom Galilee.
-----, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Mllennium.
Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ.
------, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision.”
Liidemann, The Resurrection of Christ.
Questions to Consider
1. Discuss the presuppositions that strike you as appropriate and those
that strike you as inappropriate for historians trying to establish what
happened in the past.
2. Do you agree that historians--acting as historians, with appropriate
historical assumptions--cannot establish whether a miracle, such as
Jesus’s Resurrection, actually happened or not? Why or why not?
Lecture 10-Transcript
The Resurrection-What Historians Can’t Know
There’s no doubt that the Resurrection of Jesus stands as the linchpin for the
entire Christian faith. If no one had ever come to believe that Jesus had been
raised from the dead, there probably never would have been such a thing as
Christianity. During his lifetime, Jesus himself was a Jew, and his followers
were Jews. Jesus preached a Jewish message, based on his understanding of
the Jewish scripture and of the Jewish God. He proclaimed that in his own
generation, God would intervene in history to destroy the forces of evil, and
establish his long awaited kingdom on earth.
If Jesus had been arrested and crucified for crimes against the state, and no
one ever came to think God had raised him from the dead, he would have
ended up being a footnote in Jewish history at best-another ill-advised
prophet who made predictions that never came true, and paid the price of
it with his life. If his followers continued together as a group, they would
merely have been a small sect within Judaism that itself would have died out
in time. It was the belief in the Resurrection that changed everything. Once
the disciples of Jesus came to think that God had raised him from the dead,
they came to re-understand everything that he had ever said and ever done in
a new light.
It’s important to remember that in the ancient world, someone who was
exalted to heaven, who was seated on a throne next to God, was himself seen
as divine. We’ve seen that in pagan circles with figures like Romulus and
Apollonius of Tyana, and we’ve seen it lI1 Jewish circles with people like
Enoch and the Son of Man. Someone who is exalted to heaven becomes a
divine being. And that’s what the disciples immediately came to see Jesus
as-a divinity, not merely a human.
Jesus himself during his lifetime, had taught that the Son of Man was soon
to come from heaven over the earth. His disciples, who came to believe
that he had been raised from the dead, thought that he had been exalted to
heaven. And they started saying that he was that Son of Man. He was the one
who was coming in judgment over the earth. He was soon to return in order
to bring the end of all things. Jesus was the Son of Man.
Jesus himself during his earthly ministry, had taught that he would be the
king of that future kingdom, the messiah. He told his disciples that the
twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes
of Israel. And he must have taught them that he would be their leader then,
as he was their leader now. In other words, he would be the king of the
future kingdom.
But after his death, his disciples came to believe he had been raised from the
dead and exalted to heaven. And they started saying that he was, in fact, the
king-not the king just of the future, but the king of the present. Jesus was
already the king. And not just of Israel, but of the whole world. And so they
started calling him the Lord of heaven and earth.
Jesus had presented himself as a prophet who knew God’s will. His disciples
started saying that he was far more than that. At his Resurrection and
exaltation, he had been seated on a throne next to God, and he had been
made a divine being. This was the beginning of the proclamation that Jesus
was God. It all hinges on the belief in Jesus’ Resurrection.
Given the fundamental importance of the Resurrection for the beginning
of Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and for understanding
Jesus himself as a divine figure, it’s necessary for us to ask, what could we
know about it historically? What can historians say about what happened to
make the disciples come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? And
what can historians not say about this key event that ended up changing the
history of our entire world?
It’s important to stress that I’m asking what the historian can say as a
historian. There are, of course, historians who are Christian believers.
And there are other historians who are not. If the Resurrection could be
established as having happened historically-following the historical
disciplines rigorously-or as not having happened, why would one group of
historians accept it as having happened and another group not?
Is it that one group of historians-either the Christians or the non-
Christians-just happen to be better historians than the others? Is it that
the non-Christians are hard-hearted and refused to see the facts, even when
they’re put before their very eyes? Or that Christian historians are gullible
and more easily swayed? Or are there other reasons why most Christian
historians believe in the Resurrection, and non-Christian historians do not?
In this lecture, I’ll be arguing that there are, in fact, other reasons, and
that they are unrelated to the facts of history. That, in fact, the belief in the
Resurrection is not based on historical knowledge. To explain what these
reasons are, I need to talk a little bit about historical method, and about what
it is that historians can and cannot demonstrate about the past.
The first point to make is one that most people have never thought of
and that, at first, may sound a bit confusing. But it’s absolutely of central
importance. History is not the past. Let me stress the point-history is not
the past. When we talk about the past, we mean everything that has ever
happened before now. When we talk about history, we mean everything that
we can show has happened before now.
These are obviously not the same thing. That’s because most of the past
cannot be shown to have happened with anything like proof Sometimes
that’s because we lack adequate sources for the past. There’s no way in the
world that anyone can show historically what it is my grandfather ate for
lunch on March 3, 1951. It’s in the past. It almost certainly happened, but we
have no access to it.
There are other things we CaI1I1Ot show historically, simply because they’re
not the kinds of things that history can show. History cannot show that the
square root of 144 is 12. That’s a mathematical question. And if you know
that, in fact, it’s true, it’s not because you’ve done a historical investigation,
but because you’ve done the math.
History cannot show that I loved my grandmother. It would be possible
to show, in theory, how I behaved toward my grandmother. For example,
you could ask my other fan1ily members. And even theoretically, history
can show how I behaved toward her in ways that seem to suggest that I
loved her. But history has no access to my internal emotional states, only to
historical events.
You may know that five years ago you loved your spouse. But your
knowledge is not based on historical facts, but on emotional sensibilities.
And so the past is everything that happened before-what my grandfather
ate at one time; the fact that you answered a mathematical question correctly
on an exam; my feelings toward my grandmother, or yours toward your
spouse-and history is what can be shown to have happened in the past.
These are not the same thing.
One thing that history cannot show that happened in the past are miracles,
including the miracle of the Resurrection. This is not because historians have
to be secular humanists with anti-supernaturalist biases, as some Christian
apologists sometimes claim. In fact, there are Christian historians just as
there are non-Christian historians, and none of them can demonstrate on
historical grounds that the Resurrection happened, even if it did.
There are two reasons why historians cannot demonstrate that miracles
ever happened, even if they did happen. The first has to do with the
presuppositions that historians bring to their work when they are working
as historians. All of us have presuppositions. It’s not that some historians
have them and that they are therefore subjective, and that other historians
work without them and that they are, as a consequence, objective. Everyone
has presuppositions.
The question is, what kinds of presupposition are appropriate for the task
at hand? When it comes to reconstructing the past, which is the work of
the historian, some presuppositions are acceptable and others are not.
Historians presuppose, for example, that the past did happen. Now, there’s
no way to prove that it happened. We just assume, like virtually everyone
else, that it really did. It’s a presupposition that historians have. They also
presuppose that there are ways of showing what is likely to have happened
in the past. Some things are more likely than others. It is virtually certain
that my University of North Carolina Tar Heels won the National Basketball
Championship in 2009. And it’s virtually certain they did not win the same
championship in 2010. These and a billion other things from the past are
virtually certain.
But other things are not. It’s much more difficult, for example, to demonstrate
that there was a lone gunman in the assassination of JFK. So some things are
more readily shown to have happened in the past than others. And historians
presuppose that-that we’re working with levels of probability.
Historians also presuppose that the way one demonstrates what happened
in the past is by appealing to historical sources and criteria, rather than, for
example, mathematical proofs, which are used by mathematicians for what
they want to demonstrate. Or by psychological testing, which is used by
psychologists for what they want to demonstrate. Historians have to go to
historical sources using historical criteria, much as I’ve described them in
my previous lecture. These, then, are among the appropriate presuppositions
for doing history.
There are other presuppositions that are not appropriate for historians for
the simple reason that they’re not shared by other historians engaged in the
investigation. For example, historians cannot conclude that the reason the
Allies won World War II was because Martians came down and dictated the
course of the war, leading to the destruction of the Axis powers. Now, maybe
that is what happened in the past. But historians cannot claim it is what
happened, because it requires certain presuppositions not widely held among
historians. For example, that there are Martians, and that they intervene in
our worldly affairs.
So too historians, when they are engaged to doing history,cannot conclude
that the Mormon religion started when the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph
Smith revealing to him the golden tablets. Maybe that did happen. But
claiming that it did requires the historian to believe that there is such a thing
as angels, that Moroni is one of them, that Joseph Smith had a revelation
from a divine being, and so on. These are theological beliefs. They may be
true, but they’re theological beliefs. And they’re beliefs that not everyone
shares-for example, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists. And since
they’re not widely shared among historians engaged in the task of history,
they cannot be among the presuppositions of the historian.
Alleged historians who want to speak about Martians, or the Angel Moroni,
simply won’t get a wide hearing for their view. History has to be done on the
basis of widely held assumptions about the world. Otherwise, it’s not history,
but theology, or ufology, or something else.
The same applies to belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. Even if it is a past
event, it cannot be established historically because it presupposes matters
of belief that are not shared by all investigators. For example, that there
is a God, that Jesus is his son, that God interacts in history, and that God
performs miraculous events.
The other problem with trying to prove on historical grounds that a miracle
such as the Resurrection of Jesus happened is that one of the presuppositions
appropriate to historical inquiry is that we can only establish what probably
happened in the past. We cannot prove the past the way we can prove a
scientific experiment.
A scientist sets up an experiment, performs the experiment, controls the
variables, repeats the experiment. And if the experiment is repeated the same
way, with the same variables every time, the scientist will come up with
the same result. If that happens time after time after time, then there’s an
expectation that if the same experiment is performed again, then we know
what will happen the next time. Experiments can be repeated.
But the past cannot be repeated. Once the past happens, it’s over and
done with. That means historians have to have other kinds of evidence for
establishing their probabilities. Historians establish levels of probability for
the past based on whatever surviving evidence there happens to be.
Some things are so highly probable that we may as well call them certain.
The Allies did win World War II, JFK was assassinated. Other events are
very probable indeed. Caesar probably did cross the Rubicon. Others are
fairly probable. My grandfather likely ate something on March 3, 1951.
Other events are at least possible. Maybe there was a king in England after
the Romans left-a king who became the basis for the stories of King Arthur.
Other events are unlikely, highly unlikely, or almost certainly unhistorical.
For example, that Elvis was seen alive again last Thursday in Memphis. Or
that Charlemagne became a Buddhist. Pick any example out of millions.
The problem with miracles is that they are, by definition, if not impossible,
then possible only in the most infinitesimally most remote degree, otherwise
they wouldn’t be miraculous. How often do people walk on the water at your
local lake, or levitate above the clouds, or successfully order a thunderstorm
to stop, or feed 5,000 people to the full with five loaves of bread, or raise
someone who has been long dead?
If you think such things are possible, that’s fine. Many, many people do think
they are possible. But the fact is that even if you think so, you would admit
that they happen so rarely that you have to call them miraculous. And so
the problem: Historians can only establish what probably happened in the
past, and if miracles are by definition the least probable occurrence, then
historians cannot show that they happened.
This does not mean that historians have to be nonbelievers. It means if they
believe in miracles, it’s on the basis of faith, not on the basis of historical
knowledge. In short, even if Jesus was raised from the dead in the past,
there’s no way for historians to show it historically. People who think he
was raised think so not because of historical evidence, but because that’s
their belief,
Even though we cannot establish historically that God raised Jesus from the
dead, there are some things that we can say about the traditions of Jesus’
Resurrection historically. Some of these things are historically unlikely, and
others are probable. One thing that’s virtually certain, as we’ll see in the next
lecture, is that whether or not Jesus was actually raised from the dead, some
of his followers believed he was. That’s a historical reality. There are other
things, however, that are not so certain.
First, I’ve already shown why it’s unlikely, at least, that Jesus was buried in
a known tomb. Second, this means that it is also unlikely that the tomb was
discovered to be empty by his followers. If there is no tomb to go to, then
it wasn’t found abandoned. It’s important to remember that the first record
we have of there being an empty tomb was the Gospel of Mark, which was
written around the year 65 or 70 CE-some 40 years after the fact-based
on stories that Mark had heard that had been in circulation by word of mouth
during the intervening four decades.
The empty tomb is never mentioned by the Apostle Paul writing some 20
years earlier. Remember this passage from 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Paul is
writing to the Corinthians to remind them what it is that they were taught
when he First was among them converting them to believe III Jesus. As he
said, “I handed unto you what was of First importance what I received, that
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that
he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.”
Paul goes on to list the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. He does not
mention the empty tomb, either in this passage or somewhere else. Historians
have long asked, if Paul knew about the empty tomb, and he wanted to
demonstrate that Jesus was raised from the dead, why didn’t he mention the
empty tomb?
Well, there’s no evidence that Paul knew about the empty tomb. What this
means is we have no eyewitness to the empty tomb. Far from it. We have
stories that were III circulation year after year after year that some Christians
probably had never even heard of.
Third, we don’t know when the disciples first said that Jesus was raised from
the dead. The tradition in the Gospels indicates that it was three days later.
But it’s very hard to know if that’s right. In other words, it’s hard to know
that the tradition that Jesus was raised on the third day, if that tradition started
on the third day, or ii in fact, it was a tradition that was developed later.
If the Gospels are right that the disciples fled from Jesus when he was
arrested, it’s likely that they would have escaped from the city to return
home. The disciples were afraid that they themselves would get in trouble
with the law. That they themselves would be arrested. That they themselves
would be put on trial and possibly executed for supporting an insurrection.
And so they went into hiding.
And according to some of our gospels, what they did is they went home. And
where was home? Jerusalem was the capital of Judea in the southern part of
what we now think of as Israel. The disciples, like Jesus himself were from
Galilee. According to the Gospels, the disciples were told that they were
supposed to meet Jesus in Galilee. They are told this by the women who
came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
Our First account, once more, is in the Gospel of Mark. In the Gospel of
Mark, we’re told the three women went to the tomb after Jesus had died-
Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome. There at the
tomb, they Iind that there’s no one in the tomb. This is the First account of
the empty tomb. But there’s a young man there who says that they’re not to
be alarmed. “You’re looking for Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. He’s
been raised. He’s not here. Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going
ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
And so they are supposed to go to Galilee to see Jesus. According to our
later gospel, the Gospel of Matthew, that’s precisely what happened. In this
account, women go to the tomb on the third day, as they do III the Gospel of
Mark. In this instance, it happens to be a different set of women. It’s only
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. At the tomb, they find that it’s empty.
And then suddenly, III this account, Jesus meets them.
And he says to them, greetings. And he says to them-not the young man at
the tomb, but Jesus says to them in this account, “Don’t be afraid. Go and tell
my brothers to go to Galilee. And there they will see me.” And then we’re
told the 11 disciples--since Judas has now killed himself--the 11 disciples
went III Galilee to the mountain to which Jesus directed them. And when
they saw him, they worshipped him.
They went to Galilee after Jesus’ death. Historically, what probably
happened? Well, the disciples are afraid of being arrested. And so they go
home. They go to Galilee. Galilee is in the northern part of Israel. Capernaum,
the base of Jesus’ operation, was about 120 miles from Jerusalem. That’s at
least a week’s walk.
My question is, when did the disciples First start saying that Jesus was raised
from the dead? We shouldn’t think that necessarily it was on the third day.
It may have been at least a week later. And maybe it was much longer after
that. Remember, our earliest accounts of this are written decades later. The
belief in Jesus’ Resurrection may not have happened right away.
Fourth, it’s impossible to know who was the first to believe that Jesus had
been raised from the dead. As we saw in this passage from 1 Corinthians 15,
Paul indicates that Christ first appeared to Cephas--that is, to Peter. But in
the Gospels, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene and the other women.
Well, which is it? Was it Peter? Or was it Mary Magdalene?
There are Christian apologists who attempt to defend the Christian faith
with logical argumentation who have argued that these appearances in the
Gospels to Mary Magdalene and the other women are hard to explain unless,
in fact, they are historical. This is an argument that the women really did see
Jesus and found the empty tomb, and then told it to others. The logic behind
this apologetic argument is that in the ancient world, women could not be
accepted as reliable witnesses in courts of law.
If somebody wanted to make up the idea of Jesus’ tomb being discovered,
they wouldn’t make up the idea that it was women who discovered the tomb,
according to this apologetic logic. I understand the logic of this argument,
and it’s a view that I used to hold myself for many, many years. I thought,
there’s no way that this story could be made up because it’s women who
discover the tomb. I’ve since come to think otherwise.
The question is, who ir1 early Christianity would make up the idea that
women had gone to the tomb, if somebody made up that idea? In fact, you
can think up a lot of explanations for why it is women are the ones said
to find the empty tomb. First, who would be likely to make up the story
that women found the empty tomb? Well, maybe women would make up
the story that women found the empty tomb. We know that women were
well represented in early Christianity. In fact, a lot of our sources suggest
that there were more women in the faith than there were men in the faith.
These women played prominent roles in the earliest years of Christianity. It’s
possible that women would have come up with such a story.
Second, it makes sense that women were the ones who would discover the
empty tomb for the simple reason that these people going to the tombs-
say they’re men, say they’re women. Who’s going to the tomb? People who
want to prepare the body for burial. And who is it, in the ancient world, that
prepares bodies for burial? It’s women. And so naturally, it’s the women who
would go to the tomb. And if they’re the ones who go to the tomb, they’re
the ones who would find it empty.
Moreover, as we’ve already seen, the accounts claim that the men disciples
have fled the scene. In other words, they’ve probably gone back to Galilee.
If they’ve fled the scene, who is there left to go to the empty tomb? It would
be the women. According to our gospels, when Jesus went to Jerusalem, he
went in the company of his 12 disciples, but also with a group of women.
The men disciples have fled. So who is left behind? It’s the women. And so
naturally they would find the empty tomb.
But there’s even a more convincing reason to think that somebody could
have made up the story of women going to the tomb, that it’s not at all
implausible. Our First account of this, of course, is the Gospel of Mark,
which indicates that there were three women-Mary Magdalene, another
Mary, and Salome. The three of them go to the tomb. They’re the ones who
learn at the tomb by a yOhI1g man that Jesus had been raised from the dead,
and that they’re to go tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.
Mark is very interesting, because it ends in the very next verse. It says, the
women fled from the tomb, and they didn’t say anything to anyone, because
they were afraid. Period. The Gospel of Mark ends there, with the women
not telling anyone.
This is a terrific ending to the Gospel of Mark, and it’s unlike any of the
other gospels. In the other gospels, the women do go tell, the disciples do
come to believe, Jesus appears to the disciples. But in Mark, Jesus never
appears to anybody. This makes perfect sense for Mark’s gospel in particular.
Mark’s gospel is all about how people don’t understand who Jesus is. This
is repeatedly emphasized throughout the gospel. Jesus’ family thinks that
he’s crazy, and they try to take him out of the public view in chapter 2. The
townspeople of Jesus don’t understand how he can have such wisdom. The
Jewish leaders think that he’s possessed by the devil Beelzebub. And the
disciples themselves don’t understand who Jesus is, as is repeatedly stated
in the Gospel.
Jesus on several occasions complains with some perplexity, “Don’t you yet
understand?” Finally, halfway through the gospel, Peter says to Jesus when
he’s asked, “Who am I?” Peter replies, “You are the Messiah.” But he doesn’t
even understand what that means. Jesus has to explain that as the messiah,
he needs to suffer and die. Well, Peter, who has the Jewish expectation of
a messiah, doesn’t think Jesus is going to go suffer and die. He doesn’t
understand. And they never come to understand.
Mark’s gospel ends with the disciples never con1ing to understand that
Jesus has been raised from the dead. This fits in perfectly with the themes
of Mark’s gospel otherwise. It would not be at all implausible that Mark
is the one who invented the idea that the women came to the tomb, found
it empty, and didn’t tell anybody. Because the disciples then never come
to a recognition that Jesus had to die and be raised from the dead--a
Marken theme.
Now, I don’t personally think that Mark is the one who invented this idea
of the women going to the tomb. But if Mark could have a literary reason in
order to come up with this story, then someone before hi1n also could have
come up with the story. Which means that this apologetic idea that no one
would invent a story of women going to the tomb is absolutely wrong.
Fifth, it’s impossible to know how many of the disciples of Jesus came
to believe he had been raised from the dead. According to the gospels, of
course, it was all of the 11, along with Jesus’ women followers from Galilee.
But it’s striking that in every instance in which Jesus appears to his disciples
in the gospels, some or all of them doubt, as we will see in the next lecture.
This may be most easily explained on the grounds that some of Jesus’
followers never did come to believe it.
In short, historians cannot establish that God raised Jesus from the dead, even
though theologians, with their different sets of presuppositions, may well
argue that he was raised. And believers certainly believe he was. But this
is not a historical claim, even if it did happen in the past. It’s a theological
or religious claim. In addition, there are numerous aspects of the stories of
Jesus’ Resurrection that are highly doubtful. But there are also some things
that are certain. And that is what we’ll be discussing in the next lecture.
