This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #4 – Jesus’ tomb was empty

1) The Jerusalem Factor
2) Enemy attestation
3) The testimony of women

The Jerusalem Factor

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. His empty tomb and his resurrection were proclaimed there first. If Jesus’ body had still been in the tomb, why did no one go get the body and drag it through the streets of the city to shut down the Christian movement that so angered the Jewish officials? This would not be an easy task but it would be worth getting rid of a blasphemous group of rebels. Furthermore, an occupied tomb would at least have dissuaded enough of the believers to merit some apologetic attention on this matter. However, no apologetic work can be found on an occupied tomb by any of the apostles or even second or third century Christian writers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Origen (to name a few). There is a strong possibility they would have reasoned a defense for an empty tomb, as demonstrated in their reasoning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, if they had needed to do so. In addition, no work on the tomb from early Christian opposition can be found, such as Celsus, the second century Christian critic.[i]

Enemy Attestation

If testimony about an event or person is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message or cause that benefits from the affirmation, then there is reason to believe the testimony’s authenticity. The empty tomb can be found either implicitly or explicitly stated in the works of Josephus, Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” Tertullian’s “On Spectacles,” and in the Jewish Toledoth (a derogatory version of Jesus’ life in Jewish tradition).

In the Jewish Toledoth:
“On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.[ii]

In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

“You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.” [iii]

Even to imply that Jesus was raised or that his tomb was empty is certainly damaging to the case against the resurrection if reasoning from the offensive.

Testimony of Women

If I had an intention of creating a story to make myself (or my story) look good, I would most likely not include information that would be damaging or embarrassing to the credibility of my story. By that standard, it would be an odd invention to have the women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. In the accounts of the empty tomb, the women are exactly that, the first witnesses, in all four gospel accounts. This report would most likely be damaging to the case for the empty tomb when taken in context of the first century socio-cultural norms. The testimony of a woman was not regarded as highly as the testimony of a man. Habermas and Licona quote a few Jewish writings on this matter:

Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex…..; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Joshephus, Antiquities 4.8.15)

Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)[iv]
Why would the gospel writers include women as the number one witnesses to the empty tomb when it would behoove their cause to use men instead? The reason would be because they were reporting the truth; embarrassing as that may be.

These three factors contribute to the case for an empty tomb. Though the empty tomb is conceded by 75%[v] of scholars who write on the Resurrection (versus 95% or better on the other 3 facts), this is still an impressive number for the empty tomb case. Again, the empty tomb is a historically probable event that needs to be explained when discussing the evidences surrounding the Resurrection.

MJ

[i] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg. 71.

[ii] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[iii] The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians: Addressed to the Roman Senate. The Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/justin-apology2.html. Accessed December 2, 2006.

[iv] Habermas. Licona. pg. 72. All three quotes were taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

[v] Ibid. pg. 70.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007