After AD 30, did the Jerusalem Church fall for a lie that Mary witnessed Jesus's tomb empty?
-
Our question
The Jerusalem church was the apostolic church that immediately arose soon after Jesus's death in AD 30, and his purported resurrection. It seems these Christians early on publicly maintained that Jesus's tomb was found empty, and in particular it was found empty by various Easter women, including Mary Magdalene. Could this belief of there's actually be erroneous and formed as a result of Mary and these womeny lying about having witnessed Jesus's tomb empty?
-
The church was not susceptible
- Those reasons are as follows:
• It is unacceptably late (e.g. “If that were true, we'd have heard about it long ago!”); this is accentuated by their straightforward awareness of the fact that Mary was a well-known member of their church.
• It's enticingly falsifiable (for example, “We'll get Mary's feedback before accepting this, much less endorsing it!”). After all, the Jerusalem sought/lionized relevant eyewitness testimony, and Mary and her feedback were overtly accessible to themPaul Althaus (Theology professor at Göttingen): “In Jerusalem, one could not think of the grave as empty without being certain, without there being testimony, that it had been found empty.” [Die Wahrheit des kirchlichen Osterglaubens (Bertelsmann, 1940), 23.] (As cited/translated by Dale Allison).
The Jerusalem church was such that it was not inherently susceptible to falling for such a lie. After all, • They would not have seen sufficient reason to believe the lie. (for example, “Who are you and/or your source to teach us?”).1
• They would have seen compelling reason to refrain from believing the lie: It was flagrantly suspect. - Those reasons are as follows:
-
No one would attempt such a lie
- Any would-be liars would be hyper-aware of the following:
• Such a lie would clearly be unacceptably late (E.g. “If that were true, we'd have heard about it long ago!”); this is accentuated by any would-be liar's straightforward awareness of the fact that Mary was a well-known member of their church.
• Such a lie would be enticingly falsifiable (E.g. “We'll get Mary's feedback before accepting this, much less endorsing it!”). [See footnote 1 above.] After all, the Jerusalem church sought/lionized relevant eyewitness testimony, and Mary and her feedback were overtly accessible to them.
No early Christian would even try to spin such a lie (this is especially true of anyone lying to the Jerusalem church). One reason we know this is that the Jerusalem church is famously more informed than any would-be informer.1
- Any would-be liars would be hyper-aware of the following:
-
Their belief came from Mary
- We know Mary formed it for three reasons:
• Mk 16 cites her as its ultimate accessible eyewitness source[Forthcoming],
• The church was not susceptible to such a lie,
• Insofar as it was common knowledge that the church was not susceptible, it is unlikely that a liar exist there who would even try.
The Jerusalem church's belief was actually grounded in Mary's testimony. (After all, the Mk 16:1-8 report that “Mary saw Jesus's tomb empty” had already originated/formed from _within _the Jerusalem church, specifically in c. AD 30, and specifically by Mary Magdalene1). This is relevant because Mary's autobiographical report that she discovered Jesus's tomb empty was not a lie.
- We know Mary formed it for three reasons: