In AD 30, the Jerusalem church said Mary saw it Soon after Jesus was crucified in AD 30, the Jerusalem church (headed by the apostles) came to publicly maintain that, “Mary et. al. discovered that Jesus’s tomb was empty”[?] [Full article.]
• …the proposition's parts date to AD 30[?]
• …Mk’s “they saw it!” material dates to AD 30[?]
• …Mk’s “they saw it!” just relays the Jerusalem church’s report[?]
• …Across AD 30-70, the Jerusalem church’s stance on this didn’t change
• …Sundays became sacred to Christians[?]
No, they weren’t saying that in AD 30…
• …They didn’t even know of an empty tomb[?] (e.g. Paul didn’t[?])
• …The 1 Cor 15 creeds’ originators would have mentioned it[?]
• …Mk invented it[?]
• …Mk 16:8 “[Mary] said nothing to anyone” is an excuse[?]
So? If the AD 30 church was saying that, plausibly...
• …Their belief is not grounded in eyewitness testimony[?]
• They inferred it from Mary’s wrong-tomb blunder[?]
• They just perpetuated a lie by…[?]
• …the Jerusalem church itself
• …Mary and the women[?]
• …someone else[?])
By c. A.D. 70, the official position of the Markan community, or source behind the Gospel of Mark, was that “yes, Mary did discover Jesus's tomb empty.”1 This is relevant because Mark's church's beliefs on this issue were most likely formed in normal ways that inspire confidence.
But, so what? Couldn't it simply be that…
• …Mark was intentionally lying?2
• …Mark was accidentally perpetuating a lie that he had fallen for?[Forthcoming]
The Christian(s) who started the report that “Mary discovered Jesus's tomb empty” were not lying.1 This is relevant because the most natural remaining options for how the belief was formed are the normal ways which properly inspire confidence.
But, so what? Couldn't it simply be that Mary blunderingly started the report, thinking she visited Jesus's tomb when in fact she visited a wrong one that was empty?
• Craig Evans (NT professor, Dead Sea Scolls Inst. Founder): “The story of the women who witness Jesus’ burial and then return early Sunday to anoint his body smacks of historicity. It's hard to see why relatively unknown women would feature so prominently in such an important story if what we have here is fiction. But if the women's intention is to mourn privately, as Jewish law and custom allowed, and, even more importantly, to note the precise location of Jesus' tomb so that the later gathering of His remains of burial in His family tomb is possible, then we have a story that fits Jewish customs on the one hand and stands in tension with resurrection expectations and supporting apologetics on the other.” [Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus: [Online at craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf]
The earliest Christians did not believe that Mary witnessed Jesus's tomb empty. [Full article].
• …Paul didn't believe it.
• …1 Cor. 15 creed originated didn't believe it.
Mary blunderingly thought the empty tomb she visited was Jesus's, when in fact is was nother tomb entirely. [Full article.]
• …graveclothes were in the tomb Mary visited.
• …Jesus's tomb was recognizable.
• …the Jerusalem church kept saying it was correct.
Mary would not choose to re-visit the tomb of Jesus. [Full article.] This is relevant because in the absence of choosing to do this, she would not have been a witness discovering Jesus's tomb to be empty.