The gospels say that a miracle man called Jesus Christ lived. They say he died by crucifixion and three days later he rose again. The tomb he was placed in was found wide open with the stone that had been across the entrance moved back and the tomb was mysteriously empty. His body was gone. The gospels never say that anybody saw the body rising or coming out of the tomb. No evidence is given that he wasn’t stolen. Women at the tomb could have taken the body. The gospels fail to refute the idea that the women stole the body of Jesus from the tomb. In fact they don’t even try!

THE SITUATION WITH FEMALE TESTIMONY

The gospels tell us that when Jesus was buried after his cruel death by crucifixion in a rich man’s tomb that a stone was rolled across the door. We are told the tomb was guarded against thieves but an angel appeared and made the guards faint and in the morning women came to attend to the corpse and found the tomb opened and Jesus gone. They testified that an angel told them that Jesus rose and they said they saw Jesus raised from the dead.

The Church says that women were said to have found the tomb empty and seen the risen Jesus and since women were not regarded as valid witnesses their story must be true and the gospels didn’t make their testimony up.

The most obvious flaw in what the Church says is that first of all, this female testimony doesn’t exist. Somebody reporting what the women said is not the women’s testimony – it is the testimony of the persons saying they said this! The gospels speak of the women and what they said as part of the story. They say nothing concerning the validity of taking what the women said as testimony. And the women certainly only told a story, they didn’t make an official or legal statement out of it. The gospels don’t treat them as witnesses but as gossips. If they didn’t they would say the women were in the function of true witnesses. If the local liar tells you the house is on fire, you will check it out just in case. It doesn’t mean you considered him to be a viable witness.

Its lies and stupidity all the time when the Church is involved in anything.

The story of the women would have had to have been invented because if it had been men people would be more likely to believe that the men stole the body. It was a thing that men would have been expected to do.

Let us suppose the women were considered witnesses. The women were the only ones present at the empty tomb and who might have been the only witnesses the Matthew gospeller could have had any confidence in for he did not trust the guards. Christians reject stories of visions as enough for establishing the resurrection of Christ for most Christians reject the visions of Medjugorje so it follows that the real evidence for the resurrection must come from the women being able to prove that a physical miracle of a body coming back to life happened. The apostles came by later and so cannot count as witnesses of this – and yet the religion insanely claims that they are THE AUTHORITIVE witnesses and that is why they are special. Christianity then has to fall back on the testimony of women who are never even said to have been reliable. So Christianity is just superstition for how do we know that the women did not see Jesus being stolen from the tomb but tried to cover it up with a resurrection story or the story that Jesus vanished in the tomb for the destruction of his body by God was the prelude to his spiritual resurrection? If the gospellers believed that women were unreliable witnesses and nevertheless made witnesses of them then were they trying to get it across to the Church that the whole story was a pile of nonsense? Christians argue that the absurdity of men who rejected female testimony using these women proves the story true. In other words, the more improbable or incredible a story is the more likely it is to be true! We will believe anything if we follow that principle.

The John Gospel says that the Samaritan woman was regarded as a valid witness for Jesus among the Samaritans who were just as sexist as the Jews (John 4:39). The Mishna says women can be witnesses under certain circumstances like when there are no men ones (Yebamoth 16:17; Ketuboth 2:5; Eduyoth 3:6). The Old Testament speaks of women like Deborah and Ruth and Esther who were valid and trusted witnesses so only heretical Jews comprising a minority among the Sadducees who regarded the Torah alone as scripture could have disparaged female testimony. It is simply a lie that the anomaly of women being witnesses means the story is true. Moreover, the story does not present them as legal witnesses at all and it was the tradition law that had reservations about women but not all agreed. Jesus himself said that women are forbidden to divorce their husbands indicating that they were considered to be valid witnesses by many and he was certainly saying a woman’s testimony was valid here. The laws that are supposed to ban female witnesses are really against women being used as witnesses when male witnesses would do but with male witnesses they are okay.

If women were no good as witnesses if men saw the empty tomb, then the women are a strong indication that no man saw the tomb empty and the guards didn’t see it and were perhaps never there at all. And that the story of the disciples seeing the tomb was made up. The women were included as witnesses perhaps implying that the gospels rejected any tradition that women could not testify which makes any argument that since women were made the first witnesses though women were not considered to be any good as witnesses therefore women must have really seen what they said, to be wholly tripe.

We know that John’s claim that the disciples actually went into the tomb is untrue for Roman law would have crushed them for that. (Unless you want to believe that they had obtained authorisation from Pilate which was why even if they stole the body nobody could do a thing about it for it was technically not stealing. This would explain why we do not hear of anybody being framed and punished for the theft. The Christians like to keep people from thinking that the body could have been legally stolen and all their apologetics centre around the notion that to take Jesus had to be theft.)

There is no evidence whatsoever apart from testimony, that is refuted by Paul who did not need the empty tomb in his system but who in listing the evidence for the resurrection denied the testimony of the women by omitting them, that there was an empty tomb.

The testimony of women then was considered to be better than Christians would have you think (Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffrey Jay Lowder). The gospels were written for Jews in a Gentile culture that regarded women highly and even as potential goddesses. The gospels were chiefly written for the Gentiles therefore the authors couldn’t have had a problem inventing women witnesses.

Top of the Document

WHY SUSPECT THE WOMEN?

If there were women at the tomb they might have been behind the disappearance of the body and the resurrection fraud. If the stone were movable by one man as the gospels suggest then the women could have moved it. We read that Joseph of Arimathea rolled the stone across the opening of the tomb (Matthew 27:60). You don’t speak of one man pushing John off a building when it would take two and when there were two. The Christians say the gospel is only mentioning Joseph but there must have been others too. Is that likely? When Matthew gave the impression one man could move the stone in an account meant to show that Jesus came back from the dead it must have been one man. Why not mention that there were others? If it is true as Matthew claims that the Jews feared a resurrection report, they would not have let very many people deal with the body of Jesus for the more people there are the more chance there is of the body being taken away elsewhere and then proclaimed missing. In Mark 15 we read that Joseph took Jesus from the cross, he could have done that alone, and then he rolled the stone across his tomb implying that the context indicates he was working alone. Luke 23 talks the same way, notice how at verses 55, 56 that the women saw how the body was laid out. This is to give the impression that this was witnessed by the women, he wants to give evidence. There were no other men when he chose women as witnesses for the Jews don’t like female witnesses. However John adds Nicodemus as a witness. If one or two men could work with the stone the women could have moved it themselves and stolen the body.

If the Jews had feared a resurrection report as the Matthew gospel says then why did they appoint a guard to stop the apostles stealing the body and saying he rose? It would have been easier if they had put the body out of the public eye and where the disciples could never find it. There were no guards which opens the way for us to ask if the women might have stolen the Jesus corpse.

A visit of the women to do pointless anointing would show they were up to something. The Womb and the Tomb, page 113, tells us that everybody believed that decomposition set in on the third day making it unlikely for anybody to return to Jesus’ tomb to start or complete the anointing. It was too late then. If there were guards they intended to lie to them about the purpose of their visit. Lazarus was only in his tomb four days and the gospel says he would have smelled by then. After what Jesus had been through decomposition and the stench would have set in quicker particularly when Jesus was not interred at the frosty time of year. It would have happened in April. That tells us why we cannot treat the view that the women came to make sure Jesus was dead for there was a tradition among some that the body had to be checked on the third day to make sure it was dead with any seriousness. The tradition was only for people who died naturally though occasionally practiced for those who had not. But Jesus’ death had been certified by the Romans.

Why did the women go to the tomb so early in the morning? Why did they need to be sure nobody was about? The tomb was already known to be Jesus’ so why worry about drawing attention to the tomb? And they were seen at the funeral so why worry about people seeing them on Sunday. They were hoping to perform some misdeed.

If the women were going to tell the guards that they were going to anoint they would have been disbelieved and punished or blackmailed to say something incriminating against themselves or the disciples because it was obvious that they were lying. Women who would tell stupid and deadly lies could race to the apostles and start a resurrection rumour.

The women went too early to the tomb. And everybody was ashamed of Jesus so he had no fans so it was not to avoid the crowds but to do some mischief when nobody was about. It is possible that the women had got wind that something was up and they visited the tomb to check up on it. If so this could be evidence that they knew of people who were planning to steal the body.

The gospel says that the women wondered on the way how they were going to get the tomb opened. This is accidentally accusing them of telling a lie for only the women could reveal that. And it was a lie because they would not have went to the tomb without being sure there was somebody to help them or that they would have been permitted to enter. Why couldn’t their brothers or sons or husbands have come along? The ladies might have said they wondered for they desired people to think they could not move the stone themselves and they did not ask anybody to help them for they only knew anti-Jesus people. At least it shows there could have been no guards there for they would have heard about it in the city if there were. It is possible that the tomb was seen open from a distance and that was why they went out to it without helpers. But that scenario leads to the view that a robbery could have transpired.

Matthew says two Marys went to the tomb and one angel told them Jesus was alive. In Mark the women go inside the tomb where they see one angel. In Luke there are two angels inside who tell them. Only Magdalene minus the angel gets a mention in John. The Christians say there is no conflict but only giving details omitted by the others but the gospels would not have people bewildered and surmising that it is an excuse to say these were contradictions and you don’t write books to make people believe and leave out mention of how many angels and witnesses there were. The gospels don’t say if this conflicting information came from the women which makes us agnostic. The fact that that if it did then the women could not tell the truth makes us move from agnosticism to scepticism. They proved themselves willing to lie and get into trouble for it so they could have given birth to the lie that they did not move the body and the lie of the resurrection.

Perhaps the tomb had not been closed right or aftershocks from the quake had shifted the rock? The gospels never report that it was closed right. The Turin Shroud is Genuine states that tombs were not closed fully for the first few days. When Matthew says that the angel sat on the stone and Mark and Luke say the women met the angel and a mate inside the tomb it could mean that the stone fell inside the tomb for the angel to sit on. (Perhaps it was the quake or it was a bit of the cave came away that supported the stone and with it gone the stone fell inside.) That is one way to reconcile the differences and enables the women to move and hide the body. But the women could have moved the stone themselves especially if there were at least five of them like Luke says. In John, Magdalene says she can carry the corpse herself so she must have been a strong lady even if Jesus was a small man. There is no evidence that she was mad when she said this so we must take her word for it.

The guards would not have let the women enter the tomb if they were there though the gospels say they were in it so when they went inside the tomb was unprotected against tricksters and thieves. There is no evidence given that the body was gone by the time the women came. The guards could have wrongly assumed it had vanished and fled leaving somebody free to take the body. Remember, the guards were reported to have had a terrible shock at the tomb and would have been dizzy. The women could have taken it. Magdalene alone could have done it which makes a laughing stock of attempts to dogmatise about a miracle happening.

Mark says the women said nothing at all to anybody about the happenings at the tomb for they were terrified. Morison assumes that this silence is not unconditional for it is part of a sentence the rest of which is lost (185). Mark continues with a conclusion that seems to have been created by a different author for the first version seems to have been lost. So the sentence in Mark could be broken. Perhaps it should be: the women said nothing about it for a while or the women said nothing about it to anybody except the apostles. But didn’t Jesus promise in Mark that his words would not pass away implying that nothing could be lost from any scriptures based on him? If words are really lost from the sentence then Mark’s gospel is not from God or Christ was a fake. Matthew and Luke are rubbish if Mark is for they are dependent on it. It is a sin to trust a doubtful source in matters pertaining to God who deserves all our love. That is really putting the source before him. So if we want to affirm divine inspiration we have to say that Mark says that the women never spoke about what happened. Perhaps the women never said anything at all at the time. That must be admitted. This gospel gives us no reason to believe that a miracle resulted in Jesus risign bodily from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

So if Mark is inspired the women did not tell. That means that the longer ending of Mark which says they did tell the apostles and any other gospel saying the same is inspired by the Devil. And we must remember the allegedly broken sentence could stand on its own and be complete. Christians blame a fault in the text when there is a contradiction in the Bible while insisting the original is the perfect word of God and as for those that cannot be explained with this lie they ignore them and pretend they do not exist.

Some say Mark only means the women did not tell anybody until they reached the apostles. But does it look like it meant that?

And when the women did not spread the news all over the city and run to the guards it proves that they were happy to let it be assumed that the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb for what else would anybody think?

Top of the Document

NO WOMEN AT TOMB

The women at the tomb is a complete fiction. If there were no women at the tomb then it is more likely that somebody could have opened the tomb and stole the body of Jesus or let him out. For it would be untrue that the Marys saw an angel open the tomb which was empty. Then it would be untrue that some of the apostles went to the tomb because of the women. And the women certainly were not there to anoint the body. The soldiers would be no argument against theft for Matthew never says that his belief that they knew Jesus had supernaturally vanished was verifiable and anyway it was unlikely to be. If there were no women then the angels and the visions and the apostles’ arrival at the tomb were invented.

If the women had really found the tomb empty they would have been blamed for taking the body and dealt with accordingly. And Mark and Luke state that they were inside the tomb which would increase the danger of their getting into trouble and being blackmailed by the bent authorities.

Female friends of Jesus would not have been near the tomb to anoint Jesus on Sunday morning especially if there were soldiers there. They could have been tortured to find out where the apostles were. The apostles were hiding in case what would happen to Jesus would happen to them for he was accused of crimes against the empire thus implicating them as well.

When the disciples had went into hiding would the women have been likely to visit the tomb and risk being captured and forced to tell where they were hiding?

There was no need for the women to come and anoint the body for Joseph of Arimathea had anointed and prepared the body for Jesus was buried according to the Jewish custom (John 19:39,40) and would have told them that for they were there. He would not have wanted anybody dragged back to the tomb when it was dangerous. To bury a body without oils and spices would have been scandalous (The Womb and the Tomb, page 115). Joseph could have had it done quickly for he had helpers so saying it was omitted because the Sabbath was near is silly. Would these followers of Jesus who detested Jewish scruples about the Sabbath rest have paid heed to them? If it was not done right perhaps somebody came to do it and discovered that Jesus was alive having survived the crucifixion and took him away. But it could have been done rapidly and still done correctly and several pairs of hands could have had it completed in five minutes. The bodies of criminals were usually dumped so Jesus might have been removed from the tomb to avoid this. Whoever did it could not admit it.

The gospel disagreement about the number of women at the tomb shows that they could have been lying about the women being there at all. At best, this observation commands us to be undecided and not to include the women in any argument for supernaturalism.

Jesus would have understood if they could not get to the tomb to finish the anointing. The women running to the apostles after what happened to the tomb could have blown the apostles’ cover. The whole thing is incredible and shows that much of the resurrection story is legendary. The fact that the stories don’t try to resolve the absurdities shows that they were kept secret until they were published and secrecy means embarrassment. Christians say that when the women were at the burial there was no need for them to hide. There was when they knew where the apostles were and the apostles believed themselves to be wanted men.

The women are not mentioned in Paul’s list of witnesses to the resurrection though the list was spelled out for those who accepted the testimony of women. This implies that the women were either incoherent and useless witnesses or their testimony was cooked up later for it would have been put in the list when the list was made to close up those Christians who had come to deny the resurrection of Jesus. Only the women could verify the reason for the tomb being empty for the apostles only saw the tomb after the tomb had been left with nobody about when anything could have happened. Had Paul believed in the empty tomb he would have had to give us the testimony of the women.

Top of the Document

Conclusion

The women at the tomb had the chance and the ability to steal the body.

Top of the Document

12 September 2007

Top of the Document