Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE CLIMAX OF JESUS' MISSION §18.2
credible. Such a liturgical tradition, ex hypothesi, would have been stable in form
and content; it is hardly likely that an established liturgy would have given rise to
such diverse retellings.
From where then did the tradition emerge? What gave it the degree of stability
evident within the diverse retellings? 23 As with the other traditions reviewed
earlier, the most obvious answer is: Those who were involved in the episode,
those who experienced the impact of the event, those who in speaking of
what they had thus seen and heard gave the tradition its definitive and lasting
shape. 24 In terms of the story as told, that must mean either the women who visited
the tomb, or those who also saw the empty tomb, or those to whom the story
was first told, or the initial group among whom the story was first celebrated. Of
course it would not be told on its own. It was part of the celebration of Jesus' resurrection.
But can we indeed conclude that it was part of that celebration from
the first? There are various indications which point firmly to a positive answer. 25
a. The Preeminent Role Attributed to Mary of Magdala
and Other Women
This is one of the firmest features of the tradition in all its variation. It is they
who first tell of the empty tomb; 26 Mary has the honour of reporting the empty
23. In contrast to their evaluation of the appearance to the eleven, Theissen and Merz in
their evaluation of the empty tomb tradition ignore this feature of the tradition {Historical Jesus
499-503).
24. Evans, Resurrection 75-79 questions whether 'an historical kernel of the empty
tomb story' can be established (76); but a kernel/core of tradition is not the same thing. In view
of Pesch's discussion {Markusevangelium 2.537-38) I should also stress the difference in my
form of tradition-historical analysis from what he describes as a 'subtraction process'
(Subtraktionsverfahrens), whereby a 'historical core' is thought to be uncovered by stripping
away all legendary embellishments. My concern (like his) is always to explain how the tradition
reached its present shape. My hypothesis (in distinction from his) is that the stable elements
in a tradition indicate the shape and core (not historical core) which gave the tradition its
identity, which maintained the tradition's identity through diverse retellings, and which therefore
were probably constitutive of the tradition from the first.
25. Cf. particularly E. L. Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the
Women's Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (AB 45; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970) 151-75. W. L.
Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
(Lewiston: Meilen, 1989) marshalls the arguments and presses the case most strongly (352-73).
Cf. also the even-handed review in J. M. G. Barclay, 'The Resurrection in Contemporary New
Testament Scholarship', in G. D'Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: Oneworld,
1996) 13-30 (here 18-23).
26. Matt. 28.8/Luke 24.9; Luke 24.22-23. On the silence of the women (Mark 16.8) see
above, n. 14. Of course Mark did not intend to suggest that the story died with the women. One
832