Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE CLIMAX OF JESUS' MISSION §18.2
(20.11-18). The report here may rest on the independent testimony of 'the one
whom Jesus loved' (20.2), who seems to have been a source for some at least of
John's Gospel. 33 What gives it more weight is the confirmatory testimony in
Luke 24: not simply 24.12, cited above, 34 but also the reference back in 24.24:
'Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the
women had said; but him they did not see' . 35 If there was, then, further testimony
to the emptiness of the tomb, the fact that Mark and Matthew were evidently content
with the story of the women alone presumably indicates how much weight
was attributed to the women's testimony, and from the first. 36
b. Archaeological Evidence
Archaeological evidence from Jerusalem in particular provides some interesting
circumstantial support. The evidence indicates that during the Herodian period
there developed the practice of secondary burial. The initial burial, typically in a
rock-hewn chamber, allowed the flesh to decay from the bones. Probably a year
after initial burial the bones were collected and put in an ossuary (bone box),
which was retained inside the loculi tomb. 37 Of special interest is the fact that
this practice seems to have been distinctively or uniquely Jewish. 38 Also that
33. On the significance of 'the beloved disciple' here see Brown, John 1004-7, and note
particularly 19.35 and 21.24 (Brown 936-37, 1127-29). We will have to return to the question
of the beloved disciple's identity in vol. 3. For the present, see particularly Brown xcii-xcviii.
34. In the second block of text at the beginning of § 18.2. Given the strength of textual attestation
of Luke 24.12, it is surprising that it was omitted by RSV and was given such a modest
ranking by UBS 3 (see Metzger, Textual Commentary 184, 191-93; Fitzmyer, Luke 131, 1547;
Lüdemann, Resurrection 138-39).
35. Liidemann's argument, that Luke 24.12 is 'a development of the tomb tradition of
Mark 16.1-8, working in the tradition of the first appearance to Peter' (Resurrection 139), hardly
explains why both 24.12 and 24 exclude any reference to the appearance to Peter. If 24.34 was
sufficient to safeguard the priority of the appearance to Peter, then 24.12 was unnecessary.
36. Carnley suggests that the women were the only ones to whom the witness of the
empty tomb could be attributed since the disciples had fled to Galilee (Structure 59-60). But
this ignores the possibilities which Luke and John attest, and equally the possibility that not all
the disciples, not even all the eleven, had returned to Galilee (Luke 24.13-32; John 21.2: only
seven of the eleven).
37. Theissen and Merz miss this point when they suggest the possibility that the ossuary
rather than the tomb would have become the focal point of such a 'cult of relics' (Historical Jesus
500). Funk seems unaware of the practice (Honest 235).
38. Details, diagrams, and technical bibliography in R. Hachlili, 'Burials' ABD 1.789-94
(here 789-91); Reed, Archaeology 47-48 (quoted above, chapter 9 n. 177); see also Meyers and
Strange, Archaeology 94-100. The practice is referred to, e.g., in m. B. Bat. 6.8; m. Mo'ed Qat.
1.5-6.
834