[todaysdate]
By Corbin Croy
It seems weird to me that in order to promote virtue and good character I must weaken the historical argument for the resurrection, and that to promote the historical argument for the resurrection I must weaken my devotion to virtue and good character. This may not be a problem for others. Some may simply think that the power of the resurrection is evident in the historical evidence and so appeals to a person’s character and is rather a non sequitor. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not it happened, and that is the only important question to consider.
But it seems odd to me that the completion of human salvation should be taken so lightly. On one hand we want to believe that the writers of the Bible were “inspired” by God in everything that they wrote, and on the other hand (when it suits us) we want to believe that at times there were certain cultural and situational conditions which influence the composition. So while this is a convenient mechanism, I do not think we can take lightly the suggestion that in order for the biblical writers to be making historical claims about the women witnesses they would have had to of been misogynistic transcribers of history. This has no factual weight for the argument itself, but it does make me pause to consider what *kind* of salvation I really want to devote my heart and soul to. At the end of the day, I am just not comfortable with saying, “Thank God the biblical writers were women haters so I can have good historical reasons to believe that the empty tomb narrative actually took place!”
Admittedly, I have an equally uncomfortable time with saying, “Thank God the biblical writers were not women haters so I can have good literary reasons to think that the empty tomb narrative is actually a literary construction!” My discomfort may be equal in terms of intensity, but both are derived from categorically different sources. My discomfort for the first claim arises from a moral and ethical objection. My discomfort for the second claim arises from an intellectual and noetic objection. While I wish I could have both intellectual virtue and moral virtue, but if a choice had to be made, I would always choose to be a good person on the pain of not being a right person.
Of course, there is no reason to think that this choice is being forced upon us, but there is a kind of religious belief which is prominent today which would make it seem that this might be the case. It is often asserted that man has no right to force his own identity, beliefs, preferences, or convictions upon God. God is a sovereign being and as such is entitled to do as he pleases without consulting or caring how us pitiful humans might respond to it. Thus, if God so desires to complete human salvation and use misogyny to carry it out then so be it. We are not worthy or empowered to object or complain about it. So if God gives us grace, and we might feel a little squeamish about it, because the mechanisms employed to deliver this grace to us are of questionable moral repute, then we still have no right to refuse God’s grace or act like we can make such moral judgments in response to God.
In such a state of affairs, the choice is then most certainly forced upon us. The intellectual virtue of being right is given its highest and almost idolatrous position because through it the moral senses are dulled. As long as we know what God wants then the part of whether we feel good about it or not does not matter. So perhaps my entire thesis is wrong, and this may in fact be the case. I can grant that the completion of human salvation may in fact have nothing to do with how God relates to humans, but may just indeed be God’s willingness to put up with us as long as we toe the line. Some people connect splendidly with this kind of grace and religion. I do not. And I have no qualms in admitting this and in confessing that if such a state of affairs were in order then I would have to seriously consider checking out. For while this idea of the “Sovereign God” is cool and all, I find the idea of a “Good God” to be better. I do not think that they have to compete with one another. I rather think that I can go about my day and hold that both are reconciled, but as long as there are those who would say that I am imposing my values upon God then I find that I must play the part and make my case, as poor as it might sound. So if my “Good God” fails and exposes me as a heretic then this is something that I really cannot be ashamed of or embarrassed by. I would in fact have to be proud.
So let me humbly suggest that because, at the very least, the historical argument could have moral implications that one cannot in good conscience subscribe to that a spiritual model be made possible and likely for those who may have valid, or warranted, reasons to think that the completion of human salvation cannot come via the sexist or patriarchal paradigm. This in no way serves as an argument to deny plainly revealed facts. If it were true that the historical argument stands and that the biblical writers were in fact catering to a lower view of women then my moral objection to it cannot in the slightest change that reality. However, since I am led to believe that that the completion of human salvation requires the sanctification of the whole man then I am led to believe that our moral intuitions should not be ignored or set aside for any reason. So since, the question of the resurrection necessarily implies that the completion of human salvation be fulfilled then I believe that it can be fairly established at this point that the spiritual salvation model be entirely warranted in believing in, if only from a moral standpoint.
In lieu of this, I would like to suggest that the very reason we think that the biblical writers were misogynists is actually the very reason why they are not. Instead of the misogyny of the day being the reason why the biblical narrative must be factual, perhaps it was the very reason why the biblical writers wrote about women witnesses being the ones to discover the empty tomb. Consider for a moment, that the biblical writers wanted to confront the sexism and unfair practices toward women, and so they wrote a narrative about them being the ones to be the first on the scene for the resurrection event. In this sense, the biblical writers had nothing to be embarrassed about at all. In fact, it is the very reason that we think they would have been embarrassed which serves as the ground for thinking that the women witnesses were in fact literary constructions.
The fact that the Gospels are some of the most women-friendly books of the Bible it is more likely, in my mind, that the biblical writers were more interested in changing the dominant view of women then they were in catering to a sexist view of women. We see this not just with male-female roles. The Gospels serve to upset just about every social boundary that existed during the first century. So why would they be so keen to be sensitive to male autocracy? The rich-poor, master-slave, clergy-laity, and first-last paradigms were all flipped on their head in the Gospels. So it is entirely fitting that this pattern could be the motive to construct a literary story about women discovering the empty tomb. Since there is no debate about what was socially embarrassing at the time that these biblical narratives were written, we are fairly warranted in believing that women were in fact mistreated and viewed as lower or weaker then men in ways that contributed to the progress of their community.
So if we have reliable information which says, (1) at the time the Gospels were written women were looked down on and (2) the Gospels display an overt reversal of social roles, then it seems that we are just as likely to conclude that the writers themselves could have no embarrassment in constructing a literary narrative as we would that they would be embarrassed. The point in itself seems moot. Point two is not powerful enough evidence to overturn the historical model, but it is sufficient evidence to doubt it and feel warranted in believing in a spiritual model, instead.
But there is one more point to consider, and that is the empty tomb itself. Without the women witnesses it is highly unlikely that the empty tomb can stand on its own. But if it could then it would certainly be interesting evidence. I say interesting, because really, at this point we have no basis at all to believe that there was a physically regenerated body that can be historically attested to. Without the women witnesses all the empty tomb really says is that Jesus’ body was stolen.
However, the narrative does indicate that theft would have been impossible. So if the tomb was empty then the only possible conclusion would be physical regeneration that can be historically quantified. That is a pretty bold claim. Not only does one need to show that the boldness of the claim is not an exaggeration for apologetic effect, but they would have to show how in all possible circumstances theft could have been impossible, which is highly unlikely. Perhaps, physical regeneration is more likely then theft, and we might be able to wrap our heads around that one, but it does not seem likely that it could ever be impossible.
