The Empty Tomb And Affirmation Of It Didn't Occur In An Apathetic Context

I've sometimes come across people who argue that the early corroboration of the empty tomb by non-Christian sources doesn't have much significance, since they may have corroborated it out of apathy. They uncritically accepted what Christians told them.

One of the problems with that sort of explanation is that the context surrounding Jesus' placement in the tomb isn't one of apathetic opposition to Christianity. How did Jesus' body get in the tomb to begin with? You don't arrange to get somebody crucified, then carry out the crucifixion, then proceed with the sort of persecution of Christians that we see reflected in Paul's life (his initial life as a persecutor and the persecution he experienced later as a Christian) if you're apathetic about that crucified individual and his followers. Apathy doesn't sit well with the crucifixion or other aspects of early Christian history. One way to summarize this point in your thinking is to consider the empty tomb as in the middle of a chronological spectrum. Just before it, you have the crucifixion. Just after it, you have the early persecution of Christians, as illustrated in the life of Saul of Tarsus. It doesn't make much sense to think there was apathy in the middle of the spectrum, surrounded by so much non-apathy on both sides.

Furthermore, it's not as though affirmation of the empty tomb would be the only option for people who were apathetic, lazy, or some such thing. You could just be agnostic (e.g., Matthew 21:27, John 9:29).

The best explanation for why the empty tomb was affirmed by both the early Christians and their early opponents (both Jewish and Gentile opponents, as my article linked above argues) is that the tomb was empty.

A Resurrection Appearance To Jude

An Easter issue I've changed my mind about is whether Jude was an apostle in the fullest sense of the term, meaning that he had seen the risen Christ. I've become convinced that he probably was. See my discussions of the Biblical and extrabiblical evidence here and here.

That raises the question, then, of whether the appearance to Jude is mentioned in the New Testament (or elsewhere) and, if so, which one it is. I've argued elsewhere that it's likely that Jesus' brothers didn't convert until the latter half of the forty days referred to in Acts 1:3. There can be an inclination to place the appearance to James before any appearance to one or more of his brothers, since we often think of James as the foremost of the brothers of Jesus (he's listed first in Matthew 12:55 and Mark 6:3, etc.). But we need to be careful here, since a primacy in one or more contexts, such as James' being the oldest of the brothers, having the strongest personality, or having the most historical influence, doesn't mean he has to have had a primacy in every context. Jesus may have appeared to James before appearing to Jude, but not necessarily. My sense is that the appearance could have been as early as the one to more than five hundred in 1 Corinthians 15:6, or it may have been the one mentioned just after the appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15:7. Or it may not be mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or elsewhere. If I had to choose one of the appearances mentioned, I'd go with the one in 1 Corinthians 15:7.