Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
98improbable that the women would have been mistaken. The theory thus rests upon
the sync hronization of two very doubtful c ontingenc ies. This is, however, only part
of t he improbabilit y and int ellec t ual diffic ult y whic h gat hers around it.
In order that we may get this matter in the clearest possible light, I propose to
take the statement of one of the ablest of its exponents, Prof. Kirsopp Lake, D.D.,
who has developed the theory with great fullness and luc idity in his book The
Resurrec tion of Jesus Christ. I shall endeavour to give Dr. Lake’s view as far as is
possible in his own words, bec ause the openness and c andour of his style c alls for
an equal frankness in those who may be opposed to him. This is no plac e for mere
dialectics. It is the theory itself that we want to study and understand.
Now Prof. Lake begins, and I think rightly, with the assumption that the story
of the women’s visit to the tomb is an authentic piece of history. Whatever view we
may take of what happened later, this particular episode is embedded too deeply in
the primitive literature to be treated other than with respect. The story of the
women’s adventure is in the earliest authentic document we possess, the Gospel of
St. Mark. It is repeated by St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is confirmed so far as Mary
Magdalene herself is c onc erned by St. John, it is in the Apoc ryphal Gospel of Peter;
and, perhaps even more signific antly, it is in that very anc ient independent
fragment, preserved by St. Luke in chapter xxiv., verses 13–24, the journey to
E mma u s.
T he essent ial hist oric it y of t he women’s visit is, t herefore, not at present in
doubt. But Prof. Lake is inc lined to question whether the tomb to whic h they c ame
really was t he original and aut hent ic grave of Christ.
There are two main passages in whic h Prof. Lake develops his theme. In his
c hapter on ‘The Fac ts behind the T radit ion’, he says:
‘It is seriously a matter for doubt whether the women were really in a
position to be quite certain that the tomb which they visited was that in
whic h they had seen Joseph of Arimathea bury the Lord’s body... If it were
not the same, the c irc umst anc es all seem t o fall int o line. T he women c ame
in the early morning to a tomb whic h they thought was the one in whic h
they had seen the Lord buried. They expected to find a closed tomb, but
they found an open one; and a young man, who was in the entrance,
guessing their errand, tried to tell them that they had made a mistake in the
place. ‘He is not here,’ said he; ‘see the place where they laid him’, and
probably pointed to the next tomb. But the women were frightened at the
detection of their errand and fled, only imperfec t ly or not at all
understanding what they heard. It was only later on, when they knew that
the Lord was risen, and – on t heir view – that his tomb must be empty, that
they c ame to believe that the young man was something more than they
had seen; that he was not telling them of their mistake, but announc ing the
Resurrec tion, and that his intention was to give them a message for the
disc iples.’