Down for the count

The first fact supporting the empty tomb is the historical reliability of the story of Jesus’ burial, since even the most skeptical scholars agree that the burial of Jesus is one of the best established facts. Firstly, it is very unlikely that Christians would invent the story of Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin.[1] Secondly, the testimony of Paul given in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 (written ~56-57 A.D.) provides very early evidence of Jesus’ burial, since Paul probably received this tradition within 5 years of the crucifixion in 36 A.D. during his visit to Jerusalem.[2] That this pericope dates back to the earliest time after the crucifixion is also indicated by its non-Pauline and Semitic characteristics. “Paul’s testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb. Paul accepted the empty tomb of Jesus, as is evident from the sequence ‘died—was buried—was raised’ and from the expression ‘on the third day’ in the formula in I Cor 15.”[3] From Rom. 6:4 it is clear that Paul sees a close relationship between Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Also, “the idea that a man could be buried and then raised from the dead and yet his body still remain in the grave is a peculiarly modern notion. For the Jews there would have been no question but that the tomb of Jesus would have been empty”.[4]

In addition to the strong evidence for Jesus’ burial, the empty tomb account itself is part of Mark’s source material and is therefore very old. Paul’s references in 1 Cor. 11 presuppose Mark’s account. Also, since Mark’s account does not mention the high priest Caiaphas (in office from A.D. 18-37) by name this counts as strong evidence that the tradition dates back to before A.D. 37 – within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Mark’s phrase “the first day of the week” is very ancient since the earliest Christians used the “third day” motif[5]. Linguistically, Mark’s phrase is awkward in Greek but smooth and natural in Aramaic. Finally, compared to later works (such as the fantastic resurrection account given in the Gospel of Peter, written A.D. ~125) the story in Mark is simple and lacks signs of legendary development.

Another very important piece of evidence is that Mark records the tomb was discovered empty by women[6]. Women were generally not qualified to serve as legal witnesses, since their testimony was regarded as virtually worthless.[7] They occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder and “there is no reason why the later Christian church would wish to humiliate its leaders by having them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus’ body, unless this were in fact the truth”.[8]

As noted previously, the disciples could not have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. The Jewish authorities could easily have pointed to the tomb and/or exhumed the body. More than this, the earliest official response to the Christian proclamation presupposes the empty tomb.[9] “The Jewish propaganda did not deny the empty tomb, but instead entangled itself in a hopeless series of absurdities trying to explain it away”.[10]

---

[1] J. P Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 167.

[2] Gal. 1:18.

[3] Craig, 1980-86, 189-90.

[4] Craig, 1994, 274.

[5] Moreland, 1987, 169.

[6] Mk. 15:40, 47; 16:1

[7] J. P Moreland, 1987, 168.

[8] Craig, 1980-86, 192.

[9] Mt. 27:62-66; 28:11-15.

[10] Craig, 1994, p. 277.