Empty tomb
An analysis of both Pauline and gospel material gives eight lines of evidence in support of the claim that Jesus's tomb was found empty: Paul's account suggests the historical authenticity of the empty tomb, the existence of the empty tomb text in the pre-Markan passion narrative supports its historical authenticity, the usage of 'on the first day of the week' rather than 'on the third day' indicates the primitiveness of the oral history, the account is theologically unembellished and non-apologetic, the finding of the tomb by women is very likely, the inspection of the empty tomb by the apostles is historically likely, it would have not been possible for the apostles to declare the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, the Jewish polemic presumes the empty tomb. In a couple of the gospels, the women met with an angel who told them that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
Gospel accounts
Similarities and comparisons
Similarities
- The event takes place on the first day of the week;
- The women were the first to learn of the empty tomb;
- Mary Magdalene figures prominently;
- The stone that had closed the tomb was rolled away;
Comparisons
- The time at which the women visited the tomb. All the accounts agree that it was early morning. and refer to the dawn or early morning, while notes that it was still dark when they started their journey;
- The number and identity of the women; Luke names them as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "the others with them". According to most ancient versions of the gospel of John Mary was Mary Magdalene, though the Codex Sinaiticus' version only calls her Mary. No other woman is mentioned explicitly, though when Mary says that she does not know where Jesus' body is, she uses the plural, which may indicate that there were other women with her. In the Gospel of Mark both Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James are mentioned, joined by Salome. In Matthew, Mary Magdalene is with another Mary, presumably the mother of James.
- The purpose of their visit. Mark and Luke explain that the women were intending to continue the Jewish burial rituals. Matthew merely says that they came just to look at the tomb. John makes no mention of ritual and the apocryphal, heterodox Gospel of Peter claims that Mary Magdalene came to mourn. Rabbi Bar Kappara was of the opinion that the third day was often the prime point for mourning in those days;
- The nature and appearance of the messenger, whether angelic or human; The prevailing theory of Markan priority would suggest that the original story had a mysterious man in white in the tomb. In Matthew he becomes an angel and in Luke, written for a non-Jewish audience, he becomes two angel-like men. In John's gospel, this part of the account is omitted.
- Their message to the women;
- The response of the women to the visitor in the tomb.
- According to the Gospel of, the Jews, knowing of Jesus' having predicted his resurrection, had placed a Jewish guard to guard the tomb of Jesus. Scholars L. Michael White and Helmut Koester see the account of the guards in Matthew as an apologetic insertion, an attempt by the writer to explain the Jewish claims that the disciples stole the body which were circulating at the time. The guards and the stolen body claims are not mentioned in the other three gospels. The apocryphal Gospel of Peter, on the other hand, is more detailed, specifying "Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb".
- According to both Luke and John, the disciples saw grave clothes in the tomb. Luke states that strips of linen were "lying alone", or "laid by themselves", per the Greek, keimena mona, although the NRSV translation uses the phrase—"by themselves"—instead of "alone", and omits the word, "lying". John states that they were "lying", or, per the NRSV, "lying there". These two descriptions may or may not imply the same thing. Brown has argued that John is using a phrase that actually describes the linen as lying on a shelf within the tomb. According to Luke, Jesus had been wrapped in a shroud, and this became the traditional view. What became of the grave clothes after the disciples had seen them is not described in the Bible, though some works of the New Testament apocrypha do make mention of it. A Roman Catholic tradition describes the shroud as being taken to Turin, becoming the Turin Shroud.
- The level of detail that the author of the Gospel According to John adds is to former Bishop of Durham Brooke Foss Westcott evidence that the author was an eyewitness. C. H. Dodd argues that, having already reached the narrative climax with the crucifixion scene, these later sections deliberately slow down the narrative to act as dénouement. Schnackenburg interprets the level of detail as apologetic in origin, though he does regard the details concerning the placement of the grave clothes to be an attempt to disprove the allegation that Jesus' tomb had simply been robbed, rather than as an attempt to assert a Christology.
Comparison
| Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | |
| Arrival | Matthew 28:1–4
| Mark 16:1–4
| Luke 23:1–2
| John 20:1
|
| Inspection | Matthew 28:5–7 Angel: 'Jesus is not here because he has risen. Look, there he lay. Tell the disciples that he has risen and that you will see him in Galilee. " | Mark 16:5–7
| Luke 23:3–7
| John 20:2–10 |
| Reaction | Matthew 28:8 | Mark 16:8 | Luke 24:8–12 | John 20:11–13 |
Background
Entering the divine realm
For many people of antiquity, empty tombs were seen as signs not of resurrection but of assumption, that is, the person being taken bodily into the divine realm. In Chariton's ancient Greek novel Callirhoe, the hero Chaereas finds his wife's tomb empty and immediately assumes the gods took her rather than believe she was resurrected or that her body was stolen by grave-robbers. In Ancient Greek thinking, the connection between postmortem disappearance and apotheosis was strong and there are numerous examples of individuals conspiring, before their deaths, to have their remains hidden in order to promote their postmortem venerations. Arrian wrote of Alexander the Great planning his own bodily disappearance so that he would be revered as a god. Disappearances of individuals to be taken in the divine realm also occur in Jewish literature, although they do not involve an empty tomb. Daniel Smith suggests the empty tomb stories and resurrection appearances in the gospels come from separate traditions, with the former about Jesus' absence or assumption, while the latter were about Jesus' presence. He concludes that the gospel writers took the two traditions and weaved them together.Testimony of women
When they return from the cemetery on Passover morning to tell the eleven remaining apostles and those with them, they brought with them word of an empty tomb and the report that, "He is not here but has risen!" The apostles were dismissive. Some have suggested a lack of enthusiasm because the messengers were women in a world that did not grant credibility to a woman's witness. Josephus writes that Jewish tradition stated: "From women let not evidence be accepted because of the levity and temerity of their sex."Architecture of the tomb
In John's gospel, the angels are described as sitting where Jesus' body had been, thought to be a reference to squatting or sitting cross legged, suggesting that the tomb possessed a raised shelf or ledge, on which the body had been placed.Scholarly opinions
The historicity of the empty tomb is debated among scholars. Christian theologian and apologist William Lane Craig claims that a majority affirm the reliability of biblical statements about the empty tomb. As Jacob Kremer argues, “By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.” Others, such as Raymund Schwager, concur and claim that within New Testament scholarship, the usual position is to give a positive assessment to the women's discovery of the empty tomb on Easter morning. Gary Habermas claims that around 75% of critical scholars accept one or more arguments for the empty tomb, while around 25% reject it.Other scholars, such as Murray Harris, point out that declaring Jesus's resurrection in the same city he was buried was highly falsifiable, ecspecially given the notion that Jesus would have been buried by the very enemies of Christianity. He writes, “The earliest Christians could not have continued to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus in the city of Jerusalem or have continued to survive there as a community, unless the tomb had been empty".
Géza Vermes notes that "he empty tomb and the apparitions are never directly associated to form a combined argument." While the coherence of the empty tomb-narrative is questionable, it is "clearly an early tradition." Vermes rejects the literal interpretation of the story, as being proof of the resurrection, and also notes that the story of the empty tomb conflicts with notions of a spiritual resurrection. According to Vermes, "he strictly Jewish bond of spirit and body is better served by the idea of the empty tomb and is no doubt responsible for the introduction of the notions of palpability and eating." However, while he does reject a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus, Vermes does accept that the tomb of Jesus was empty, stating, "When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that...the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb." Vermes then presents six theories to explain the empty tomb, including: the body was removed by someone unconnected with Jesus; the body was stolen by the disciples; the empty tomb was not the tomb of Jesus; buried alive, Jesus later left the tomb; Jesus recovered from a coma and departed Judea; there was a spiritual, not bodily, resurrection. However, Geza Vermes does not believe that any of these hypotheses hold up under stringent scrutiny, and are thus unlikely to be historical.
New Testament historian Bart D. Ehrman dismisses the story of the empty tomb; according to Ehrman, "an empty tomb had nothing to do with it an empty tomb would not produce faith." According to Ehrman, the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus, but is it doubtful that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. It is unlikely that a member of the Sanhedrin would have buried Jesus; crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible," and the body was left on the stake to be eaten by animals; criminals were usually buried in common graves; and Pilate had no concern for Jewish sensitivities, which makes it unlikely that he would have allowed for Jesus to be buried. However, some have challenged Ehrman's belief that Jesus was not buried; scholar Craig Evans argues that the standard Jewish practice was to bury crucified victims, as mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus. Jerusalem archeologist Jodi Magness also argues that Jesus would have been buried according to Jewish law and has criticized Ehrman's position, writing, "Today many scholars believe that since crucifixion was a sadistic and humiliating form of corporal punishment...Jesus "died a criminal's death on the tree of shame"... that Jesus would not have been buried at all, but would have been eaten by dogs. In my opinion, the notion that Jesus was unburied or buried in disgrace is based on a misunderstanding of the archeological evidence and of Jewish law...the Gospel accounts describing Jesus's removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archeological evidence and with Jewish law." However, Erhman states that Jews were allowed decent burials under certain circumstances, none of which applied to Jesus.
Raymond Brown, a Catholic priest and biblical scholar, has written "That Jesus was buried is historically certain." According to Brown, the body of Jesus was buried in a new tomb by Joseph of Arimathea in accordance with Mosaic Law, which stated that a person hanged on a tree must not be allowed to remain there at night, but should be buried before sundown.