Navigate
  • Home
  • Our Story
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Book Reviews
    • Interviews
    • Live Discussions
    • Podcast
    • Talks
  • Topics
    • Apologetics
    • Epistemology
    • Free Stuff
    • God
    • Moral Argument
    • Naturalism
    • Reformed Epistemology
    • Science
    • Street Epistemology
    • Theology
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Events
  • Shop
  • Free Resources
  • FAQ
  • Get in Touch
  • Testimonials
  • Donate?
  • Follow Us
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • SoundCloud
    • YouTube
Capturing Christianity
0
0
372K
0
Capturing Christianity Capturing Christianity
  • Home
  • Our Story
  • Topics
    • Apologetics
    • EAAN
    • Epistemology
    • Faith
    • Interviews
    • Live Discussion
    • Moral Argument
    • Naturalism
    • Science
    • Street Epistemology
    • Theology
    • Reformed Epistemology
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Events
  • Shop
  • Info
    • FAQ
    • Testimonials
  • Get in Touch
  • Donate
0
arguments for the empty tomb
  • Articles

8 Strong Arguments for the Empty Tomb

  • February 15, 2017
  • 16 comments
  • 9 minute read
  • 46.1K views
  • Cameron Bertuzzi
Total
3
Shares
0
0
3

The historical fact of the empty tomb plays an important role in the case for the Resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus’ corpse really was missing from the tomb, we require some explanation as to where it went. Did the original disciples steal the body? Did the Jewish officials steal it? Or was the original testimony of the disciples true? Did Jesus really rise from the dead, leaving an empty tomb behind him? In what follows are 8 strong arguments for the empty tomb.

Historians are somewhat fragmented in their appraisal of the fact of the empty tomb. Gary Habermas has estimated that roughly 75% of contemporary New Testament scholars accept the fact of the empty tomb. Some claim the majority of these scholars cited by Habermas are Christians, so this figure is somewhat misleading. I do not wish to dispute that here. My goal in this post is to outline some of the popular (and perhaps not so popular) arguments for the empty tomb. Each could be expanded upon, so I would advise against treating them too rigorously.

Some final points. This post is pretty long, so prepare yourself. Secondly, the content is highly condensed and moves very quickly; it may take a couple read throughs to fully appreciate the arguments. Third, by no means is this an exhaustive list, there are many more arguments for the empty tomb listed elsewhere (some even cite the Shroud of Turin as evidence for the empty tomb). Fourth, by citing these arguments I am not necessarily endorsing them. My purpose here is to inform the reader of the dialectic.

1. The historical reliability of the burial account supports the empty tomb.

If the burial account is reliable, then the site of Jesus’ grave was well known in Jerusalem. However, if this is true then the grave must have been empty when the disciples began preaching his resurrection. This is true for at least 3 reasons. First, the disciples never could have believed in a resurrection faced with a tomb containing Jesus’ corpse. Second, no one would have believed the disciples had Jesus’ body still been in the grave. Third, the disciples’ opponents could have shut down the entire operation by simply pointing to Jesus’ body lying in the tomb.

So, if the burial account is reliable, this strongly suggests Jesus’ corpse was missing from the tomb. This is why detractors attack not just the empty tomb but the burial account as well. Here are just a few reasons for thinking the burial account reliable (these are a sample, there are more arguments for the burial account [1]).

a) Paul’s testimony provides remarkably early evidence for the burial account.

For several reasons, most scholars date the creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to within 5-6 years of Jesus’ death (some date it as early as within 3 months). The second line of the creed states “he was buried.” Some theologians argue the burial wasn’t a separate event but if this were the case, the grammatical structure of the creed would contain unnecessary repetition (and creeds were constructed carefully to allow for easy memorization). This, along with the chronological succession of the events, suggests that the burial was in fact a separate event. But was the burial here the same event as described in the gospels? Not only does the saying in Acts 13:28-31 describe the exact same order of events, the same exact sequence is found in Mark. This correlation suggests that the burial mentioned in the summary statement quoted by Paul is the same as described in the gospels.

b) The burial account was part of the source material used by Mark and is therefore very early.

Mark’s gospel is considered the earliest gospel by virtually all scholars. It’s exact date is disputed but it’s commonly dated to around 70AD. This means that any source material Mark used had to have been dated earlier, probably back to the early days of Christian fellowship. For this reason, Mark is a very valuable historical source. The passion narrative in Mark (the narrative of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus) doesn’t break between Jesus’ death (Mark 15:33-41) and the description of Jesus’ burial (Mark 15:42-47). This suggests that Mark’s source didn’t abruptly end with Jesus’ death. The continuous narrative implies that the burial account is very old and reliable. And if the burial account is very old, stretching back to the early days of Christian fellowship, it is likely that Paul knew the story.

c) The story itself is simple and lacks sign of legendary embellishment.

Rudolf Bultmann, a radical skeptic, wrote of the Markan narrative, “This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vv. 44,45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark.” Vincent Taylor, a respected commentator on Mark notes that Bultmann’s judgement is “a notable understatement.” Taylor asserts, “The narrative belongs to the best tradition.” The historical core of the passion narrative in the gospels does not show legendary traces and seems to be a straightforward, factual report.

d) The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is likely historical.

Even many skeptical scholars admit that Joseph of Arimathea was probably the genuine, historical individual who buried Jesus, since it is unlikely that early Christian believers would invent an individual, give him a name and nearby town of origin, and place that fictional character on the historical council of the Sanhedrin, whose members were well known. Moreover, there was a strong resentment against the Jewish leadership in the Christian community, since in their eyes, the Jews basically murdered Jesus. So it is unlikely that Christians would invent such a person that instead honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial.

e) Jesus’ burial in a tomb is likely historical.

When one compiles the incidental details concerning Jesus’ tomb from the gospels, it becomes evident that either an acrosolia or bench tomb is in mind, with a roll-stone for the door. This is interesting because such tombs were scarce in Jesus’ day and were reserved for persons of high rank, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Further, Matthew, Luke, and John note that the tomb was never used. This was very likely since the body of a condemned criminal could not be placed in a preoccupied tomb. So Joseph would have to find an unoccupied tomb. Matthew says that the tomb was Joseph’s. This also seems likely, since Joseph wouldn’t be at liberty to lay the body of a criminal in just any tomb. These types of incidental and offhand details, which are also archeologically consistent, bear the mark of authenticity. For more on Jewish burial traditions, see this.

2. Paul’s testimony guarantees the fact of the empty tomb.

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 “and He was raised,” this implies an empty tomb. The word used here is egegertai which means “to awaken” from sleep. Sleep is used as a euphemism for death in the bible, and so it is obvious that an awakening in this context means to reawaken from death. Thus, the picture here is a person coming back to life, which implies an empty tomb. The Jews at the time believed that at the end of time God would raise the bones of the people from the tombs and clothe them again with flesh and give them life. E. E. Ellis comments, “It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, ‘grave emptying’ resurrection. To them anastasis (resurrection) without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle.” For more on this, see [2].

3. The empty tomb was part of the source material used by Mark and is therefore very old.

After remarkable agreement concerning the events leading up to and including the empty tomb, the gospels seem to disperse on the details of the appearances. This suggests that there were independent stories of the appearances by different witnesses about the appearances they had seen. The most natural explanation is that Mark’s source ended with the empty tomb. The verbal and grammatical similarities between the burial and empty tomb account additionally confirm this. Moreover, it seems unthinkable that the earliest story told by Christians ended in death and defeat with no mention of an empty tomb and resurrection. Thus, the empty tomb was likely included or implied by the story.

4. The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment.

The radical critic Bultmann even admits, “Mark’s presentation is extremely reserved, insofar as the resurrection and the appearances of the risen Lord are not recounted.” Around the third century a few authors wrote the fictional gospel “The Ascension of Isaiah.” In chapter 3 verse 16, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. Mark’s account of the empty tomb isn’t filled with these kinds of fairy tails. This implies that Mark was simply reporting what happened.

5. The discovery of the empty tomb by women is highly probable.

In first century, women’s testimony was seen as less trustworthy than men. Luke says of the women’s report of the empty tomb to the disciples, “And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Peter and John did consider it worth going to the tomb to see for themselves, but Luke’s account makes it clear that they thought the women unreliable. Any legendary account would certainly remove the women as the discoverers of the empty tomb, and replace them with men.

Second, it is equally unlikely that the early believers would have made up the story of the disciples’ hiding in cowardice, while the women boldly observed the crucifixion and burial and visited the tomb. The early believers would have no motivation in humiliating its leaders by making them into cowards and women into heroes. Moreover, the names of the women precludes the story being a legend, since persons who would be known in the early Jerusalem fellowship could not be associated with a false account.

6. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty.

The idea that Jesus rose from the dead in a different body while His corpse remained in the tomb is a purely modern notion. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded “immaterial” resurrection. Thus, the disciples never could have preached the resurrection, nor would anyone believe them if Jesus’ corpse were still in the tomb. And even if the disciples had failed to check the tomb, the Jews could not have been guilty of such an oversight. It wouldn’t have been difficult for them to locate a freshly dug grave, even after several weeks, and exhume the body. The fact that Christianity flourished right in the face of its enemies in Jerusalem strongly suggests that Jesus’ corpse was nowhere to be found.

7. The earliest Jewish propaganda against the Christian believers presupposes the empty tomb.

What were Jews saying about the Christian proclamation that Jesus had risen? According to Matthew, they were saying that the disciples came and stole the body (Matt 28:11-15). The Jews didn’t point to the tomb or a body, or say that the tomb was unknown. Rather they tried to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the earliest Jewish propaganda presupposes the empty tomb. Even if the story about the guards and bribe is non-historical, the point is that Matthew unintentionally tells us exactly what the Jews were saying about the Christians.

8. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre has a credible claim to authenticity.

On a pilgrimage to collect and preserve artifacts from the Holy Land (325AD), Helena, Constantine’s mother, discovered that the previous emperor Hadrian (200AD) had a “temple built over the tomb [of Jesus] to assert the dominance of Roman state religion at the site venerated by Christians.” Eusebius records that the Roman temple was removed and excavations revealed a rock-cut tomb. To preserve the tomb, Constantine built a new Christian church over the site that was later destroyed but then rebuilt.

Archeology in the 20th century has revealed remains of Hadrian’s temple in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as well as walls from the original church built by Constantine. The latest evidence collected in October, 2016 shows us that the original limestone burial bed is still there! Thus, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre proves Christian veneration of a tomb stretching back to well before Hadrian’s temple was built (prior to 200AD). For more on this, see the previous post.


Notes:

[1] See “The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus” by William Lane Craig.

[2] See “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N. T. Wright.

If you enjoyed reading this blog post, consider supporting us on Patreon!

Total
3
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Pin it 3
T A G S
  • Apologetics
  • Empty Tomb
  • Resurrection
Cameron Bertuzzi

Cameron is a professional photographer and founder of Capturing Christianity, a ministry aimed at exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief. He is a writer, speaker, and uses his ministry to host discussions and interviews on Christian Apologetics. Cameron is married to a beautiful wife and is the father of two adorable children.

SUBSCRIBE. BE AWESOME.

Get updates on new posts, upcoming live discussions, and more.

You May Also Like
View Post
  • Articles

CCv2 Apologetics Conference

  • Cameron Bertuzzi
  • June 8, 2022
View Post
  • Articles

CC Exchange 2022

  • Cameron Bertuzzi
  • February 7, 2022
View Post
  • Articles

Is Animal Suffering a Bigger Problem for Theists?

  • Seth Hart
  • February 3, 2022
View Post
  • Articles

The Teleological Menace, Why Biology (Still) Requires God

  • Seth Hart
  • December 11, 2021
Hummingbird
View Post
  • Articles

Btw, Evolution is Teleological

  • Seth Hart
  • November 23, 2021
View Post
  • Articles

The Gospels are Bíoi – So What? Three Lessons for Reading Them Well

  • John Nelson
  • October 26, 2021
View Post
  • Articles

Did American Christians Wage War on Darwin? (Spoiler Alert: No)

  • Seth Hart
  • October 11, 2021
View Post
  • Articles

Christianity’s War on Darwinism, or the War that Never Happened

  • Seth Hart
  • October 5, 2021
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

guest

16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
gary
gary
7 years ago

I had an interesting discussion with Bart Ehrman recently on his blog regarding the historicity of the Empty Tomb and Gary Habermas’ research on that issue: Bart Ehrman: To my knowledge non-conservative scholars do not generally read the work of Habermas. They tend to stick to the writings of critical New Testament scholars. Gary: So when Christian apologists tell me that the majority of New Testament scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb based on Habermas’ research, I can tell them they are wrong? Bart Ehrman: You can tell them that the majority of NT scholars have never… Read more »

0
Reply
Ryan
Ryan
6 years ago
Reply to  gary

Your comment about Habermas is completely irrelevant. It’s along the same lines as me saying most NT scholars haven’t heard of Erhman because NT Wright hasn’t

0
Reply
Epistle of Dude
Epistle of Dude
6 years ago
Reply to  gary

I’ve crossed swords with Gary before (e.g. here). He’s a militant atheist who puts on an air of tolerance but is really only tolerant to fellow atheists.

1
Reply
Epistle of Dude
Epistle of Dude
6 years ago
Reply to  gary

Gary Habermas is a philosopher while Bart Ehrman is a NT scholar. So I wouldn’t necessarily expect a NT scholar like Ehrman to read philosophers like Plantinga, Swinburne, the McGrews, etc. That’d be far outside Ehrman’s expertise. Of course, this cuts both ways. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a philosopher to read a NT scholar. Although I believe in Habermas’ case, he has studied some of Ehrman’s work, hasn’t he? All that said, it’s possible for philsophers and NT scholars to read one another to some degree. Take William Lane Craig’s debate with Bart Ehrman over the resurrection. Craig is a… Read more »

2
Reply
Brenda von Ahsen
Brenda von Ahsen
6 years ago

There is no empty tomb because there is no tomb which can be identified positively and unambiguously as the tomb of Jesus. Since no such tomb exists there is no empty tomb to account for.

-3
Reply
Ryan
Ryan
6 years ago
Reply to  Brenda von Ahsen

I assume you’re also in that camp of people that think the historical Jesus didn’t exist or there is no such thing as absolute truth. You can’t just state what you believe without backing up your claim, either add something to the table to discuss or troll elsewhere

0
Reply
trackback
mid-week apologetics booster (12-13-2018) – 1 Peter 4:12-16
6 years ago

[…] 8 Strong Arguments for the Empty Tomb – Capturing Christianity: https://capturingchristianity.com/8-strong-arguments-empty-tomb/ […]

0
Reply
James Church
James Church
6 years ago

> 6. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. You mean “lie”. It would be impossible for the disciples to lie. Allow me to give you a very modern example of why this isn’t strong at all. Politicians straight up lie to their constituents. Their statements are easily fact checked. We can know with certainty when a politician lies. Politicians lie to gain a political edge because it works. Followers are more likely to believe a lie from someone they support than from someone they don’t support.… Read more »

1
Reply
imnobody00
imnobody00
5 years ago
Reply to  James Church

“You mean “lie”. It would be impossible for the disciples to lie.” No. It would be impossible for the disciples to lie and be believed by many people, because everybody could go to visit Jesus’ tomb with his body, which was near Jerusalem. We are not talking about mass media and politicians talking about abstract things (for example, deficit, etc) or things that are far away. We are talking about a physical body buried near Jerusalem. “If the tomb had a body in it and that body was paraded through the streets, the followers would still accept the lie.” This… Read more »

2
Reply
Nathaniel Walters
Nathaniel Walters
6 years ago

These are not at all strong arguments. Not even a little bit.

0
Reply
imnobody00
imnobody00
5 years ago
Reply to  Nathaniel Walters

Why not?

2
Reply
Nathaniel Walters
Nathaniel Walters
5 years ago
Reply to  imnobody00

Well, how much detail would you like me to go into?

-2
Reply
imnobody00
imnobody00
5 years ago
Reply to  Nathaniel Walters

Full detail. But only one argument at a time. Otherwise, the online debate is very difficult to follow. We can start an additional argument when an argument finishes (whether one of us being convinced or whether we agree to disagree) Please take your time. I will take mine. I am very busy and I will answer when I can and when I feel like answering. I don’t like very much online debates. I fell that they take a lot of time and they round in circles. In addition, take into account that this is an accumulative case. The strength of… Read more »

1
Reply
Nathaniel Walters
Nathaniel Walters
5 years ago
Reply to  imnobody00

I mean, if you want an ACTUAL debate, I can get us a space with lots of viewers. Let me know.

-2
Reply
trackback
3.7 Fact 5. The tomb was empty (part 2) – 1c15
5 years ago

[…] https://capturingchristianity.com/8-strong-arguments-empty-tomb/ […]

0
Reply
rishabh gupta
rishabh gupta
3 years ago

great work !! salty atheists in the comments section . beware !!

0
Reply
about
Free 60-page eBook!
Join our super cool email list to receive a copy of our free 60-page eBook (and other cool stuff). Btw, Christianity is true.
Subscribe!
Support
If you find value in our content, prayerfully consider supporting us monthly on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!
Follow Us!
Facebook 0
Twitter 0
YouTube 372K
Instagram 0
Capturing Christianity
  • Home
  • Free Stuff
  • FAQ
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Donate?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

wpDiscuz