Establishing the Empty Tomb
In the aftermath of the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in a tomb, the disciples went home, and the world went on — for three days, that is. I will try to find out whether evidence can establish that following Jesus’ death, women found his tomb empty. Notice that an empty tomb by itself does not entail Jesus’ resurrection; a number of naturalistic explanations are available (e.g., the women went to the wrong tomb, Jesus did not really die, tomb raiders stole his body, etc.). However, an occupied tomb does entail that Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead. So the task at hand is fairly significant.
According to Mark, the earliest gospel, Jesus’ women followers walked to his tomb early Sunday morning, seeking to anoint his body with oils. As they neared Jesus’ resting place, they discovered that “the stone…had already been rolled aside” (New Living Translation, Mark 16:4b). Upon entering the tomb, they found “a young man in a white rob” (16:5) standing within, who reported that Jesus “is risen from the dead!” (16:6). Despite the popular conception, many credited historians give serious arguments for the historical reliability of this account. I examine and critique three of them below.
One argument often given for historicity is that the empty tomb is part of the early source Mark used when he composed his gospel (Craig, Assessing the New Testament 262); call this hypothetical document/tradition “proto-Mark."
The first issue is if proto-Mark existed. Maybe Mark made up his account of Jesus? I think not. Postulating a pre-Markan source helps explain the structure of Mark’s gospel. The gospel is haphazard and disorderly, jumping from one event in Jesus’ life to the next, followed by a smooth, coherent account of his death and resurrection (Craig, “Concluding Response” 166). A continuous source for the latter explains this shift in structure.
However, proto-Mark by itself isn’t hugely significant, if it isn’t much earlier than Mark. In order to point to an early composition, theologian William Lane Craig points out that Mark’s source, while referring often to the high priest, never names him (Assessing the New Testament 263). These passing references suggest that Caiaphas, the high priest during Jesus’ life, was still alive when the source was penned. Because Caiaphas died in 37 C.E., Mark’s source must have been written within five years of Jesus’ death. So the argument goes, any way. I’m not convinced. Perhaps Mark does not name Caiaphas because the latter was the most significant or important priest out of his predecessors and successors. In any case, surely there is too much speculation involved in Crag's chain of reasoning.
Finally, we need to ask if the empty tomb narrative was part of proto-Mark. Craig maintains that without the empty tomb and implied resurrection, the source would lack victory and vindication. It seems implausible that such a story could circulate in the early Christian community. The point seems fair enough.
In short, one is left with a pre-Markan report of the empty tomb of an indeterminate date, a fact that somewhat increases the trustworthiness of the narrative.
Some argue that the testimony of the apostle Paul implies the fact of the empty tomb. Paul writes, “I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the scriptures said” (New Living Translation, 1 Corinthians 15:3–5). If Christ was dead and buried, but then returned to life, the only plausible inference is that he left an empty tomb behind him. There is no doubt, moreover, that he was buried is a summary statement referring to Jesus’ entombment by Joseph of Arimathea because no other burial tradition survives to the present day. 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 therefore implies that Paul believed in the empty tomb (Stein 4).
Of course, only if Paul actually knew about the tomb would his testimony be of any value. Review first the case that Paul did have that knowledge. Elsewhere Paul writes that “three years [after his conversion], I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and…I met James, the Lord’s brother” (New Living Translation, Galatians 1:18–19). This account, if true, suggests that Paul knew about the empty tomb. The leaders of the early Christian church (Peter and James) would have informed him if the tomb was not empty, and even if they had ulterior motives, Paul was in Jerusalem among the very people who saw Jesus die. If Peter and James were lying about Jesus’ unoccupied grave, someone could have — and would have — pointed it out. Most people in Jerusalem were not Christians, and graves do not disappear overnight. Indeed, Paul likely did meet these men. If Paul was creating encounters with Christian leaders out of thin air to bolster his own authority, surely he would not have reported that upon receiving the gospel, he “did not rush out to consult with any human being…[but] went away into Arabia” (New Living Translation, 1:16–17), only reporting to the apostles three years later. The apostle, then, probably knew about the empty tomb.
Not all scholars accept that conclusion, however. (i) Raymond Fisher maintains that “our general uncertainty about Paul’s concept of resurrection” ought to keep one from assuming “that the empty tomb is implied…in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5” (66). If Paul believed in some sort of spiritual resurrection, then he wouldn’t belief in a physically empty tomb. (ii) James Crossley objects that “1 Corinthians 15:4…is a general handed on tradition for which [Paul] gives no eyewitness support” (178).
These objections are of mixed value. With respect to (i), against Fisher, Paul probably believed in a physical resurrection. The verbs used in 1 Cor. 15 “mean ‘to raise upright’ or ‘to erect.’” (Craig, Assessing the New Testament 66), verbs that only makes sense with respect to a physical body (imagine trying to straighten a soul or to lift a spirit and stand tall beside it).
Objection (ii) surfaces an important point. One must admit that arguments of the form, “This person must have known about x because this other person would have known about it, and those two people probably met once…”, are not very persuasive. As Crossley points out, the historian wants eyewitness testimony, not hearsay. Nevertheless, that Paul did have these encounters with John, Peter, and the Jerusalem church — and still believed in the empty tomb — modestly increases the historical probability of that account.
The most popular argument for the tomb narrative is that women discovering the tomb is likely historical. First century Palestine considered a woman’s testimony worthless and inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus reports, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” (IV.8.15). Josephus’ attitude is probably indicative of the culture at large, so if the empty tomb were a legend or deliberate fabrication, it would probably have made men the discoverers thereof. That Mark nevertheless gives that place to women suggests that women actually did find the tomb empty (Fisher 72).
Again, scholars object. (i) Kirby maintains that a woman discovering the tomb “integrates well with Mark’s redactional themes [those elements added by an author to the tradition he or she received] and thus most likely stems from Mark himself” (181). (ii) Crossley suggests that the “significant role” (184) women played in Jesus’ ministry might have increased the value of their testimony. (iii) Crossley further argues that because Mark has “no problem” (184) including women as witnesses to the crucifixion, that he similarly includes them at the empty tomb should not surprise (184).
Do these objections prove insurmountable? Objection (i) is confused. Seeing that Mark includes embarrassing details throughout his narrative (e.g., the disciples scatter at Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial of Christ, women discovering the tomb, etc.), one should not draw the bizarre conclusion that these are instances of Mark’s thematic creation, but rather that they are all genuine, historical events.
With respect to (ii), it is unclear how Jesus allowing women to follow him translates to a new perception of a woman’s testimony. Moreover, the empty tomb is more attested in the gospels than Jesus’ women followers. If one affirms the latter, one cannot consistently deny the former.
Regarding (iii), the objection only reiterates the problem: if women were not present, why were they inserted into either the crucifixion or the empty tomb? Why not make John, Peter, and James the witnesses to Jesus’ passion? In short, I think this argument is so popular because it is a pretty decent point.
In conclusion, the historian is left with a relatively early report of the empty tomb, testimony from the apostle Paul to Jesus’ unoccupied grave, and an argument from embarrassing elements in the narrative. Each of these arguments increase the probability of Jesus’ (non)final resting place. But do they establish a probability above fifty percent? Probably not. Mark’s source is at best hypothetical, Paul only implies the empty tomb and his interaction with James and Peter is speculative, and even granting the third argument, perhaps women featured in some historical event, but the details are lost to the historian. On the other hand, objections to the story’s historicity prove unpersuasive. Therefore, it seems to me that it cannot be established whether or not women found Jesus’ tomb empty following his crucifixion (at least on the basis of the above three arguments).
Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002. Print.
— -. “Closing Response: William Lane Craig” Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?. Ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 162–206. Print.
Crossley, James G. “Against the historical plausibility of the empty tomb story and the bodily resurrection of Jesus: A response to NT Wright.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.2 (2005): 171–186.
Fisher, Raymond. “The Empty Tomb Story in Mark: Its Origin and Significance.” Neotestamentica 33.1 (1999): 59–77.
Flavius, Josephus. The Antiquities of the Jews. Trans. William Whiston. 2009. Project Guttenberg. Web. 2 January 2015.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Steam, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007. Print.
Kirby, Peter. “The Case Against the Empty Tomb.” Journal of Higher Criticism v9 (2002): 175–202.
Stein, Robert H. “Was the Tomb Really Empty?” Themelios 5.1 (September 1979): 8–12.
According to Mark, the earliest gospel, Jesus’ women followers walked to his tomb early Sunday morning, seeking to anoint his body with oils. As they neared Jesus’ resting place, they discovered that “the stone…had already been rolled aside” (New Living Translation, Mark 16:4b). Upon entering the tomb, they found “a young man in a white rob” (16:5) standing within, who reported that Jesus “is risen from the dead!” (16:6). Despite the popular conception, many credited historians give serious arguments for the historical reliability of this account. I examine and critique three of them below.
Early Testimony in Mark?
One argument often given for historicity is that the empty tomb is part of the early source Mark used when he composed his gospel (Craig, Assessing the New Testament 262); call this hypothetical document/tradition “proto-Mark."
The first issue is if proto-Mark existed. Maybe Mark made up his account of Jesus? I think not. Postulating a pre-Markan source helps explain the structure of Mark’s gospel. The gospel is haphazard and disorderly, jumping from one event in Jesus’ life to the next, followed by a smooth, coherent account of his death and resurrection (Craig, “Concluding Response” 166). A continuous source for the latter explains this shift in structure.
However, proto-Mark by itself isn’t hugely significant, if it isn’t much earlier than Mark. In order to point to an early composition, theologian William Lane Craig points out that Mark’s source, while referring often to the high priest, never names him (Assessing the New Testament 263). These passing references suggest that Caiaphas, the high priest during Jesus’ life, was still alive when the source was penned. Because Caiaphas died in 37 C.E., Mark’s source must have been written within five years of Jesus’ death. So the argument goes, any way. I’m not convinced. Perhaps Mark does not name Caiaphas because the latter was the most significant or important priest out of his predecessors and successors. In any case, surely there is too much speculation involved in Crag's chain of reasoning.
Finally, we need to ask if the empty tomb narrative was part of proto-Mark. Craig maintains that without the empty tomb and implied resurrection, the source would lack victory and vindication. It seems implausible that such a story could circulate in the early Christian community. The point seems fair enough.
In short, one is left with a pre-Markan report of the empty tomb of an indeterminate date, a fact that somewhat increases the trustworthiness of the narrative.
Early Testimony in Paul?
Some argue that the testimony of the apostle Paul implies the fact of the empty tomb. Paul writes, “I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the scriptures said” (New Living Translation, 1 Corinthians 15:3–5). If Christ was dead and buried, but then returned to life, the only plausible inference is that he left an empty tomb behind him. There is no doubt, moreover, that he was buried is a summary statement referring to Jesus’ entombment by Joseph of Arimathea because no other burial tradition survives to the present day. 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 therefore implies that Paul believed in the empty tomb (Stein 4).
Of course, only if Paul actually knew about the tomb would his testimony be of any value. Review first the case that Paul did have that knowledge. Elsewhere Paul writes that “three years [after his conversion], I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and…I met James, the Lord’s brother” (New Living Translation, Galatians 1:18–19). This account, if true, suggests that Paul knew about the empty tomb. The leaders of the early Christian church (Peter and James) would have informed him if the tomb was not empty, and even if they had ulterior motives, Paul was in Jerusalem among the very people who saw Jesus die. If Peter and James were lying about Jesus’ unoccupied grave, someone could have — and would have — pointed it out. Most people in Jerusalem were not Christians, and graves do not disappear overnight. Indeed, Paul likely did meet these men. If Paul was creating encounters with Christian leaders out of thin air to bolster his own authority, surely he would not have reported that upon receiving the gospel, he “did not rush out to consult with any human being…[but] went away into Arabia” (New Living Translation, 1:16–17), only reporting to the apostles three years later. The apostle, then, probably knew about the empty tomb.
Not all scholars accept that conclusion, however. (i) Raymond Fisher maintains that “our general uncertainty about Paul’s concept of resurrection” ought to keep one from assuming “that the empty tomb is implied…in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5” (66). If Paul believed in some sort of spiritual resurrection, then he wouldn’t belief in a physically empty tomb. (ii) James Crossley objects that “1 Corinthians 15:4…is a general handed on tradition for which [Paul] gives no eyewitness support” (178).
These objections are of mixed value. With respect to (i), against Fisher, Paul probably believed in a physical resurrection. The verbs used in 1 Cor. 15 “mean ‘to raise upright’ or ‘to erect.’” (Craig, Assessing the New Testament 66), verbs that only makes sense with respect to a physical body (imagine trying to straighten a soul or to lift a spirit and stand tall beside it).
Objection (ii) surfaces an important point. One must admit that arguments of the form, “This person must have known about x because this other person would have known about it, and those two people probably met once…”, are not very persuasive. As Crossley points out, the historian wants eyewitness testimony, not hearsay. Nevertheless, that Paul did have these encounters with John, Peter, and the Jerusalem church — and still believed in the empty tomb — modestly increases the historical probability of that account.
The embarrassing fact of women witnesses
The most popular argument for the tomb narrative is that women discovering the tomb is likely historical. First century Palestine considered a woman’s testimony worthless and inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. As the ancient Jewish historian Josephus reports, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” (IV.8.15). Josephus’ attitude is probably indicative of the culture at large, so if the empty tomb were a legend or deliberate fabrication, it would probably have made men the discoverers thereof. That Mark nevertheless gives that place to women suggests that women actually did find the tomb empty (Fisher 72).
Again, scholars object. (i) Kirby maintains that a woman discovering the tomb “integrates well with Mark’s redactional themes [those elements added by an author to the tradition he or she received] and thus most likely stems from Mark himself” (181). (ii) Crossley suggests that the “significant role” (184) women played in Jesus’ ministry might have increased the value of their testimony. (iii) Crossley further argues that because Mark has “no problem” (184) including women as witnesses to the crucifixion, that he similarly includes them at the empty tomb should not surprise (184).
Do these objections prove insurmountable? Objection (i) is confused. Seeing that Mark includes embarrassing details throughout his narrative (e.g., the disciples scatter at Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial of Christ, women discovering the tomb, etc.), one should not draw the bizarre conclusion that these are instances of Mark’s thematic creation, but rather that they are all genuine, historical events.
With respect to (ii), it is unclear how Jesus allowing women to follow him translates to a new perception of a woman’s testimony. Moreover, the empty tomb is more attested in the gospels than Jesus’ women followers. If one affirms the latter, one cannot consistently deny the former.
Regarding (iii), the objection only reiterates the problem: if women were not present, why were they inserted into either the crucifixion or the empty tomb? Why not make John, Peter, and James the witnesses to Jesus’ passion? In short, I think this argument is so popular because it is a pretty decent point.
Works Cited
Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002. Print.
— -. “Closing Response: William Lane Craig” Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?. Ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 162–206. Print.
Crossley, James G. “Against the historical plausibility of the empty tomb story and the bodily resurrection of Jesus: A response to NT Wright.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.2 (2005): 171–186.
Fisher, Raymond. “The Empty Tomb Story in Mark: Its Origin and Significance.” Neotestamentica 33.1 (1999): 59–77.
Flavius, Josephus. The Antiquities of the Jews. Trans. William Whiston. 2009. Project Guttenberg. Web. 2 January 2015.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Steam, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007. Print.
Kirby, Peter. “The Case Against the Empty Tomb.” Journal of Higher Criticism v9 (2002): 175–202.
Stein, Robert H. “Was the Tomb Really Empty?” Themelios 5.1 (September 1979): 8–12.
Comments
Post a Comment