Program / Course 16: Historical Defense / Lesson 4.3
What you will learn
- Describe what the Gospels, Acts and Paul say about the burial of Jesus.
- Set out the arguments for and against the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb burial.
- Explain the main arguments for and against the historicity of the empty tomb.
- Identify the points on which the empty tomb accounts differ and the questions that raises.
The big idea
The Gospels say that Jesus was buried by a Jewish council member, Joseph of Arimathea, in a rock-cut tomb, and that women found the tomb empty on the Sunday morning. Many scholars accept the burial as historical, and a substantial number accept the empty tomb, but both are debated. Some argue that criminals were usually left unburied, that the account is a later legend, or that Paul never mentions an empty tomb. Others reply that the burial story has features that would be hard to invent, such as women as first witnesses. The empty tomb is evidence that needs explanation, not by itself proof of resurrection.
Key terms
- Joseph of Arimathea
- A man described in the Gospels as a respected member of the Jewish council who asked Pilate for the body of Jesus and buried it.
- Empty tomb tradition
- The report that Jesus’ tomb was found empty on the first day of the week.
- Sanhedrin
- The Jewish council in Jerusalem. The Gospels describe a meeting of it at the trial of Jesus.
- Shorter ending of Mark
- The view, held by most scholars, that Mark’s Gospel originally ended at 16:8 with the women afraid, and that later verses were added by others.
- Kokh tomb
- A type of rock-cut tomb with burial niches, common in first century Jerusalem.
- Legend
- A story that develops over time, with added details, and may or may not rest on a historical core.
Background
The burial and empty tomb stand between the death of Jesus and the first appearances. If Jesus was buried in a known tomb, and the tomb was found empty, then the claim that he rose is a claim about a physical event with a public location. If the burial and tomb were legends, the resurrection belief would have to be traced to experiences alone.
Scholars hold a wide range of views. Some accept both the burial and the empty tomb as historical, some accept the burial and doubt the tomb, and some doubt both. This lesson sets out the evidence and the debates. It leaves the final judgment to the student.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: What the sources say
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Christ was buried and raised on the third day. He does not say where, and does not mention the tomb or the women. Mark 15:42-47 tells that Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body, wrapped it in linen and laid it in a tomb cut from rock, and that two women saw where he was laid. Mark 16:1-8 tells that on the first day of the week the women came with spices, found the stone rolled away and a young man in white who said Jesus had risen. They fled in fear and said nothing to anyone.
Matthew adds a guard at the tomb and a bribe story (Matthew 27:62-66, 28:11-15). Luke has Peter run to the tomb and see the linen cloths (Luke 24:12). John has Mary Magdalene come alone, Peter and the beloved disciple investigate (John 20:1-10). Acts 13:29 also says that those who took him down from the tree laid him in a tomb.
Step 2: The case for the burial
Defenders note that Jewish law required burial of executed persons on the same day (Deuteronomy 21:22-23), that Josephus says Jews took down crucified men before sunset (War 4.317), and that the tomb of Yehohanan shows that executed Jews could receive family burial. Joseph of Arimathea is a named member of the council, an unlikely character for Christians to invent, since the council was seen as hostile. A story naming a real prominent person would have been easy to check in Jerusalem.
Critics note that Roman practice was to leave bodies on the cross, and that Pilate was known as harsh. John Dominic Crossan argued that Jesus was probably not buried properly but left to scavengers, and that the burial story was a later creation. Most scholars reply that Rome often allowed burial in Judea out of respect for Jewish customs, and that Crossan’s picture rests on general practice and not on specific evidence.
Step 3: The case for the empty tomb
Arguments given for the empty tomb include the following. Women discover it, and in the culture of the time women’s testimony was regarded as weak (Josephus, Antiquities 4.219, says it was not to be accepted). An inventor would have chosen male witnesses. The tomb was in Jerusalem, where the movement began, and the disciples preached the resurrection there, so the claim would have been easily disproved if the body was there. Jewish opponents did not deny the empty tomb but offered the explanation that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:13-15; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 108), which assumes the tomb was empty.
Critics respond that Paul never mentions the empty tomb, which suggests that the story arose after his time. Mark ends with the women saying nothing, which some read as a literary device explaining why the story was unknown earlier. The details differ between Gospels: who came, how many angels, what they said. And the polemical story of theft in Matthew may be a Christian invention to answer a charge, not a historical fact.
Step 4: Paul’s silence and the evidence for legend
Scholars who doubt the tomb argue that Paul’s list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 does not mention it, and that Paul’s account of the resurrection body is spiritual. Defenders reply that Paul’s mention of burial and rising implies the tomb: burial in the creed seems to be there to assert that the one buried rose. They add that Paul does not say everything and that in Greek the sense of raised from the dead suggests a body that left the grave.
The legend theory proposes that the empty tomb story grew from the earlier belief that Jesus was raised. Defenders reply that the story is told in simple terms, without the great display found in later writings such as the second century Gospel of Peter, which shows what legend looks like when it grows.
Step 5: Conclusion and limits
Many scholars, including some who are not Christians, judge the burial by Joseph as probable. Opinion is more divided about the empty tomb, where respected scholars hold positions from probable to doubtful. N. T. Wright argues that it is historically very likely, and Dale Allison, a scholar who takes the evidence seriously, judges the question to be finely balanced.
The empty tomb by itself does not prove that Jesus rose. Other explanations for an empty tomb were offered from the start: theft, a wrong tomb, or removal by authorities. Those are treated in Module 7. The tomb accounts are a piece of evidence to be explained, along with the appearances and the origin of the movement.
- Which source reports the burial, and how early is it?
- Is the burial by a named member of the council likely to have been invented?
- Why would a story invented by Christians have used women as the first witnesses?
- What does Paul’s silence about the tomb show, and what does it not show?
- Which details in the tomb stories differ, and which stay the same?
- If the tomb was empty, what are the possible explanations?
Examples
The women as witnesses
In all four Gospels women are the first to find the tomb. Josephus says that women’s testimony was not to be accepted, because of the levity and boldness of their sex. Scholars take this to mean that a story made up to persuade others would not likely have featured women, and so the detail was probably remembered.
The guard story
Matthew says that soldiers were told to say that the disciples had stolen the body and that this story had been spread among Jews up to the time of writing. Whether the soldiers were historical is disputed. The charge of theft may show that opponents accepted the tomb was empty.
The ending of Mark
The earliest manuscripts end Mark at 16:8 with the women afraid. Many scholars find this a strong abrupt ending that fits Mark’s style. Others suspect a lost ending. The matter affects how the earliest account is understood, but not whether the tomb tradition is early.
Different perspectives
Scholars who accept the empty tomb as historical
These include N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig and others, who regard the evidence as strong, especially the women witnesses, the setting in Jerusalem and the opponents’ reply. They hold that it is the most reasonable reading of the sources.
Scholars who are undecided or doubtful
Scholars such as Dale Allison say the evidence is balanced, and others, such as Gerd Lüdemann, reject the empty tomb as a later development. They stress Paul’s silence and the contradictions among the accounts.
Crossan and similar views
John Dominic Crossan argued that Jesus was probably buried in a shallow grave or left to scavengers, and that the Gospel stories were later fictions expressing the faith that he was alive. This view is a minority and has been criticized for its use of the sources.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians
Both traditions teach that the tomb was empty, and Orthodox worship at Pascha centers on the empty tomb and the myrrh-bearing women. Both treat this as part of the faith, not only as a historical argument.
Protestant Christians
Protestants generally affirm the empty tomb, and many evangelical scholars regard it as a key piece of historical evidence. Some liberal Protestants hold that the faith in the resurrection does not depend on the tomb being empty.
Why it matters
The tomb is where the question of the resurrection becomes concrete. Whether people could point to a particular place and find it empty is a historical question, and the answers affect the strength of the case. Understanding the arguments on all sides prepares the student for the explanations examined later.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The empty tomb proves that Jesus rose from the dead.
Correction: It is evidence that requires an explanation. Other explanations, such as theft or mistaken location, have been proposed and need to be weighed.
Misunderstanding: Paul never mentions the tomb, so it was invented later.
Correction: Paul says Jesus was buried and raised, which may imply the tomb, but he does not state it. Silence is not decisive, since Paul’s purposes in the letter were different.
Misunderstanding: The Gospels agree in every detail about the tomb.
Correction: They differ on who came, how many angels appeared, and what was said. They agree on the main points: burial, women at the tomb, an empty tomb.
Misunderstanding: Criminals were never buried by Romans.
Correction: Roman practice varied, and in Judea burial seems to have been allowed in many cases, in respect for Jewish law. The Giv’at ha-Mivtar tomb shows a crucified man buried.
Knowledge check
Who was Joseph of Arimathea, and why does he matter?
He is described as a member of the Jewish council who asked Pilate for the body and buried Jesus in his own tomb. He matters because he is named, was of high standing and belonged to the group seen as hostile to Jesus, so he is an unlikely invention, and the burial in a known tomb makes the empty tomb a public claim.
Why do many scholars think the women’s role in the tomb story is significant?
In that culture the testimony of women was regarded as weak, as Josephus indicates. A story created to persuade would likely have used men as witnesses. That all four Gospels name women suggests the detail was remembered because it was true, although a skeptic may offer other explanations.
What is the argument from Paul’s silence, and how do defenders reply?
Skeptics note that Paul never mentions the empty tomb, which might mean the story arose later. Defenders reply that Paul states that Christ was buried and raised, which implies the tomb, and that silence is weak evidence in a letter written for other purposes.
Why does the empty tomb not by itself prove the resurrection?
An empty tomb needs an explanation, and other explanations were offered from the beginning, such as theft of the body or a mistaken tomb. The resurrection is one hypothesis among others, and the tomb evidence has to be weighed with the appearances and the origin of the movement.
Think it through
- Which part of the tomb accounts seems to you most difficult to explain as invention?
- How should the differences among the Gospels affect your confidence?
- If the tomb had been found full, what would the early movement have done?
- Does your faith or lack of it influence how you weigh Paul’s silence?
Independent assignment
Comparing the tomb accounts
In your own notebook, make a chart of the four Gospel accounts of the empty tomb, listing who came, who they met and what they were told. Write 250 words on what is common to all and what differs, and what a historian can conclude from the common core. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God Read the discussion of the burial and empty tomb stories.
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics Read for one defense of the historicity of the tomb.
- Justin Martyr, The First Apology Compare with early Christian references to the resurrection.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Check the arguments from silence in this lesson.
- Mark 15:46 Joseph lays the body in a tomb.
- Matthew 28:13 The story that the disciples stole the body.
- John 20:1 Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb.