CHAPTER 2
INDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTS
The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is independently reported in very early sources. Mark’s passion source probably did not end with the story of Jesus’ burial, but with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. For the burial story and the empty tomb story are really one story, forming a smooth, continuous narrative. They are united by grammatical and linguistic connections. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the early Christians would have told a story of Jesus’ passion, which just ended with his death and burial; the passion story is incomplete without the victory of the resurrection at the end. So Mark’s passion source probably included and may have ended with the account of the women’s discovery of the empty tomb.
We’ve also seen that in 1 Corinthians 15:3—5 Paul cites an extremely early tradition that refers to Christ’s burial and resurrection. Although the tradition does not explicitly mention the empty tomb, our earlier comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospel narratives and the sermons in Acts reveals that the third line of the tradition is, in fact, a summary of the story of the discovery of the empty tomb. Moreover, the empty tomb is implicit in two further features of Paul’s tradition.
First, the expression “he was raised” following the expression “he was buried” implies an empty tomb. The idea that someone could be buried and then raised from the dead and yet his body still remains in the grave is a peculiarity of modern theology! In the minds of first-century Jews, there would have been no question that Jesus’ tomb would have been empty as a result of his being raised. Therefore, when the tradition states that Christ “was buried and he was raised,” it automatically implies that an empty tomb was left behind.
Second, the expression “on the third day” implies the empty tomb. Since no one actually saw Jesus get up and walk out of the tomb, we must ask why the early disciples proclaimed that he had been raised “on the third day”? Why not the seventh day? The most likely answer is that it was on the third day after his crucifixion that the women discovered the tomb of Jesus empty; and so naturally, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day.
We have, then, extremely early, independent evidence for the fact of Jesus’ empty tomb in the pre-Markan and pre-Pauline material. The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb cannot therefore be written off as a later legendary development.
But there are other independent sources that account for the empty tomb, found in the other Gospels and Acts. Matthew is clearly working with an independent source, for he includes the story of the guard at the tomb, which is not derived from Mark and is unique to his Gospel; moreover, his comment that the rumor that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body, “And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day,” (Matt. 28:15) shows that the guard is not Matthew’s own creation, but was part of prior tradition. Luke also has an independent source, for he tells the story, not found in Mark, of two disciples’ inspecting the tomb to verify the women’s report that the tomb was vacant. This story cannot be regarded as Luke’s own creation, since the incident is independently reported in John’s Gospel. And, again, given John’s independence of the other three Gospels, we have yet another independent report of the empty tomb.
Finally, in the sermons in the book of Acts, we have indirect references to Jesus’ empty tomb. For example, Peter contrasts the tomb of King David with Jesus’ tomb, saying, “the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day,” but “[Jesus], whom God raised up” (Acts 2:29-32; compare 13:36—37).
Historians consider they’ve hit historical pay dirt when they have two independent accounts of the same event. But in this case— the discovery of the empty tomb—we have no less than six independent sources, some of which are among the earliest materials to be found in the New Testament.