15: The Empty Tomb

15: The Empty Tomb

15

The Empty Tomb

This ongoing study of the death and resurrection of Jesus covers a scholarly spectrum of atheist, agnostic, skeptical, and other self-identified non-Christian scholars as well as those of moderate and conservative persuasions. This spectrum covers a wide range of analytical and interpretative viewpoints. These positions derive chiefly from the last quarter of the twentieth century through the first quarter of the twenty-first century. An interdisciplinary flavor is present in the scholarship as well. Most of the authors are New Testament scholars or theologians, though a fair number of other specialties include historians, world religious experts, plus a few psychologists, medical doctors, philosophers, and specialists needed in relevant cognate areas. During this half century, noticeable developments have emerged, morphed, and moved in new directions.

Some Recent Resurrection Trends

A number of surprising shifts have developed during these past decades, including some quite recently. For example, research from the 1960s and early 1970s indicates that scholars holding more traditional positions typically identified as conservative Catholics or evangelicals. Some of these affirmed views include Jesus being a miracle worker and exorcist, Jesus’s burial tomb being discovered empty, or that Jesus appeared chiefly to his followers after his death and that these events occurred in a bodily manner. Such scholars dated relevant canonical texts relatively early and rejected naturalistic explanations pertaining to various major events discussed here. Some moderate scholars often shared these views as well.

Less moderate and liberal scholars opposed many of these same positions, more freely preferring alternative scenarios to the New Testament reports. Some rejected the resurrection appearances in an outright manner, while others held that Jesus actually appeared to his followers, though in a less than bodily manner.

However, contemporary research indicates some major shifts on some of these issues. For instance, nearly all critical scholars today concede that Jesus was believed to be a miracle worker and exorcist, although the exact nature of these events is often left undetermined. The disciples’ proclamation of the appearance traditions is now widely dated immediately after the crucifixion, perhaps even just a few weeks or months afterward.

That Jesus’s followers believed he appeared bodily now seems to be a majority position, with even many skeptical scholars also conceding at least the early belief in this bodily aspect despite personally rejecting the historicity of the resurrection itself.1 Another surprising trend surfacing recently is that Jesus probably (or at least quite possibly) predicted his death, resurrection, and exaltation.2 This reversal contributes crucial features to Jesus’s overall theistic worldview as well.

Perhaps due at least in part to the emerging expression of bodily resurrection appearances, another remarkable cognate trend during these decades has been the shift in the overall outlook of scholars who now support the belief that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was later found empty. The number of critical researchers who favor an empty tomb appears to have risen somewhat dramatically.3 Indeed, this steady increase has emerged ever since the declining vestiges of Rudolf Bultmann’s influence, which were still pervasive from the 1950s thorugh the mid-1970s.4

In this chapter, I will list some twenty arguments often cited by critical scholars in favor of the historicity of the empty tomb. Several major negative rejoinders raised by critics who reject or question this occurrence will be raised along the way. Throughout, the emphasis will be placed on the major and representative arguments for each position. Some secondary though still worthwhile considerations will also be mentioned, but in a more truncated fashion.

Major Arguments Favoring the Empty Tomb

Of the many arguments favoring the empty tomb, more than a half dozen appear to be of greater evidential strength than the others and are cited more frequently by critical scholars. Following the stronger factors, secondary considerations will also be given. Some of the more substantial rejoinders to these arguments are also aimed at these initial considerations and considered.5

(1) By far the most popular argument in favor of the empty tomb is that in each of the four canonical Gospel narratives, the first witnesses to observe and then deliver the report of the empty tomb were women (Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–9; John 20:1–2). It is sometimes claimed that women in first-century Judaism were disqualified from testifying in a law court.6 However, this assertion has been disputed regarding certain important details as well as clarified further, since it was not strictly or always the case.

For example, citing many ancient Jewish sources, Darrell Bock has pointed out that the rabbis, Mishnah, and Talmud were all mostly clear on this subject in the large majority of their citations. For instance, a woman’s comments may possibly be utilized when providing corroboration for male testimony, but it was generally disregarded if she were giving the witness on her own. The latter rule is repeated often because it was believed that females lacked the character and knowledge to testify.7 There were a few specific exceptions where women could testify, but these were normally in special cases where they might have been thought to have more jurisdiction, as in challenges to virginity or if a man had truly died (due to the women being primarily responsible for the burial of the dead).8 In most testimonial matters, though, women generally could not give evidence or testimony and their word was often of little or no impact. Concerning female testimony, Bock states, “In a Jewish context, they were at best second-tier witnesses.” Bock then concludes, “Although it is false to claim that women were never allowed to be witnesses, it was rarely the case, taking place only in very limited situations.”9

Carolyn Osiek has also authored another excellent overview on this subject regarding the value of a woman’s testimony in ancient Judaism. Besides confirming the facticity of many similar items to those just detailed by Bock, and along with interjecting research on ancient Jewish views, Osiek also notes the crucial fact that similar public views were found throughout the Mediterranean world rather than just among the Jews.10 Thus, the overall pattern appears to be quite clear: there was a greater reluctance to employ female testimony concerning crucial issues or matters outside their realm of influence.

Given these essential societal strictures, it is exceptionally difficult to understand why the four canonical Gospel narratives all agreed on the basic details of their narration, insisting on portraying the scene in this manner in spite of the negative perception it would engender from their ancient readers. After all, such a move would appear to constitute only weakened and severely compromised testimony, especially when qualified men could have been employed as witnesses instead, whether they were there or not! The response portrayed in Luke 24:11 is highly instructive here. Even when the women reported these things to the apostles and others, they received the response expected from the views at that time: “But they [the apostles] did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense” (NIV). But knowing that this attitude would largely be the case much of the time, why would Luke and the other Gospel authors portray the situation this way in the first place?

From another angle, all four canonical Gospel authors were likely living in areas surrounding the general environs of the Mediterranean Sea. For example, researchers often link these Gospels to Rome and Ephesus, located very far away from one another. So why would each of the four authors, presumably living in different locations and telling their own stories, have agreed with each other by narrating their accounts of the women being the ones who first visited Jesus’s tomb unless this had been precisely the case?

Further still, since Luke and John also depict more than one male disciple visiting the tomb to check out these matters after hearing the women’s testimony (see below), would it not have made more sense for at least these two Gospel authors to begin their narratives by describing the male disciples’ trip to the tomb? After all, the men did visit the tomb, so the writers would not have been lying, plus they would have thereby avoided the conundrum of beginning with the likely discredited female testimony.

Therefore, because all four authors began their accounts with the female testimony, it is usually asserted that the unanimous Gospel reports can best be thought of as quite a forceful witness to the authenticity of the report. It fulfills a strong form of the criterion of embarrassment, especially because it rests the crucial event of the empty tomb on what were often taken by the general public to be seemingly flimsy witnesses. Hence, paraphrasing Jesus’s words, “the last being made first” is an intriguing angle on these accounts.

But to proclaim the women as the star witnesses to the empty tomb in this instance could be perceived as a clear act of intellectual suicide. This is precisely why so many commentators count this as a convincing indication that the evangelists regarded the report as being absolutely accurate. Osiek concludes that the women’s testimony “remained because the memory of their role was so persistent that it could not be removed. Its very persistence must indicate that something actually happened that Sunday morning at the tomb.”11 Perkins concludes, “God also chose them as witnesses to the Lord.”12

Comparatively few critical scholars have challenged this major argument. Francis Watson suggests that those who think the tomb narratives actually may have been reports that originated in a Hellenistic context rather than in a more Jewish milieu could annul the problem of the Gospel reports being of Palestinian origin by changing the context, hence vitiating the force of this argument from the women witnesses.13 That the Gospel narratives are a few decades after the events in question might also lend further weight to this critical observation regarding Hellenistic roots instead of having their origins in more Jewish environs.14

However, Osiek’s comment is quite relevant: “The general reluctance in ancient Mediterranean society to see women as public spokespersons or officeholders applies here as well.”15 In other words, the prejudice against female testimony throughout the first-century Mediterranean world extended far beyond Judea, indicating for the purposes of Watson’s argument that even any potential Hellenistic influence from the Mediterranean area would still fail to alleviate the problem of female witnesses to the tomb’s emptiness.

In addition to Osiek, other scholars have also made similar points regarding the status of female testimony. Citing German historian Hans von Campenhausen, Pannenberg states that the Hellenistic option does not solve the issue because several textual items in Mark’s narrative would have been stated otherwise, such as the implication of an appearance account (though it could have been there originally), plus the low view of female testimony was likewise similar in Hellenistic culture.16 Cranfield also points out that the Jewish community was not the only one to express these convictions concerning avoiding female legal testimony whenever possible, for “in Gentile society too their position in regard to the law was inferior to men.”17

Further and quite crucially, a far more serious set of problems has evolved from Watson’s comments three decades ago. Watson’s remark regarding the possibility of a Hellenistic origin for the empty tomb account in Mark 16 very possibly reflects the aftermath of critical views retained in various forms from the holdover influence of the famous religionsgeschichtliche Schule that thrived from the late nineteenth and into the mid-twentieth century. It has already been mentioned above that through the continuing influence of Bultmann’s teachings and other similar-minded scholars, a number of Jewish ideas in early Christianity were frequently attributed to Hellenistic roots.18 But as many researchers have pointed out since Watson’s remarks, many seemingly pagan (mostly Hellenistic) influences can actually be traced to ancient Jewish traditions. The dawn of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus movement crushed most of the final vestiges of this Bultmannian Hellenistic ideation, at least regarding our understanding of the central Christian doctrines.19

Atheistic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman attests that he understands the force of the empty tomb argument based on the female testimony because he used to hold this position himself. But since studying the matter “more deeply” he has since detected the “real flaw” here. The result is that Ehrman now argues against this tide of recent critical scholarship by raising a few reasons why the female testimony is not as powerful as he once thought.

For starters, according to Ehrman the testimony of the female witnesses could have been invented, with the women disciples themselves having made up the initial oral reports! After all, they were treated better in Jesus’s ministry than in the ancient world as a whole, so they would not be viewed so poorly. Further, since women generally prepared the dead for burial anyway, as in the Gospels, it would be natural for them to finish the process on Sunday morning and be described as such. Moreover, the male disciples had fled during Jesus’s arrest, perhaps even to Galilee, so they may not have been in the vicinity anyway, leaving the women to handle the task. Lastly, perhaps Mark himself invented the story (though Ehrman explains that he personally does not think this was the case), especially in that Mark frequently portrays the disciples in a bad light, so one more negative occasion here should not be surprising.20

However, each of Ehrman’s reasons is misplaced, even quite strongly so. As farfetched as the women fabricating the entire story may sound, the chief point is not whether the women could have spread false reports. One of the major problems here would concern who would have believed them even if they had done precisely this? We have noted that even the male disciples scoffed at the women’s story when they shared their testimony with them, with Ehrman himself mentioning precisely this same passage!21 Sure, the women prepared Jesus’s body for burial, but according to all four Gospels, so did Joseph of Arimathea, while John also adds Nicodemus. So why not at the very least also make one or both of these two men codiscoverers of the empty tomb, or begin the accounts with the other male disciples who went to the tomb later that first day, as mentioned above? It could hardly be objected that these several men who either helped bury Jesus or went to the tomb later would not have dramatically increased the value of the women’s case!

Moreover, while it is the case that Mark 14:50 and Matt 26:56 relate that the men fled when Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane,22 this does not require them to have left the geographical area! For example, all four Gospels narrate that Peter remained behind in Jerusalem for at least some time, while Mark 16:7 could imply that Peter was still in town on Sunday morning. The Fourth Gospel places John at the crucifixion. As noted, Luke and John both relate that Peter, John, or both disciples were still in the area and went to the tomb for themselves after the women did on that initial day. Luke and John also state that the apostles remained in Jerusalem the night of Jesus’s resurrection.23 Besides, why were the women commanded to go tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee if the men had already gone there? And were the women expected to journey for a few days by themselves just to deliver this message? If respectability is at all a goal in relating the gospel message, why not make Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Peter, or John part of the original entourage to the tomb?

Lastly, although Ehrman is right that Mark is certainly capable of painting the disciples negatively, he is still careful to point out more than once that he does not think Mark invented the story. Ehrman’s question here is possibly a “what if” concern anyway.24 Besides, even if Mark is sometimes less than positive toward the disciples, why should that mean he preferred to have the women provide the testimony by themselves?

Ehrman’s less-than-moving reasons notwithstanding, the ancient bias against female witnesses was simply too pervasive and powerful throughout the ancient Mediterranean world to try to defend their being the only initial observers, especially when all four Gospels agree in relating this same story. It is quite likely that these stories would never have been made up at all, since it was exceptionally likely that the prejudicial views would have caused the message to be opposed, if not rejected outright, anywhere in the ancient Mediterranean region, just as Osiek and others note well. It simply would have been an incredibly counterproductive move and exceptionally likely that at least one of the authors would have redacted earlier traditions with females going to the tomb, by beginning the story with the males heading there instead.25

It is being argued, then, that unless the point was to relate what actually happened, thereby making the women the chief eyewitnesses to the empty tomb, the story in all four Gospels would have been told quite differently at a number of places, with men at least as key witnesses in the original trip. Otherwise, there are simply too many indications that the women would never have been the focus. Even the disciples themselves are said to have objected strongly to their testimony! What more do we need to indicate this here?26

So there is no question that citing male witnesses would have been better received. So once again, the question is: Why cite women observers at all, let alone unanimously, without any male accompaniment, and as the highlighted witnesses? Even though Jesus treated woman differently, the focus is to present the case for the Christian gospel message going forth to unbelievers. The way all four Gospels do it simply exhibits very poor judgment, unless that was precisely the way it happened.

It must be kept in mind that early Christianity was an evangelistic faith, with the Gospels and Acts highlighting the facts that the apostles and others were proclaiming the message everywhere.27 This indicates that the Gospel authors would have wanted to place their “best foot forward,” so to speak. Making women the chief witnesses to a vital message like the empty tomb would not have been the best way to achieve this goal. Otherwise, how else can we explain that even during the very brief interval before the development of the early creedal statements such as 1 Cor 15:3–7 and the Acts sermon summaries (see below), the women have already disappeared from the retelling? Or why is it said that the apostles themselves scoffed at the women’s tomb report (Luke 24:11)?

For reasons such as these, the majority of recent critical scholars support the notion that female testimony is the one of the strongest, if not the very best, reasons to accept the historicity of the empty tomb. Other contrary options are suggested less often, along with a number of critiques against each of these challenges, plus many other positive conclusions.28

(2) Few scholars appear to deny that Jerusalem was the birthplace of the earliest Christian preaching. As James D. G. Dunn attests, “The story of the empty tomb was probably being told in Jerusalem shortly after the event.”29 This would presumably be the least likely location for teaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead if his grave, presumably located just a very short distance away, had still been occupied. After all, some questioning followed by a brief walk could solve the matter in a minimal amount of time. Walter Kasper considers this as the “most important argument” since otherwise the proclamation of the empty tomb “would not have lasted there a single day.”30 Stephen Davis agrees that this location is one of the best two indications that Jesus’s tomb was empty.31 Craig A. Evans approvingly cites another comment that even if early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection, their “preaching . . . would have been greatly inhibited had the actual body of Jesus been lying yet in a tomb.”32 Other scholars agree regarding the historicity and significance of the Jerusalem connection.33

Yet, some scholars have offered objections. Atheist philosopher Michael Martin has responded that if Acts reported accurately that the initial Christian preaching of the resurrection did not begin until fifty days after Jesus’s ascension, then Jesus’s corpse “would have decayed sufficiently to have made identification impossible.”34 In other words, the body of an unidentifiable individual could have been discovered in the tomb if anyone had checked.

But Martin’s retort misses the point entirely. The clear and repeated Christian claim was that Jesus’s tomb was empty, not that there was indeed a body inside but that since it could not be identified, it was not Jesus! Here is the chief point to be made: if any body was found in Jesus’s tomb, the Christian claim that the burial chamber was empty would have been falsified. Besides, it would be simply incredible to imagine that discovering an unidentifiable body in the sepulcher, especially one measuring approximately Jesus’s height and weight, perhaps with still-recognizable crucifixion wounds, would not blunt and weaken seriously the resurrection claim! Thus, even an unidentifiable corpse with wounds in its wrists or feet would most likely be that of Jesus! Moreover, bodies were at least somewhat identifiable a year later when Jews reburied their relatives’ bones in ossuaries.35

Further, medical examiners have pointed out that even in damper and warmer climates that would definitely be more conducive to decay than the arid Jerusalem area, key details on dead bodies, such as major wounds, can be determined significantly even after fifty days.36 Such information, then—that the proclamation was that Jesus’s tomb was empty, as well as today’s medical knowledge about decaying bodies—would disprove Martin’s supposition on both scores.

We have already seen the charge that the Gospel reports are late, even in Mark, so perhaps the empty tomb was not a part of the earliest message.37 However, at least a couple of the arguments mentioned in this chapter and elsewhere in this study indicate that much earlier sources that predated Mark were used in this text, which date as early as the AD 30s, such as the pre-Passion source that was probably employed by Mark, plus the exceptionally early comment from the Acts sermon summaries in 2:29–31 and 13:28–31,38 also indicate Jesus’s burial in a Jerusalem tomb after his crucifixion. Ehrman, along with perhaps a majority of other critical scholars, even allows many of these comeback considerations.39

As a result, the Jerusalem location for the burial of Jesus’s body appears to be a major argument that favors the emptiness of his burial tomb. It was located far too close for comfort to the center of early Christian preaching and teaching for its emptiness to not have been the case.

(3) Most scholars also realize that the empty tomb accounts in the Gospels are multiply attested, being found in either three or four of the five independent Gospel sources, namely, Mark, M, John, and probably L. Since critical scholars often affirm that even the presence of at least two independent Gospel traditions (such as Mark and John) increases the likelihood that a report is early and possibly authentic,40 this is another major conclusion in favor of this event. As ancient historian Paul Maier asserts, “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”41 Hence, a number of scholars also rank this consideration among the very best indications that Jesus’s tomb was empty.42

It was just mentioned above that some researchers think Mark invented the account of the empty tomb story; thus they deny the existence of earlier sources.43 This challenge was treated directly above, and relevant comments and sources are cited throughout this chapter with counterarguments directed against elements of this charge, rather than repeating these on each occasion.

The early Acts sermon summaries are often if not usually dated to very soon after the crucifixion, emphasizing this brief time gap as well as increasing the multiple attestation of sources at these points.44 Portions contained within Acts 2:14–36 and 13:16–41 that teach that Jesus’s body was buried but did not decompose are often dated to this early period.45 Further, the pre-Markan Passion Narrative also increases the likelihood that the empty tomb accounts were circulating in the 30s or a little later.46 These are a few of the responses to the critical thesis that Mark was the earliest, original source of the empty tomb story. This challenge would be disproven by the existence of other prior sources. These last few responses to these critical retorts will be addressed in their own right below. Other potential responses also have been offered to this challenge as well.47

(4) Most recent scholars maintain or at least concede the potential force of the early pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–4 and its implication of an empty tomb. The threefold kai hoti clauses, especially in a Jewish context, serve as the connective terms moving the listener from the reality of Jesus’s death to his burial, resurrection, and appearances. The entire sequence here indicates that the body that had died was the one that was raised and that appeared afterward. In other words, the narrative process describes a progression that does not stop until the end—the body that died was later raised and brought to life.48

While many scholars generally acknowledge Paul’s sequence of phrases from the early creedal statement,49 some do object that the apostle nowhere else discusses or directly mentions the empty tomb.50 It should be noted that this absence in Paul is often taken to weaken the force of the positive argument here.

That being said, this objection appears to conceal an argument from silence. That Paul does not mention an empty tomb hardly eliminates automatically the earlier point taken from the pre-Pauline creed. The implication still remains, and many would conclude strongly so, that if Jesus was dead, buried, raised, and appeared, then this fourfold sequence of words probably entails the very early conviction that Jesus’s resting place was no longer occupied, precisely because the body which was buried emerged again later, even if transformed. These verbs also occur in a context where the Greek terms anastasis “standing up, rising,” and egeirō “to rise up,” indicate bodily events,51 so it certainly appears that this sequence most likely requires an empty burial chamber.

There are other relevant and rather intriguing considerations from Paul as well, such as his metaphor in Rom 6:3–4 (thought by some scholars to be another early creedal statement) that believers were baptized with Christ Jesus unto his death, and likewise, “we were therefore buried with him . . . in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead . . ., we too may live a new life” (NIV). While this of course is hardly a direct historical statement, it is nonetheless clear in this context that Paul considered that the Jesus who was baptized, dead, and buried is also the very person who was raised from the dead as well—just as believers progress through baptism as a symbolic death and burial, to proceed onward into their new lives. Thus, the same sequence is also manifest in this text, moving from start to finish here as well.

Further still, in Rom 8:11, the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead “will also give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit” (NIV). Again, this indicates that Paul apparently considered that the same human body before death is the one which will be raised, though transformed. The process is definitely not one where Jesus’s burial and resurrection were somehow discontinuous. Hence, this favors to some extent the interpretation of perhaps most scholars regarding the process from Jesus’s death to his resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15. In each of these cases, according to Paul’s thought, the result most likely would concern a real body along with a vacated burial chamber.

Driving home this last crucial point, in addition to the major studies listed just above, John Granger Cook recently published one of the most detailed word studies ever on the relevant terms for resurrection within a Jewish background.52 The detailed arguments in his publications will be followed up below, but he begins his large volume on this topic in his introductory chapter, “Resurrection Language,” with the semantics of resurrection. Specifically in terms of the topic in this chapter, Cook states firmly his “conclusion that Paul could not have conceived of the resurrection of Jesus without assuming an empty tomb.” Further, Cook argues “against the thesis that there is a fundamental difference between Paul’s conception of the resurrection body and that of the Gospels.” What follows is that, given Paul’s clear position on the nature of Jesus’s body, the apostle did not need to specify the emptiness of Jesus’s tomb at all. The use of his Greek terms relates that story.53

Such a position needs to be unpacked in more detail. Here the emphasis is on the initial salvo that addresses the relevance of Paul’s not mentioning the empty tomb directly, either in the early creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 or elsewhere. The remainder of this response will be developed in detail below regarding the predominant Jewish view overall.

(5) Both Acts 2:29–32 and Acts 13:28–37 (especially the latter), are usually identified as some of the more important early sermon summaries, predating the biblical book in which they appear. These two messages are attributed to Peter and Paul respectively. The Acts 2 text mentions and implies that Jesus’s body was placed in a tomb from which he was raised and appeared without experiencing any bodily decay, while the Acts 13 passage is closer to proclaiming this. The Acts 13 account could at least potentially help answer the question concerning Paul’s belief in the empty tomb. As Allison declares, at least 13:28–32 “incorporates, as almost universally recognized, a pre-Pauline formula.”54

Similarly, Acts potentially involves the presence of at least several of these very early oral sermon snippets of material, both here and elsewhere in the book. These texts are usually taken as being pre-Pauline, as affirmed by many recent and influential critical scholars.55 For example, even Ehrman dates many of these Acts traditions to the 30s, within just a couple years after the crucifixion!56 Further, Ehrman specifically includes a portion of the Acts 13 passage among these early texts—what he terms “the preliterary traditions of Acts” or the “pre-Lukan tradition.”57 Yet he neglects to use this passage to argue for the empty tomb, since while dating the material exceptionally early to make one of his key points on Christology, he still rejects Paul as the stated author of this sermon and holds that the part about the tomb was invented!58

(6) One of the more prominent results of recent research is that perhaps even the majority of contemporary scholars think the data indicate that Mark utilized an earlier source that predates his Gospel, a text that may well have included the empty tomb account. This subject has been mentioned more than once in this chapter, and only a few points will be referred to briefly.59 In one major study, New Testament scholar Marion Soards surveyed the research of thirty-four scholars and concluded that there was probably an early, pre-Markan Passion Narrative.60

Questions still remain, of course, regarding this pre-Markan source, including where such a text may have ended. Soards nuances his response, still deciding that the presence of questions about this source fails sufficiently to “lead to a strictly negative conclusion with respect to our ability to know anything about the preMarcan PN [Passion Narrative]. I think not.”61 Allison mentions several positive reasons for the existence of this narrative, including the difference between Mark 15:47 and 16:1 (which he notes has never been explained adequately), as well as the presence of several hapax legomena in this text and the interruption of 16:7 beginning with “but” (alla) and breaking the flow of 16:5–6 to 8. Allison thus favors the view that “Mk 16:1–8 derives from a pre-Markan narrative.”62

(7) N. T. Wright and others have argued at length that, although a variety of views may be found in the ancient Jewish literature, the predominant position in Second Temple Judaism was that of a personal embodied hereafter. This is especially the case when these ancient Jewish texts are contrasted with the afterlife language in the corresponding pagan writings before the second century.

Further, reflecting their Jewish roots, the Greek terms anastasis and egeirō in the New Testament are clearly employed as well. When applied to Jesus’s resurrection, this would necessitate an empty tomb and a bodily resurrection.63 Wright summarizes the matter: “When Paul speaks of resurrection . . . it is to be assumed . . . in either the pagan or the Jewish world, that this referred to the body being raised to new life, leaving an empty tomb behind it.”64

To be sure, other views regarding the nature of existence in the afterlife were held widely, especially in the pagan literature. These would include the immortality of the soul or the existence of ghosts, spirits, and so on. But the force of Wright’s argument is that whenever these specific terms for resurrection were employed in the literature, they always and only referred to bodily events. Though Wright has been questioned in a few cases for perhaps overemphasizing the lack of exceptions to his views, it appears that most scholars have agreed with his assessment.65

Though we will not be able to explore in this chapter the details of these various arguments,66 related views on Jesus’s bodily resurrection appearances have been making a perhaps unexpected comeback in many current studies.67 In a rather surprising but very important recent trend that would have been found much more rarely just a few decades ago, even a growing number of skeptical scholars who actually reject the resurrection event itself still think that the New Testament teaching (including Paul’s own view) involved Jesus’s risen body.68

Not to miss the overall point here, regardless of whether or not scholars accept the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances personally, if the New Testament authors teach that Jesus’s appearances were bodily in nature (in juxtaposition to earlier critical thought), this move very much favors the direction of the early belief that Jesus’s burial tomb was empty. It also would be expected to mean that wherever Jesus was buried (including a pit or some unknown place elsewhere, as in the ground) would be empty afterward! It seems that this would be required by the very nature of Jewish thought on resurrection at precisely this juncture (Paul included) and is another direction from which to arrive at an empty tomb message before the writing of the Gospels. Additional considerations below also indicate that the empty tomb reports date from much earlier than the Gospels themselves.

(8) According to reports in Matthew (28:11–15), Justin Martyr (Dial. 108), and Tertullian (Spect. 30), the Jewish leaders not only failed to disprove the Christian assertion that Jesus’s tomb was empty, but their explanation that Jesus’s disciples stole his dead body actually admitted the phenomenon in question—that of the empty tomb. Further, the leaders continued this teaching for many years afterwards.

Granted, Matthew is the only canonical source for this account, though it is also reported independently along with many additional details in the later Gospel of Peter (8:29–11:49).69 Still, it is unquestionably the case that most scholars across the spectrum reject the story of the guards at the tomb as a historical report,70 perhaps even a subsequent Christian response to the critical proclamation by some that the body had been stolen.71 Further, Justin Martyr and Tertullian are quite late as sources and could have gotten their information from another late source. So is this the end of the story?

Conversely, the Jewish tradition never mentions that Jesus’s body was simply left on the cross to rot and be eaten by wild animals and/or buried in a common grave. The Jewish tradition fails to mention any of these options.72 It would have been quite convenient for ancient critics to have argued very naturally that the Christian preaching was seriously mistaken precisely because Jesus was not even buried in a tomb! But we cannot rely on an argument from silence here.

It must be remembered that the force of this last overall argument does not depend on discovering evidence for the placement of guards outside Jesus’s tomb. In general, that the Jewish leaders reportedly devised other nonnatural reasons to object to Jesus’s healings and exorcisms (such as attributing these events to the power of Satan, accusing Jesus of healing on the Sabbath, or objecting to his forgiving a man’s sins) while tacitly admitting the occurrences in question or just reacting in relative silence, can be its own admission. It thus remains insightful that the available enemy attestation by the Jewish leadership never disproves Jesus’s miracles, the Christian claim that Jesus’s tomb was empty, or his appearances to others after his crucifixion even though the events occurred in their immediate geographical region, despite having at their disposal both a motive as well as the means to act. Rather, their explanations conceded that these acts occurred, or at least allowed the message to stand in one way or another.73

Among the majority of critical scholars who favor the historicity of the empty tomb, these eight arguments are generally employed as the stronger or more popular reasons. Several other critical rejoinders have also been proposed. Still, as mentioned already, a clear majority of commentators has concluded that the available evidence favors the existence of the empty tomb (see analysis below).

Other Considerations Supporting the Empty Tomb

This study of recent resurrection publications also uncovers a wide variety of additional factors that add varying degrees of support for the historicity of the empty tomb, with some definitely being stronger than others, often depending on the researchers themselves. Some of these details appear chiefly in more scholarly treatments, thus critical challenges to these reasons sometimes tend to occur less commonly or are not as accessible. A number of these positive arguments for the empty tomb will be mentioned only very briefly and are often arranged in groups with related content while including some overlap.

(9) Other major studies have indicated that the presence of early and specific traditions behind the accounts of Peter, John, or other early Christian authors checking out the female testimonies to the empty tomb in Luke 24 and John 20 provide some potential backup to these initial testimonies. Though slightly different, these accounts point in similar directions.74

(10) There are potential Semitisms and other distinctively Jewish language features in the empty tomb accounts, such as “the first day of the week” (Mark 16:2), the name “Miriam” (Matt 27:61; 28:1), and the phrase “bowed down their faces to the earth” (Luke 24:5).75 As with the commonly recognized historical criterion of Semitic terms in general, these may also point to an earlier origin for the empty tomb accounts.76

(11) In addition to mentioning the women as the primary witnesses, the empty tomb accounts cite the names of even obscure women such as Salome (Mark 16:1) and Joanna (Luke 24:10), plus the largely unknown male disciple Cleopas along with another unnamed disciple whose gender is unidentified (Luke 24:13–32).77 These names are presumably not the best way to highlight this amazing story by neglecting to tell it with the greatest possible impact,78 hence the additional examples also make less sense unless, once again, this is what actually occurred. Richard Bauckham’s thesis in these cases is that such tendencies, and especially the usage of proper names, is indicative of the presence of eyewitness testimony.79

(12) Further indications of early empty tomb traditions include observations that Sunday instead of Saturday had become the primary Christian gathering day at an early date, before the composition of the Gospels (1 Cor 16:2; cf. the practice reported in Acts 20:7). That Sunday became the major celebration day of the week for Christian worship, sharing, and celebration of the risen Christ most likely signifies and points to the initial events that occurred on that day of the week, even though the empty tomb fell into the background quite quickly.80

(13) By ancient historical standards, there is no need to acquiesce to the critical notion that the Gospel accounts were somehow late. All four canonical works were written well within the expectations of ancient historiography, with accounts that agree remarkably well at least in terms of their depiction of the broad demarcations in these accounts.81

It is noteworthy in this regard that when Ehrman provides his standards for information about the historical Jesus, he accepts texts written in the first 100 years after Jesus’s crucifixion, which is well beyond his date for John’s Gospel.82 While Ehrman notes that the Gospels exhibit various problematic issues, many historical facts about Jesus can definitely still be determined, including most of those deemed in this study to be the most crucial of all.83 Further, there are also reasons that various historical aspects in the Gospels may be ascertained and trusted in spite of the problematic issues.84 In fact, Ehrman even considers Jesus to be the best-attested figure in the ancient world!85

(14) A few other positive considerations include the lack of legendary development in the empty tomb accounts that one might expect if the accounts were written later. There is a distinct absence of Christian tomb veneration or observance of a martyr cult, both of which were popular in the ancient world. Such adoration often occurred at the locations where individuals died or were buried and celebrated the end of that person’s life.86

(15) Perkins explains that “the tomb stories show little elaboration of miraculous detail” or references to Old Testament teachings as well, which might have been the case especially if these were later stories that developed over time. That the women basically came to the sepulcher and left rather quickly in a perplexed state of mind, seemingly wondering what to make of the situation or if someone had moved the body, points instead to these reports being early and simple. Differing details were left unresolved. The women even appear rather reticent and comparatively few descriptions or even secondary details are announced. There is not much emphasis on the tomb location either, beyond the general area. That the tomb was truly empty would explain the lack of details or interest in the place itself.87

(16) Teachings or claims regarding Jesus’s empty tomb are hardly the object of much apologetic emphasis in the early church.88 The New Testament notoriety clearly centers on the appearance tradition surrounding the risen Jesus, which is used as an apologetic argument, yet the empty tomb is not used much in the same manner. This event even gets left out of the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere!

(17) Some scholars have argued that even if Matthew’s account of the guards at the tomb is not a straightforward historical account, it could still provide a couple of “backdoor” indications of the empty tomb. For example, Davis points out that whether or not the guard story (or some portion of it) was concocted in the early church, it still “constitutes a powerful argument for the reliability of the empty-tomb tradition.” The reason is rather straightforward: unless the tomb had actually been vacated, there would be very little impetus to narrate the false story in the first place.89

(18) In a fairly recent PhD dissertation on the subject, Finnish scholar Matti Kankaanniemi argues that for multiple reasons like some in this essay, the story of the guard stationed at the tomb is actually a pre-Matthean tradition. Yet he concludes, “I tend to regard the existence of the guards at the tomb an invention of the Jewish opponents of the Christ-believers.” Like Davis, then, even this Jewish counterexplanation could have been due to Jesus’s burial tomb itself being discovered empty soon after the crucifixion.90 But could Kankaanniemi be correct about the pre-Matthean traditional elements but mistaken about the conclusion that the account of the guard was still invented? In other words, could Matthew have utilized an early tradition that actually did supply a basis for the guards actually being present at the tomb?

(19) Contributing to an overall assessment of the empty tomb are a couple of considerations of a slightly different sort drawn from the failure of the opposing case. These notions appear to work in the opposite direction as pointers to the empty tomb. To start, no early or ancient sources denied the empty tomb. As Pannenberg asserts, there is “no early evidence that anyone, either Christian or non-Christian, ever alleged that Jesus’ tomb still contained his remains.”91 There is also a decided absence in the ancient times of other suggestions, such as Jesus’s body being buried in a common grave or garbage pit, or there being a lack of knowledge regarding where his body was placed and so forth. Hence, these alternate views may be un-supported by any ancient evidence altogether. It then should be recognized that the strongest historical considerations themselves point toward the authenticity of this historical fact.

(20) Davis extends the argument further along similar lines regarding today’s challenges, mainly that the critics’ comebacks are quite often weak and structured poorly in their attempt to show that the empty tomb is an unreliable tradition. Davis’s examples include the charges that differences or discrepancies in the Gospel accounts militate against overall facticity, the circular notion that the doctrine of bodily resurrection appearances is so obviously late that its very presence reveals its unreliability, and claims that the empty tomb plays quite an insignificant role in New Testament teaching.92 Once again, the rejoinders to objections like these continue to showcase the strong case for Jesus’s burial tomb being found empty.

(21) Finally, the case for the empty tomb here closes on a more ambiguous note. A marble slab reportedly discovered in Nazareth and termed the “Ordinance of Caesar” has a long track record, with the research going back decades. Its Greek inscription warns that robbing graves, moving dead bodies, or disturbing seals on the gravestones is punishable by death. Up until recently, it has usually been thought that the decree may have originated with either Emperor Tiberius or Claudius, which would place it between the time of Jesus and AD 54. Why, asks ancient historian Paul Maier, was the death penalty required in Palestine at this time instead of paying a large fine, as in similar Roman edicts elsewhere?93 Of course, the location of Nazareth is intriguing as well.

Was such a punishment occasioned by the report of Jesus’s resurrection, by the rumor that Jesus’s disciples had stolen his body as in Matt 28:11–15, or by something else that is unrelated altogether? Its origin cannot be known for sure at the present time. It should be noted that, whatever it might be, the inscription at least seems to bear some implicit and rare confirmation of the practice of sealing tombs during Roman times, as mentioned in Matt 27:66.94

However, a recent article in Science News by Bruce Bower reports that the stone tablet actually may be of Turkish provenance and that it was possibly issued by Caesar Augustus (23 BC to AD 14).95 The earlier report that the stone was found in Nazareth still raises intriguing questions. The jury remains out on this find.

Recent Scholars Weigh in on the Empty Tomb Accounts

So where does the research on the empty tomb stand at this point?96 Many well-known scholars have weighed in on these matters over the years, both recapping what various investigations have shown as well as where the majority of scholars line up on the overall question of the empty tomb.

For instance, after mentioning some key New Testament passages, German scholar Jacob Kremer summarizes the existence of typical critical complaints, such as the empty tomb not being listed in the oldest sources and that some of the accounts contain “discrepancies,” or objecting to the “miraculous absence of the dead body.” Then Kremer provides several major counterresponses, such as the empty tomb accounts preserving the “historical heart of the tradition,” that the location of the tomb was known, the impetus gathered from the testimony of the women, and that no one produced a body from the Jerusalem tomb. Further, the emptiness of the tomb was not disputed even by the opponents, but “only understood differently,” and there is no analogy in the world to this “powerful action of God.”97

Kremer then draws an important conclusion from these results, asserting that “in spite of these issues, the vast majority of exegetes cling to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Here he lists the names of twenty-eight scholars who agree.98

Another German theologian, Rudolf Schnackenburg, states similarly that “most exegetes accept the historicity of the empty tomb.”99 Like Kremer, O’Collins listed the names of thirty scholars who defend the empty tomb.100 Moreover, Mark Waterman comments in his doctoral dissertation, “Not a few, but rather a majority, of contemporary scholars believe that there is some historical kernel in the empty tomb tradition.”101

These influential scholars bear strong testimony from their own research that the dominant view among scholars in relevant fields is that the reality of the empty tomb is the predominant position. Kremer, a specialist on this subject, explains that his study indicates that the empty tomb is even held by “the vast majority” of researchers.

Since many critical scholars have addressed this subject of the empty tomb and have either provided or hinted strongly at a particular view, I myself have reported in years past that perhaps “a strong majority” of even as much as 75 percent of the scholars favored the empty tomb tradition, while about 25 percent of critical scholars still disfavored it.102 More recently, in April 2008, I emailed Michael Licona an updated check that indicated that my positive numbers may have declined to a little lower than 75 percent.103

Over the years, many persons have inquired regarding updated counts of how the views of the majority of researchers in my study were inclined on this issue.104 Specifically for this present survey, the question was revisited in very careful detail that incorporated the earlier results plus going far beyond those to tallies including new researchers not tracked in my 2008 report. At present, hundreds of scholars who have provided their views have been counted, with those who favor the historicity of the empty tomb having risen to 80.1 percent in my personal survey.105 Those who reject the empty tomb presently stand at 19.9 percent.106 Many scholars from both persuasions have been listed already in this chapter and elsewhere throughout this study. These conclusions are consistent with other surveys or comments provided above by Kremer, Schnackenburg, O’Collins, Waterman, Craig, and Licona.

Of course, it is quite important to recognize that the historicity of events is definitely not settled by scholarly head counts. Hence, these figures have no actual bearing on whether or not Jesus’s burial location was discovered to be empty. Thus, the actual historical truth of the matter is not adjusted one bit when such numbers vary. To a certain degree, then, the interest in these sorts of counts perhaps betrays the hint that some readers may think these tallies represent more than percentages alone. It should be remembered that the first criterion supporting the minimal facts concerns the state of the actual data, and those arguments were already described at the outset of this chapter.

Conclusion

Recent research indicates that a majority of contemporary scholars who comment on this topic recognize the historicity of the empty tomb. After discussing the subject, historian Michael Grant concludes: “The historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb” since the normal exercise of historical research argues that “the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”107

Former Oxford University historian William Wand makes a similar comment regarding the empty tomb. He states, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour of it, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”108

Theologian James D. G. Dunn evaluates the data in a comparable manner: “I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty. As a matter of historical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points firmly to the conclusion that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. . . . The chief alternative interpretations involve greater improbabilities.”109 Andrew Ter Ern Loke similarly developed a thesis of limiting the possible number of alternate responses to the empty tomb and then dealing with each one.110

Though comparatively little has been mentioned in this chapter specifically regarding eyewitness testimony, the chief assertion made repeatedly is that a large number of sources point in that direction. Most reports of the empty tomb have at their heart the element of reliable testimony.

Few scholars have stated this better than Dunn. Answering the question of where this empty tomb tradition emerged, Dunn responded, “The most obvious answer is: Those who were involved in the episode, those who experienced the impact of the event, those who in speaking of what they have thus seen and heard gave the tradition its definitive and lasting shape.”111 Lest we miss the most direct point here, Dunn asserts elsewhere, “Here then we find a tradition (Mark 16:1–8 pars.) which like most of the others examined earlier, seems to have begun as the expression of eyewitness testimony, quickly prized because of its potential import and soon told and told again in the circles of first disciples as a basic component of their conviction that God had raised Jesus from the grave.”112 An empty tomb cannot by itself, of course, prove that a resurrection occurred. Yet, the historical data that most scholars find convincing could serve as a preliminary set of building blocks or pointers in a case for the central historical event of Christianity, as well as helping to delineate that Jesus appeared in a bodily manner after his death.113 As Dunn commented above and many other scholars have also remarked, it is very difficult to formulate a reasonable alternative theory that explains all of our data and yet still denies that Jesus’s tomb was vacated.

Notes

1 As explained in my essay “Mapping the Recent Trend,” 78–92 (see chap. 4, n. 17).

2 See especially Licona, “Did Jesus Predict His Death,” (see excursus 1, n. 78). More discussion on this topic is also included in Licona’s excellent volume Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

3 Judging from some publications and even questions received from believers and skeptics alike, this is one of the areas that has drawn a good deal of interest.

4 Examples of Bultmann’s positions on such matters include “New Testament and Mythology,” 34–35, 39 (see chap. 5, n. 29); “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 64–70, 72 (see chap. 5, n. 28); Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 14–18, 32–38; cf. John Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (New York: Harper and Row, 1955), 181–90, for a synopsis, evaluation, and critique of Bultmann’s views of the separation of historical data from the tenets of faith, such as with Jesus’s resurrection. Actually, historical events that were in approximation to the early gospel message were rarely even discussed in detail by Bultmann.

5 Note that throughout this chapter, the individual footnotes include some scholars who may grant a portion of a positive response but not all of it, or who consider themselves to be open to a position, or even seem to embrace it but whose position is very difficult to ascertain for sure. Some of these authors ultimately reject the reason being given. These scholars are designated with a “cf.” in this chapter, precisely to differentiate them from the clearer supporters of the assertion. Obviously, those so designated who clearly do not favor the empty tomb are not tallied as if they did so.

6 For instance, Michael Goulder states, “Only male witnesses are valid in Jewish jurisprudence.” See Goulder, “The Empty Tomb,” Theology 79 (1976): 211.

7 Some of the ancient Jewish sources that address these distinctives include Deut 17:6; 19:15; m. Shevu’ot 4:1; Rosh Hashanah 1:8; m. Sanhedrin 3:4; b. Bava Qamma 88a; Sifre Deut 190; also Josephus, Ant. 4.219; 17.121.

8 For these references, see m. Ketubbot 1:6–7; 9:4; m. Yevamot 15:1–2; Josephus, Ant. 15.82–84; 16.213–219; 16.328–331; 17.121.

9 For these details, see Darrell L. Bock, “A Note on Women as Witnesses and the Empty Tomb Resurrection Accounts,” in Beck and Licona, Raised on the Third Day, 257–61, quotations on 260 (see chap. 7, n. 20); also Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony Is True: Women as Witnesses according to John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 77–79, 161–71, 225–33.

10 Carolyn Osiek, “The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 97–107; for the comment on this being the normal view in the Mediterranean area, see 104. Additional sources include Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Theological Studies 48 (1987): 631; Martin Hengel, “Maria und die Frauen als Zeugen,” in Abraham unser Vater: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 243–56; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 40, cf. 38 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Woman on Jewish Law (New York: KTAV, 1978), 73–80; Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Midrash (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 120–26, 188–89; Pierre Benoit, “Marie Magdeleine et les disciples au tombeau selon Jean 20,1–18,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festscrift für Joachim Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), 141–52.

11 Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 106.

12 Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 41.

13 Perhaps Watson has Bultmann and some of his followers in mind here, as in Bultmann’s works, “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 68–69; “New Testament and Mythology,” 14–16, 34–35; Jesus Christ and Mythology, 16–17.

14 Francis Watson, review of Jesus Risen: The Resurrection by Gerald O’Collins, in Theology 91 (1988): 144. The suggestions of Hellenistic origins of the empty tomb narratives plus the Gospels being too old to help will be addressed at several points below and otherwise in this study.

15 Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 104.

16 Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” esp. 131 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

17 Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 168 (see chap. 12, n. 34).

18 Paul was quite regularly thought to be the chief author who applied many of these Hellenistic and gnostic ideas to various Christian doctrines. One of the works that developed this theme most often is Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament, 1:121, 125–33, 201, 298–306 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

19 Several examples of critiques of these ideas, emerging from different perspectives, include: Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 26–34, 157–58, 171–73 (see chap. 5, n. 19); Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 367–78 (chap. 4, n. 16); Hurtado, “New Testament Christology,” 306–17 (see chap. 10, n. 15); Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 24, 199 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Hurtado, How on Earth, 16–20, 24, cf. 37, 47–48 (see chap. 9, n. 32); Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” particularly 11–13, 15–18, 35–36 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Even Bultmann himself in 1954 hinted at critiques of his former professor Wilhelm Bousset, who was the most influential of the older German liberals in the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, implying some key defects in Bousset Bultmann’s “Introductory Word to the Fifth Edition” of Bousset’s seminal work on these subjects, Kyrios Christos, 8–9 (see chap. 10, n. 5).

20 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 166–68 (chap. 6, n. 173).

21 Ehrman, 190. Allison also agrees with Ehrman as well in End of the Ages, 166 (see chap. 13, n. 34), as does Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 95 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

22 It should be noted that this is yet another example of a very embarrassing situation for these followers, not to mention possibly raising further questions if not disgust toward these male followers for their abandonment of Jesus when they heard the gospel story recounted.

23 To be sure, repeating these Gospel resurrection scenes in the straightforward manner above does raise various questions which are treated elsewhere in this study. But these are not the issues being treated here. It is simply being pointed out that these texts themselves report items that could have provided male testimony at the tomb, but that was never done, at least at the outset. Again, we are back to the supposition that all four Gospels tell the story the way they do, with the women being the ones who went first to the tomb, precisely because it was the best way to make sense of these reports—that is just the way it happened.

24 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167–68.

25 Even though Luke has Peter or other men (depending on the variant reading in verse 12) going to the tomb to check the female testimony (24:12, 24), and while John has Peter and John doing the same thing (20:3–9), rather than showcasing the male testimony as the key, the point was that the men “found it just as the women had said” (Luke 24:24, NIV). Further, though Peter and John ran to the tomb in the Fourth Gospel and found it empty, it was still Mary Magdalene who then saw and talked first with the risen Jesus after the men had left the tomb (20:14–18). These last two emphases further elevate the importance of the phenomenon of the female testimony and of the last (according to human eyes) being first. But even if the women did discover the empty tomb, the Gospel authors could have made the disciples the first ones to see the risen Jesus. But that also was not the case!

26 Some readers may wonder about citing and building on these Gospel texts when addressing skeptics such as Ehrman. It should be noted very carefully that the response here is specifically to the same texts that Ehrman himself raises and discusses, usually in a straightforward manner. Further, as with Ehrman, it is not being argued on the basis of these texts alone that they are accurate. The assertions being made are from a different angle of simply asking why the Gospel authors told their stories this way and inquiring if these accounts support Ehrman’s attempt to argue that the story of the women witnesses to the empty tomb likely could have been invented. It seems clear, on a number of fronts, that Ehrman’s thesis here is not the best option.

27 Examples can be found in Mark 6:7–13 (esp. v. 12); Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–49; John 20:21–23, 31. Beginning with Acts 1:8, 22, virtually that entire book concerns the early preaching and the spread of the Christian faith. It is obvious that this mindset continues throughout the Epistles as well.

28 Though far from exhaustive, a list of several dozen critical scholars (chiefly since 1975, including strong skeptics) who favor the female testimony, usually firmly but occasionally somewhat less so, as the very best or at least a strong reason to recognize the historicity of the empty tomb, would include the following: Dale Allison refers to the women’s testimony as “the most popular argument for the historicity of the empty tomb in recent decades.” See Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 154–65, quotation on 154, cf. also 117–19, 128–36, 154–64 (see chap. 2, n. 15); likewise, Allison, End of the Ages, 166. Another influential study is Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), particularly 45–50; see also Kremer, “Zur Diskussion über ‘das leere Grab,’” in Resurrexit: Actes du symposium international sur la résurrection de Jésus, ed. E. Dhanis (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974), 137–59; Birger Gerhardsson, “Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection according to Paul: 1 Cor. 15:1–11,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 77; Raymond E. Brown, A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 70; Derrett, Anastasis, 60–67, 102–5 (see chap. 9, n. 155). In his earlier volume, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1970), 41, Geza Vermes apparently supports the historicity of the empty tomb, though in his much later work The Resurrection, he often seems unclear on his stance, though he still holds that in spite of the weakness of female testimony, the empty tomb teaching is quite early and presents some strengths; Resurrection, 111–12, 121–23, 141–42 (see chap. 5, n. 4). One of the strongest defenses of the female testimony was written by Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 832–34, 843 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 65 (chap. 10, n. 59); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 48–51, 129–32 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Lidija Novakovic, “Narratives about the Discovery of the Empty Tomb,” in Resurrection: Guides for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 77–102; Hurtado, Mark, 279–86 (see chap. 13, n. 1); cf. Hurtado, How on Earth, 158–59; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 607–8 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Christopher Bryan, The Resurrection of the Messiah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 160, 166–68; Grant, Jesus, 176, plus nn. 6, 232 (chap. 1, n. 24); Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:75–79, on the embarrassing place of the women at key times (see chap. 1, n. 27); Perkins, Resurrection, 94 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 40, who adds, “Nor would the presence of women as witnesses have been likely in a story that was totally fabricated.” Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, chiefly 45 (see chap. 11, n. 29); Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 46–48, 55 (see chap. 13, n. 41); Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha?, 50–51 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Wilckens, Resurrection, 116–17 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Jean-Marie Guillaume, Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus (Paris: Gabalda, 1979), 269, stating that “ancienne que la tradition pre-synoptique servant de toile de fond a la pericope des femmes au tombeau,” with Guillaume also stating, “La pericope des femmes au tombeau s’appuie, quant a elle, sur une tradition pre-synoptique qui aurait servi de base au texte de Marc et que nous avons pour cela qualifie de ‘pre-marcienne’” (270); Craig A. Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right,” in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. Michael F. Bird (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 90; Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8 (1978): 53; Reginald H. Fuller thinks he can “recover an original nucleus, a report of Mary Magdalene (and perhaps other women).” For Fuller, this is “the earliest recoverable tradition.” Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102–3 (see chap. 11, n. 46). Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 349–55 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 324–29, esp. 324–25 (see chap. 8, n. 70); Donald A. Hagner thinks this is “exceptionally strong evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb itself.” See Hagner, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 109–10; R. T. France, Gospel of Mark, 665, 670–83 (see chap. 10, n. 87); C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 353–54; McGrew and McGrew, “Argument from Miracles,” 620–21 (see chap. 12, n. 48); Sarah Coakley, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection Response,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 189; Pinchas Lapide asserts, perhaps surprisingly, that “in a purely fictional narrative one would have avoided making women the crown witnesses of the resurrection since they were considered in rabbinic Judaism as incapable of giving valid testimony (compare Luke 24:11).” See Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 95. But compare also Lapide’s puzzling comments on 128. A. N. Wilson, Jesus (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992), 241, states that “no first-century Jew, wishing to invent a good case . . . would have chosen to concoct female false witnesses . . . their testimony counted for absolutely nothing.” C. E. B. Cranfield writes, “The striking prominence of women in the Gospel Easter narratives, given their position and lack of ability to testify in court, would seem to indicate the presence of a high regard for historical truthfulness. That such traditions could be inventions of the community seems inconceivable . . . liable to attract ridicule.” Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 168–70. For several comments regarding the likelihood that legendary material would have attributed the discovery of the empty tomb to men, as well as additional similar thoughts, see O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126 (see excursus 1, n. 86); Gerald O’Collins, Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1987), 126. Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Some Current Questions,” America 153 (1985): 425; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 29, 42–43, 99 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Gerald O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 22–23. On the negative status of women in the ancient world, see O’Collins and Kendall, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness,” 631, concerning the positive evidence for Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. O’Collins and Kendall note that she is mentioned in five of six resurrection narratives in the Gospels and when she is mentioned, it is always first, 633–34, 644–46; M. M. W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos, 2006), 461. Donald Goergen reports that the appearance to the women is very early and from the Jerusalem area, hence “not the creation of the evangelists.” Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 140–41, 150–51 (see excursus 1, n. 19). Walter Wink, review of The Cross That Spoke by John Dominic Crossan, in The Christian Century 105 (1988): 1159–60, comments that this ancient writing is stunning “when that society accorded women no status as witnesses whatsoever.” Other scholarly sources speaking on behalf of the female witnesses for the empty tomb include Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 58 (see excursus 2, n. 98); Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 2:192; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Davis, Risen Indeed, 73, also 72–75 (see chap. 1, n. 16); Paul Barnett, Peter Jenson, and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality (Sydney: Aquila, 1994), 12–13, esp. the essay by Peterson; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 131; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:356 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God? Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1995), 275, 277–78; John Frederick Jansen, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 41–44; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 140–41, 167, 170–73 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 215, 218, 243; Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 105 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 122 (see chap. 1, n. 43); cf. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 276; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Williams, Resurrection, 105-7 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” 158 (see excursus 2, n. 123); John Macquarrie, “The Keystone to the Christian Faith,” and Eric Mascall, “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” both chapters in “If Christ Be Not Risen”: Essays in Resurrection and Survival, ed. John Greenhalgh and Elizabeth Russell (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1986), 20–21, and 60–62 respectively; Donald G. Dawe, Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 105; John M. G. Barclay, “The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 22; John Muddiman, “I Believe in the Resurrection of the Body,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 131–32; Judith Lieu, “The Women’s Resurrection Testimony,” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, 35, cf. 41–42; Stanley, “To Know Him,” 31 (see excursus 2, n. 19); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 137, 141–42 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Harris, Raised Immortal, 39 (see chap. 8, n. 17); David Gooding, According to Luke: The Third Gospel’s Ordered Historical Narrative (Coleraine: Myrtlefield, 2013), 370–71; Robert Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 110; Craig L. Blomberg, “The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith: Harmony or Conflict?,” in Copan and Tacelli, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?, 101; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 26; Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 264–65; Robert Geis, Life of Christ (Lanham, MD: College Press of America, 2013), 313; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 200, 216–17 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Kevin Kroitor, “The Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Eleutheria 5 (2021): 31–43. See the brief summary in Gary R. Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 23–24, 45, particularly endnotes 126–30 (see chap. 2, n. 33).

29 Immediately afterwards, Dunn adds, “As we shall see later, the indications are strong that the Jesus movement ‘took off’ within Jerusalem within a short time after Jesus’ death.” See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

30 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127–28 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

31 Davis, Risen Indeed, 78–80.

32 Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” 53.

33 See Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie und Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): esp. 326–27; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 130; Pannenberg, “Historicity of the Resurrection,” 262 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:357; Pannenberg, “History and the Reality of the Resurrection,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 69, where he argues that the apostolic preaching in Jerusalem would be inexplicable otherwise, since the message could be disproven without much problem. As German theologian Jacob Kremer states, “the tomb of Jesus was known” (Habermas translation), and no one pointed to Jesus’s body in the Jerusalem tomb; see Kremer, Die Osterevangelien, 50. Also Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 320; Allison, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” Philosophia Christi 10 (2008): 323–24; cf. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:86–87, 89–91 (see chap. 4, n. 47); Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 456, 473, 496–97 (see chap. 13, n. 35); Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 222; Hengel, Atonement, 38–39 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836–37; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, chap. 22, for example (see chap. 10, n. 17); Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 114–15, 266–68; Hurtado, How on Earth, 4, 30, 36, 41–42; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, cf. 649–56; Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 163–66, 180–86 (see chap. 7, n. 18). Even John Shelby Spong asserts, “There is no doubt that Jerusalem is the city in which Christianity was born.” Thus, if some hoax occurred, “Jerusalem would have offered the best opportunity. Yet none of these things happened.” Spong The Easter Moment (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 88. James G. Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to N. T. Wright,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 174–75; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, cf. 226–27; C. Stephen Evans, Historical Christ, 352–54; McGrew and McGrew, “Argument from Miracles,” primarily 620–22; Michael F. Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London: SPCK, 2008), 42; Phillip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 79; Lorenzen refers to the Jerusalem location for the early apostolic preaching as the “most persuasive in favor of the historical reliability of the empty tomb traditions” as long as a few questions can be answered. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171–72. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 228; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144 (see chap. 2, n. 15), though he does not accept the historicity of the empty tomb; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 43; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, where three challenges to this option are addressed on 126–27. William Lane Craig makes the relevant comment “Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the tomb and one in the risen life.” Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59. See also Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 59, also 56–57; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 2:193; Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” in Jesus under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 151–52; Macquarrie, “Keystone to the Christian Faith,” particularly 18–24; Mascall, “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” esp. 60–66. Historian Paul Maier asserts that the disciples’ messages delivered soon afterwards in Jerusalem would be “the very last place it could have started if Jesus’ tomb had remained occupied.” See Maier, “The Empty Tomb as History,” 5 (see chap. 1, n. 40); also, Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 203 (see chap. 1, n. 24). Stephen Davis proclaims that “early Christian proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem would have been psychologically and apologetically impossible without safe evidence of an empty tomb.” See Davis, Risen Indeed, 182–83. Further, Davis states that “the apostles’ claims would have been subject to massive falsification by the simple presentation of a body” (80). Many additional scholars who generally agree with these thoughts include Charles C. Anderson, The Historical Jesus: The Continuing Quest (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 167–69; Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 111 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Dawe, Jesus, 107; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Themelios 5 (1979): 264; James I. Packer, “Response to the Debate,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 149; Anderson, Christianity and World Religions, 125 (see chap. 8, n. 14). Cranfield thinks that “the chances of finding the body, if the claim that Jesus was risen was not true, must surely at that early date have been quite good.” See Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170. Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” reminds readers that a body was never produced on 158; Gooding, According to Luke, 376–77; Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 104, 106 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Neville Clark, Interpreting the Resurrection (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), cf. the contrast on 89–91.

34 Michael Martin, “Reply to Davis,” Philo 2 (1999): 67. New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann makes the same charge in his “Closing Response,” 153 (see excursus 2, n. 121).

35 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

36 For some of the details, see Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 70–71, especially 287n32 for one of these medical statements (see chap. 4, n. 2). Another medical examiner independently provided the same details.

37 Besides Watson’s thoughts above, Ehrman notes this thought in passing in How Jesus Became God, 165. Other similar complaints are found in D. Zeller, “Der Ostermorgen im 4. Evangelium [Joh 20,1–18],” in Auferstehung Jesu—Auferstehung der Christen: Deutungen des Osterglaubens, ed. Ingo Broer et al., (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 145–61; John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1998), 560, 562; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 259, 271 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 208–13; Lindars, “The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993), 128, 131; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 172. Similar ideas are found in Werner Georg Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament: According to Its Major Witnesses Jesus—Paul—John, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 102.

38 Ehrman dates this text very soon after the crucifixion; see How Jesus Became God, 154–55, 225–26; cf. 240.

39 We cannot in the space of this chapter address in much detail the cognate criticism by John Dominic Crossan and a few others that Jesus’s body was actually either left on the cross after his death to be ravaged by wild beasts, or buried in a common pit with the location being forgotten very quickly and dogs potentially digging it up and eating it. Examples are contained in Crossan’s volumes, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 152–58 (see chap. 6, n. 44); and, Historical Jesus, particularly 394 (see chap. 6, n. 44). This view has been critiqued often, including in the chapter on Jesus’a burial in this volume. Even Dale Allison quips, “Jesus was ‘buried,’ etaphē. . . . The verb thaptō means ‘bury’ and would hardly be used of the unceremonious dumping of a criminal into an unmarked trench as dog food: that was not burial but its denial.” Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 353 (see chap. 1, n. 30). I have responded briefly to Crossan’s proposals with nine contrary considerations; see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 126–29 (see chap. 3, n. 48). For another excellent, detailed response to Ehrman’s own skeptical conclusion as to where Jesus’s body was buried, as found in Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 151–64, see Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 71–93.

40 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 26 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

41 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197.

42 Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, 50; Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (London: Routledge, 2020), 132; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 117–19; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 428–29; Davis, Risen Indeed, 69, 78–79; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus, ”2:173–200, esp. 182; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 264; Harris, Raised Immortal, 38; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 216–17; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 35.

43 Such would include Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 135–36; also Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, 51–53 (see chap. 5, n. 39); Michael Goulder, “Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise from the Dead?,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 64–65; Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Empty Tomb in the Gospel of Mark,” in Hermes and Athens: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, ed. Eleonore Stump and Thomas Flint (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 129–30; A. Collins, “Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–48, esp. 145–47 (see excursus 2, n. 24); Funk, Honest to Jesus, 221; Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988), 135. Even though the Jesus Seminar, after discussion, rejected the empty tomb as probably being Mark’s creation, they still concluded that at a minimum Mary Magdalene “had at least one visionary religious experience of Jesus after his death.” Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454, also 478–79 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

44 Most of these brief fragments are located in Acts 1–5, 10, and 13, as noted below.

45 As treated elsewhere in this chapter, Ehrman is an example of a scholar who specifically dates Acts 2:36 and 13:32–33 among other very early passages of this nature; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 225–29. Cf. Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 102.

46 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1492–524 (see chap. 4, n. 40).

47 Daniel A. Smith argues that the empty tomb story in Mark resulted from the author taking over an earlier, preexisting tradition that was treated rather ambivalently, though seldom in an apologetic sense. See Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 10; Christopher Bryan, “Review Article: Once More—That Empty Tomb!,” Sewanee Theological Review, 53 (2010): 443.

48 Of the many scholars who hold this or a similar position, see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 321; Brown, New Testament Christology, 164 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48–49 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the New Testament,” The Month 20 (1987): 405; Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), especially chap. 13; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 400–437; Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 106, 146–47; Davis, Risen Indeed, 76; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 57; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 129–30 (see excursus 1, n. 94); Caird, (compiled and edited by L. D. Hurst), New Testament Theology, 239–40, 267–71 (see chap. 11, n. 17); Wenham, Paul, 369 (see excursus 2, n. 55); Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 36–40; cf. Dunn’s conclusion in “How Are the Dead Raised? With What Body Do They Come? Reflections on 1 Corinthians 15,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45 (2002): 17–18; D. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 31–33.

49 This possibility is even granted by Crossan in Birth of Christianity, 550, and by Marcus Borg in Borg and N. T. Wright, Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, 132 (see excursus 1, n. 60). John Frederick Jansen also grants this as a possibility (41), but whatever the reason, Jansen states, “Today there is a growing consensus in New Testament scholarship that the tradition of the empty grave is early tradition, not a late addition.” Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 41–44.

50 Lüdemann, “Closing Response,” 43–45, 153; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 259; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 125, 131; Elliott, “First Easter,” 215 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

51 As Ehrman even agrees in How Jesus Became God, esp. 133, 137, 176–78, 182–83, 186.

52 In many respects, Cook’s intricate studies bear some major resemblances to Wright’s noteworthy volume, The Resurrection of the Son of God, referred to multiple times throughout this study. The conclusions of these two texts converge at many points.

53 John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, and Apotheosis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), esp. Cook’s conclusions on pages 54, 618–19, 623.

54 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 233–34. Doré juxtaposes these two passages in the context of the initial resurrection kerygma, in conjunction with Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem in Gal 1:18. Doré, “La résurrection,” esp. 291 (see chap. 10, n. 19).

55 Just a few of the many scholars who accept the presence of early traditions behind at least some of these Acts sermons include Lüdemann, Early Christianity (see chap. 10, n. 70), where a few of these traditions are mentioned on pages 17, 29–31, 49, 77, 106–16, 239–40; some hints are found in Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 233–34; cf. Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 129–30, including n. 74; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteran Kirche 72 (1981): 2; also Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Hengel, Atonement, 38–39; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–31 (see chap. 2, n. 22); Perkins, Resurrection, 90, 228–31; Brown, New Testament Christology, 112–13, 164; Elliott, “First Easter,” 215; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 322; Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 64–65; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 40–42; Gourges, A la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et Actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans in Noveau Testament (Paris:J. Gabalda et Cie Editeurs, 1978), esp. 169–78; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 44–45; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 141 (see excursus 1, n. 93); F. X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus: Mystère de Salut, 10th ed. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1976), 22.

56 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 109–13, 140–41, 172, 261–62; cf. 157–58, 170; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 154–55, 216–18, 225–30.

57 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 225–26, 240.

58 Actually, in the later of his two chief volumes used here, Ehrman acknowledges that he has changed his view on this subject from his previous position of there being strong data that favors an empty tomb, while now preferring the view “that we do not know, and cannot know, what actually happened to Jesus’ body.” Mentioning Crossan’s position on Jesus’s body being buried in a common grave and possibly being eaten by dogs, Ehrman notes that he thought this approach went a bit too far. Yet, he still points out that this sort of notion is “what normally happened to a criminal’s body” after crucifixion; see Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 157, 164–69, 184. Thus, this provides an example of how holding to a very early date for the Acts sermon traditions, even in the case where at least one of them in particular affirms Jesus was buried in a tomb and did not experience bodily corruption, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of an empty tomb! Many may consider this to be an unwarranted sifting of the available data, walking a fine line while extracting just the needed data and no more. Ehrman’s overall view is considered often elsewhere in this study, but for now it will only be noted that it is rather amazing that his current stance provides precisely what he needs from the early date of the preliterary traditions such as those in Acts 13 to draw his chief Christological conclusions here, while ignoring almost all of the additional, inclusive material that many scholars often think follows quite naturally from admissions such as Ehrman’s. For example, a number of the scholarly views expressed in the footnotes immediately above support positions that disagree with Ehrman on the broader topic. Of course, Ehrman could be the correct interpreter here. However, where Ehrman starts and stops his acceptance of the pre-Acts text is especially instructive for those familiar with the scholarly terrain. For instance, Ehrman emphasizes the import of Acts 13:28–29, which makes his crucial theological point, only to assert both that Paul is not the author, as identified, and that the remainder of this portion of text that specifically involves the burial tomb was most likely invented; see How Jesus Became God, 154–55. The entire sequence is reminiscent of Ehrman’s own chiding of “mythicists” for what he repeatedly refers to as “a ‘scholarship of convenience’(!)” or something similar. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, quotation on 133; similarly 55, 59, 118, 191, 253. To be sure, Ehrman is not discussing the belief in textual interpolations at this juncture, where he is referring to texts that are ignored or simply excised. But with Acts 13 and in other places, he seems to be making somewhat similar moves, reasoning in ways that many scholars would consider to be less likely to make a different point in keeping with one’s theological preferences. This sort of apparent picking and choosing is especially noticeable in Ehrman’s discussion on 152–56, 225–26, 240. These stances are disappointing precisely because Ehrman is very often a straightforward and sensible interpreter, hence the surprise here.

59 This chapter on the historicity of the empty tomb makes no pretense to solving the textual issues involved at this point.

60 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1523–24. Some other scholars here include Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 2:519–20; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 118–19, for a tight summary, esp. in n. 12; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167; also Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 104 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Perkins, Resurrection, 115–116; Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” 51–54; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 2:190–91; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127; Guillaume, Luc interprète, part 1; cf. Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102 and cf. Frans Neirynck, “Marc 16,1–8: Tradition et Redaction,” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980): 56–88; D. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 9, 76, 97, 206n76, where Smith provides a brief list of other scholars in agreement; Bryan, “Review Article: Once More—That Empty Tomb!,” 443–44.

61 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 1522.

62 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 118n12.

63 See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 32–479, especially xix, 31, 71, 82–83, 201–6, 273, 314, 710.

64 Wright, 321.

65 An example is David J. Bryan, “The Jewish Background to The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 160, 167–69 in particular. Still, Bryan uses phrases such as “I have quibbled” (162) and “similar caveats” (163), yet frequently compliments Wright’s understanding, as well (160, 162, 166). Interestingly for our immediate purposes here, Bryan seems to agree with Wright’s conclusions on terms like anastasis and egeirō with the words: “This it seems to me is persuasive” (160). Nonetheless, Bryan’s strongest complaint regards Wright’s being so convinced that “no one expected anyone to rise ahead of the rest of the righteous” Jews (167–69). N. T. Wright responds to Bryan’s critique: “Resurrecting Old Arguments: Responding to Four Essays,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): specifically 212–16.

66 Later chapters in volume 4 of this study pursue this issue in greater detail, for both Paul and other New Testament authors as pertaining to Jesus’s resurrection as well as that of believers.

67 For just a few of these other scholars (and despite some differences), see the following seminal studies: Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, esp. chap. 13, “The Sōma in Death and Resurrection”; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, especially 400–437; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 131–36; Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, and Apotheosis, 13–55, 570–624; Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (see chap. 1, n. 3); Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 53; the essays by Davis (126–47) and Alston (148–83) in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, The Resurrection; Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 117–48, 325–47 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 409; Margaret Pamment, “Raised a Spiritual Body: Bodily Resurrection according to Paul,” New Blackfriars 66 (1985): 380–81, 386. Cf. the intriguing comments by Pannenberg in his “Response to the Debate,” 130.

68 Even Lüdemann agrees in “Closing Response,” 151 (see excursus 2, n. 121). While details often differ, similar positions have been taken by Crossan, see especially his “Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 29–57 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, particularly 6–10, 173, 296, 341–45 (see chap. 10, n. 66); Crossan, “Appendix: Bodily-Resurrection Faith,” 171–86 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 132–33, 137, 168–69, 176–78, 185, 257–58; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 132–33, 137, 168–69, 176–78, 181, 185, cf. 206–10. In spite of his agnosticism, James Crossley also allows for Paul’s view of bodily appearances in “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 174. Cf. also as an aside the view of Allison, who in spite of his own criticism and serious questions still accepts the resurrection appearances of Jesus: “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death”; Resurrecting Jesus, 346. Allison also agrees that the New Testament teaching is that of bodily appearances of Jesus on 225–27, 265–66, 317, 324–25. Further ideas on Jewish views of bodily resurrection as reflecting the position held by Paul in his dispute with the Corinthians are contained in Gerhard Barth, “Zur Frage nach der in 1 Korinther 15 bekämpften Auferstehungsleugnung,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 187–201.

69 Translation from James, Apocryphal New Testament (see chap. 9, n. 101). James thought that the Gospel of Peter should not be dated earlier than AD 150, though Ehrman places its date slightly earlier before 130 AD. See Ehrman, New Testament, 44 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

70 Although leaving it an open question on evidential grounds alone, William Lane Craig has produced a number of very thoughtful reasons in favor of this pericope. See Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 273–81 (see chap. 9, n. 51).

71 The examples include Watson, review of Jesus Risen by O’Collins, 144–45; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34n17; Sarah Coakley, “Is the Resurrection a ‘Historical’ Event? Some Muddles and Mysteries,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 88. It should be noted here that Coakley still thinks women were probably the first witnesses to the resurrection appearances, as reflected in the empty tomb accounts. Her “Response to William P. Alston,” is included in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 189.

72 In spite of the charge from some skeptics like Ehrman in How Jesus Became God, 154–55, 225, that perhaps the earliest reference to Jesus’s burial was that the Jewish leaders themselves buried his dead body. If so, then what did they think became of it? Ehrman’s argument here will be treated elsewhere in detail.

73 Even skeptics such as Elliott, “First Easter,” 218, and Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), esp. 66, also 54–55, 61, acknowledge the force of this argument from the lack of response from the religious leaders. Kremer points out that Jesus’s opponents did not directly dispute his resurrection or his appearances; see Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, 50. Also in agreement are other researchers such as Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47; Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 126–31; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 101; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 222; Pheme Perkins, “‘I Have Seen the Lord’ (John 20:18): Women Witnesses to the Resurrection” Interpretation 46, no. 1 (1992): 35; Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 323; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 38–40, 43.

74 For the many details, see especially Frans Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 161–87; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 102–3; Perkins, “Women Witnesses to the Resurrection,” 36, 40; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324; Guillaume, Luc interprète, part 1. Cf. the work of Finnish scholar Matti Kankaanniemi, Guards of the Tomb, with a couple of key passages noted below (see chap. 9, n. 51).

75 See especially Davis, Risen Indeed, 71, 82; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 58.

76 On the critical value of Aramaic terms as an indicator of authenticity, along with a couple of cautions and responses, see Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 163–66 (see chap. 2, n. 35).

77 The longer and later ending in Mark 16:12 (sometimes termed “pseudo-Mark”) does not mention the names of either of these two disciples. This is remarkable, especially since the lateness of the text would seem to allow additional time to add some names, particularly in the case of influential reports like that of a resurrection appearance, which could be very helpful for the provenance of the account.

78 Some similar thoughts are included in the synopsis by Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 140–41, 170–73; cf. Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 130.

79 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 40, 47, 49, 50–51, 130.

80 It should be noted that this is not a reference to the disputed thesis regarding any notion of “changing the Sabbath,” which does not appear to be the case anyway. Rather, it is more simply asking the reason for Sunday being the chief celebration day in the early church. See Williams, Resurrection, 105; Harris, Raised Immortal, 39–40.

81 Among the many strong research sources here, see especially Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 48–51; see also Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 179–83, 197.

82 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 97; also 56, 171, 290–91; cf. 140–41; Ehrman, New Testament, 43–44, and Did Jesus Exist? both place Ehrman’s date for John’s Gospel at AD 90–95.

83 Just a few of the examples in Ehrman include How Jesus Became God, 138–39; and Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 130–32.

84 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 93–94, and Did Jesus Exist?, 74–75, 156, 259–63, on ascertaining historical facts in the Gospels.

85 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 78 (where three later noncanonical Gospels are also included), cf. 290–91. Historian Paul Barnett identifies Galatians as the earliest “documentary reference to Jesus” and states that “in terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity with parallel.” See Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, cf. 10 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

86 Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 147 (see chap. 11, n. 113); Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67; Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47; Perkins, Resurrection, 94; Harris, Raised Immortal, 40; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 42–43; Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 42; cf. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127.

87 Perkins, Resurrection, 94; cf. Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59.

88 Even Thomas Sheehan acknowledges this in “Two Easter Legends,” Philosophy and Theology 1 (1989): 45; also Brown, New Testament Christology, 165; Perkins, “Women Witnesses to the Resurrection,” 41; Perkins, Resurrection, 123; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 99; Davis, Risen Indeed, 72; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171, 180; Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 43.

89 Davis, Risen Indeed, 75; also Margaret E. Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” The Thomist 43 (1979): 200.

90 Kankaanniemi, The Guards of the Tomb, esp. 255–56 and 257–62 for a summary of these reasons.

91 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:358; Perkins, Resurrection, 94; Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” 158.

92 Davis, Risen Indeed, 63–78.

93 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202.

94 Older historical investigations include Franz Cumont, “Un rescrit impérial sur la violation de sèpulture,” in Revue historique 163 (1930): 241–66; F. de Zulueta, “Violation of Sepulture in Palestine,” Journal of Roman Studies 22, no. 2 (1932): 184–97. For the full text, additional references, and comments, see Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202–3. Also mentioning this rather intriguing archaeological find are scholars such as Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 101; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 316, 323; and Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 75, 708–9.

95 Bruce Bower, “The Nazareth Inscription’s Origins May Refute Ties to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Science News, March 20, 2020. Cf. the more technical studies: Harper et al., “Establishing the Provenance of the Nazareth Inscription” (see chap. 6, n. 168); Stander, “Nazareth Inscription Revisited,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 15 (2004), 254–66.

96 One prominent researcher clarifies even the description of Jewish tombs, such as the one described as Joseph’s in the Gospel narratives: Mark Goodacre, “How Empty Was the Tomb?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (2021): 134–48, particularly 134–36, 143–46.

97 Kremer, Die Osterevangelien, 48–50 (Habermas translation).

98 Kremer, 49–50 (Habermas translation).

99 As quoted by Craig (from a personal letter) in Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 374n29.

100 O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 123.

101 Waterman, Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark, 192–93.

102 Habermas, “Resurrection Research,” 141 (see chap. 4, n. 4). In an essay published a year later in the journal section “Theological Update,” after a little further research, these positive numbers were adjusted slightly downward to 70–75 percent. See Habermas, “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 292 (see chap. 4, n. 4).

103 As summarized by Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 461n606.

104 While attempting to be both thorough and fair, it needs to be emphasized that these figures are from my own study of about fifty years concerning scholars who mostly published relevant works from 1975 to date. No claim is being made to this being an exhaustive survey. Nor are many scholars counted who published from much before 1975. The requirements from the outset of this study must be recalled, namely, that the focus would be placed only on scholars who have terminal degrees, or those having equivalent degrees in one of the several relevant fields, rather than just anyone who is writing on this subject, especially in privately published works. A problem quickly emerges among many Jesus mythicists who would naturally prefer to have their views taken seriously, even though so many have neither of these academic requirements that were stated from the outset, but who deem that their simply stated view should be sufficient to count. One well-known mythicist wrote to explain that a great many of his colleagues should be included in my list, but perhaps even most of these suggested writers had neither of the requirements above.

Indicating that I am neither alone nor slanting the playing field in these convictions, atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman treats this subject at length, requiring very similar demarcations when writing on the historical Jesus, while noting very frequently that very few mythicists possess the necessary credentials. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 2, 17, 167, 194–97, 268. In fact, he specifically calls out, sometimes by name, various well-known mythicists who simply do not qualify as scholars. Ehrman basically only includes a couple of the researchers in his accredited list (17–25, for example).

105 Duplicate names were of course only counted once when they were mentioned in the lists of scholars above provided by Kremer and O’Collins, along with a few more mentioned by Craig in Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 374n29.

106 Concerning those who reject this event, Peter Kirby includes a list of twenty-eight writers in “The Case against the Empty Tomb,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 256–57n1. Licona also adds two lists of those who object in Resurrection of Jesus, 462nn607–8. I have compiled a longer list of dozens of more names. Duplicate scholars here were also deleted.

107 Grant, Jesus, 176 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

108 Wand, Christianity, 93–94 (see chap. 1, n. 22). For other insightful comments on historical research, see 51–52, 84, 108.

109 Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 68. We might add Thomas Torrance here, for whom the empty tomb has “empirical correlates in space and time” that are “open to testing.” See Torrance’s volume, Space, Time, and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 189–90.

110 Such as Loke’s limiting the options to eleven and only eleven in “The Resurrection of the Son of God: A Reduction of the Naturalistic Alternatives,” Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2 (October 2009): 579–83, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flp093.

111 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 832.

112 Dunn, 840.

113 While I never considered the empty tomb to be one of the minimal facts, its evidential basis fits nicely among those facts. The second criterion of the amount of scholarly support is where the empty tomb lags behind somewhat, even though that category has grown considerably in recent decades. As we have said repeatedly, this second criterion does not determine the facticity of these events anyway. Rather, scholarly views only indicate the methodological lay of the land. Nonetheless, the empty tomb remains outside the demarcation of the minimal facts.

↑ Back to top