IV. Other Known Historical Facts

1. EMPTY TOMB

A. General Comments

1. Cavin: Cavin appears to grant the “core” empty tomb tradition and appearances (although it is somewhat difficult to see whether he is doing this just for the sake of the argument or if he really sees them as legitimate evidence—it appears to be the latter), but qualifies what he means by resurrection as essentially an inability to die (though we never see him attempt to explain why the term “resurrection” was used to describe what happened to Jesus).

2. Clifford and Johnson: They consider the empty tomb to be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence for Jesus’s resurrection.

3. Davis: Davis argues that the important question was not whether the tomb was empty but why.

4. Lowder: Lowder agrees that Jesus was buried and the tomb was empty. However, Lowder notes later that one should be agnostic on the issue. Lowder notes that the “relocation hypothesis explains the empty tomb itself.” This is the case since it only explains why the tomb was empty. Lowder compares the relocation theory with Craig’s resurrection theory strictly in terms of the best explanation regarding the empty tomb (which both are said to take into account).

5. Tabor: Tabor thinks it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus’s “temporary place of burial was discovered empty shortly thereafter.”

B. Arguments in Favor of an Empty Tomb

1. The Empty Tomb Does Not Necessitate Resurrection

A) Allison: Allison recognizes that the idea of the miraculous is a problem for many who examine the resurrection and the empty tomb. However, there are a number of possible explanations for the empty tomb that are not, in themselves, miraculous.

B) Crossley: Crossley makes this point but from a more skeptical position. He notes some potential assumptions that he thinks may be relevant.

C) Davis: Davis points out the logic of the argument, namely that the empty tomb is a “necessary but not sufficient condition” for Jesus’s bodily resurrection.

D) Neill and Wright: They, like Davis, believe that the empty tomb is only part of the argument and alone does not prove the resurrection. They helpfully point out, however, that “the contrary is not true,” since if the opponents of Jesus found the body, they would have clearly refuted the disciples’ claims.

E) Welker: Welker argues that the empty tomb alone would not create belief in Jesus’s resurrection.

F) Wenham: Says the empty tomb alone could not prove the resurrection since there are other possible explanations for why it was empty.

G) Wright: The empty tomb alone, for Wright, “proves almost nothing.”

2. Criteria

A) Eyewitnesses

(1) Women as Eyewitnesses

(a) Bauckham: “It could hardly be clearer that the Gospels are appealing to their role as eyewitnesses.” According to Bauckham, the names of the women in the empty tomb narratives indicate eyewitness material. Elsewhere, Bauckham again stresses the “role of the women as eyewitnesses” as being “crucial,” since they could “testify that Jesus was dead when laid in the tomb and that it was the tomb in which he was buried that they subsequently found empty.” The use of women in the Gospels indicates that the Gospel writers are appealing to those women as witnesses. The women are also important because of the message they hear. For Bauckham, it is “natural” to consider that the women were well-known throughout the community and could be questioned as authoritative witnesses. They certainly were not anonymous and are also important because there were no male disciples around. The use of women as eyewitnesses also reflects the care with which the Gospel writers took when writing their accounts.

(b) Craig: Craig points out that the names of the women militate against a legend and that the women would have been known in the earliest Christian circles.

(2) Tradition

(a) Dunn: Dunn argues that the empty tomb tradition originated with those who were involved. The “most obvious answer” is that it was those who experienced the event who then shared the account with others, resulting in the tradition as we now have it. Dunn also argues that there are various reasons to believe that this aspect was known from the beginning. He also refers to traditions, in Mark for example, that appear to be the “expression of eyewitness testimony” and were thus told among the earliest disciples.

B) Embarrassing Testimony

(1) Women

(a) General Comments

i. Various Scholars: Various scholars have pointed out that the women represent a form of embarrassing testimony regarding the discovery of the empty tomb.

ii. Allison: Allison notes that reporting women as the first eyewitnesses of the risen Christ did not do the earliest Christians any favors. He then notes that caution should be used regarding the names used, although he thinks that the names are connected to the memory surrounding the events. Caution should also be used because there are accounts in which names have been invented in apocryphal writings.

iii. Bird: Bird notes that women’s testimony did not carry much weight.

iv. Brown: The appearance to Mary Magdalene might be considered an older tradition.

v. Coakley: The women were probably the first ones to witness the risen Jesus.

vi. Craig: Craig notes the “low status” women had in ancient Jewish culture and that they could not testify in court, thus the Gospels include them as discovering the empty tomb because not only is it embarrassing to the cultural sentiment but also because it is true. Criag makes numerous comments regarding their inability to be legal witnesses.

vii. Cranfield: Cranfield notes that the centrality of the women in these accounts is significant considering they could not testify in court and thus indicates that the authors included them because they cared to reflect the past accurately. Inventions of this kind would be “inconceivable.” Cranfield states that this applied in the wider gentile society as it did in the more central Jewish culture.

viii. Davis: Davis does not believe that later Christians would have invented and then centered the women around the discovery of the empty tomb because of their low status. He adds the principle of embarrassment due to the women’s low status.

ix. Dunn: Dunn argues that the “probability is strong” regarding the empty tomb tradition going back to claims made by the women. It seems highly unlikely that the women would have been invented, especially the inclusion of one who was reported to have been demon-possessed (Luke 8:2).

x. Evans: Evans finds that this is a good argument because of the embarrassment factor. It is a “strong piece” for the empty tomb as well as the resurrection. Evans notes just before this how Celsus and Porphyry criticized Christianity because of these things, and he adds that the Gospel of Peter sought to correct these embarrassments by having male disciples witness the resurrection event.

xi. Fuller: Fuller finds this to be “the earliest recoverable tradition.” He thinks he can find the initial tradition by Mary. Women claimed an empty tomb but couldn’t verify it.

xii. Goergen: Says the appearance to women is very early and from the Jerusalem area. This was not invented by the Gospel writers.

xiii. Grant: Grant notes the surprising fact that the discovery of the tomb was made by women, including one with a very bad reputation. He cites several sources that point out that women were not allowed to testify in Jewish courts.

xiv. Guillaume: States that at least the Lukan account is based on pre-Synoptic, pre-Markan tradition: “Ancienne que la tradition pre-synoptique servant de toile de fond à la pericope des femmes au tombeau.” “La pericope des femmes au tombeau s’appuie, quant à elle, sur une tradition pre-synoptique qui aurait servi de base au texte de Marc et que nous avons pour cela qualifié de ‘pre-marcienne.’”

xv. Hagner: Hagner notes the women are “exceptionally strong evidence” regarding the reality of the empty tomb. He points out that nobody would have invented the women in that cultural context to play such an essential role in the discovery of the empty tomb. He then remarks that even the disciples did not believe in Luke 24:11 and that the Gospel of Peter sought to correct the “problem” of no male witnesses to the resurrection event. This fictitious invention stands in stark contrast to the New Testament Gospels.

xvi. Lapide: Says if this account was “purely fictional,” the women would not have been included since they were not considered valid witnesses. Still, Lapide disavows the historicity of the empty tomb.

xvii. O’Collins: Says that legends would have attributed the discovery of the empty tomb to men. O’Collins also speaks to the negative status of women in antiquity. He also notes the positive evidence for Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus—she is mentioned in five out of six resurrection narratives in the Gospels, and when she is mentioned, it is always first.

xviii. Osiek: Osiek says that behind the narratives of the Gospels (including Gos. Pet.) “lies a core” whereby Mary is the central person who discovers the tomb empty. After a valuable overview of the condition of women’s testimony in ancient Judaism, she concludes that Jewish sources indicate that women could testify in certain matters but not others. She further notes that the “general reluctance” of the ancient world to understand women as representatives “applies here as well.” Her final sentence is 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.”

xix. Pannenberg: He briefly notes that individuals would have had recollections that are historically relevant, especially that of the women finding the empty tomb. Pannenberg, citing von Campenhausen, says that this was even the case in Hellenistic culture. In addition, he cites the testimony of women as evidence.

xx. Perkins: Says the women being present is an argument that the story is not wholly legend. From the Gospel accounts, she comes to three conclusions on the role of the women:(1) They were the first ones to hear the resurrection message. (2) They played a central part in the initial stages of the church. (3) Mary Magdalene received a place in these traditions. As a result, this tradition should be considered “historical.” The women were probably not included in the “creedal formulations” due to their “unacceptability of testimony.” Perkins says there is a “primitive tradition” regarding the appearance to Mary Magdalene, and she should have been included in the witness formulas. Mary’s story is the “capstone” in a series of important events regarding women as disciples of Jesus. Women in the church today should reflect this importance.

xxi. Peterson: David Peterson mentions that the women are embarrassing testimony.

xxii. Peterson: Eugene Peterson argues that the women had a very low status in society and yet were included in each of the Gospels.

xxiii. Stuhlmacher: Stuhlmacher says that from the Gospels we learn that the women knew the burial location and were coming back to finish anointing Jesus’s body. All four Gospels tell us that the women found the empty tomb. Mary Magdalene was an eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus. (Cf. Perkins, above.) Stuhlmacher discusses the empty tomb elsewhere (in German).

xxiv. Wenham: Wenham notes that there was a “prejudice” against women, so including their testimony is “striking.”

xxv. Wilckens: Wilckens seems to think this is the best reason for the historicity of the empty tomb.

xxvi. Wilson: Wilson notes that the women’s testimony would have “counted for absolutely nothing” and would not have been invented.

xxvii. Wink: Says the women had “no status as witnesses whatsoever.”

xxviii. Wright: Wright finds it “impossible” to believe that the women were added to the tradition after Paul’s writings. It is far more likely that Paul intentionally omits the women from his accounts so that he can avoid unnecessary mocking. Wright provides good sources as well as refers to the debate between Origen and Celsus as an example of the problems of the references of women.

(b) Ancients Believed the Women’s Testimony was Problematic

i. Celsus

(i.) Allison: Allison notes that Celsus (Origen, Cels. 2.59) made fun of early Christians because of the testimony of women.

(ii.) Evans: Evans briefly comments on objection to the testimony of women as noted in Celsus and Porphyry.

ii. New Testament

(i.) Allison: Allison notes that Luke even refers to the reluctance of the disciples to believe the women’s account. Allison wonders if this possibly explains why the women are not in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15. Allison appears to agree with Bauckham that Luke 24:22–23 has parallels in Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 9.10 and 42.5. One could also ask about Luke 24:11.

iii. Jewish

(i.) Allison: Referring to Ant. 4.8.15, Allison thinks the implications of Josephus’s comments go beyond a courtroom and reflect the common conception of many Jews in the first century (also suggesting Philo, QG 4.15). See also m. Shebu’ot 4.1; m. Rosh Hashanah 1.8; b. Baba Qamma 88a; b. Shabbat 30a; also (according to Allison) 2 Tim 3:6–7. As noted above, Allison appears to agree with Bauckham that Luke 24:22–23 has parallels in Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 9.10 and 42.5.

iv. Middle Eastern Society

(i.) Dunn: Dunn argues that in the Middle Eastern societies, it was widely known that women’s testimony was not considered reliable. Moreover, this would especially be the case with Mary, who had been demon-possessed (see below).

i. Dunn: Dunn argues that “any report that Mary had formerly been demon-possessed (Luke 8.2) would hardly add credibility to any story attributed to her in particular. Why then attribute such testimony to women—unless that was what was remembered as being the case?” He then wonders why anyone would have used such witnesses unless it was because they were the actual witnesses.

ii. Peterson: Eugene Peterson argues along the same lines as Dunn, but more forcefully. He writes that Mary Magdalene is the one witness named in all resurrection accounts and notes that the “‘seven devils’ could refer to an utterly dissolute moral life or to an extreme form of mental illness. Either or both of these pre-Jesus conditions, coupled with being a woman in a patriarchal society, put her at the very far edge of marginality.”

(d) Arose in a Jewish-Christian Context

i. Mark 16:1–8

(i.) Allison: Allison points out that the status of women in Judaism is important given that the empty tomb account originated in a Jewish-Christian context. He gives six examples demonstrating this Jewish-Christian context for Mark 16: (1) In Mark 16 there are references to the Sabbath. (2) Mark 16 refers to stones used to seal tombs consistent with those discovered around Jerusalem. (3) The appearance of young angels is consistent with Jewish traditions. (4) The Gospel refers to Jesus as “the Nazarene.” (5) Mark’s Gospel displays an interest in Galilee. (6) Mark uses Jewish resurrection language.

(e) Difficulty in Inventing the Women as Witnesses Tradition

i. Dunn: Dunn wonders whether one can “seriously” argue that the earliest communities would have invented this story so that it would pass the test of public opinion. “This consideration alone may be sufficient to explain why the tradition cited by Paul does not include the testimony of women in its list of witnesses (1 Cor. 15.4–8).” The fact that Mark and Matthew did not add further testimony indicates that the women’s testimony was given considerable weight.

(f) Concerns against the Women as Witnesses

i. Not Legal Witnesses

(i.) Casey: Casey similarly points out that the New Testament is not a courtroom. Adding that Josephus’s biases are not explained (regarding his comments in Ant. 4.8.15 and women’s testimony), Casey questions the weight that most other scholars give to this argument.

(ii.) Lowder: Lowder comments that although it might be embarrassing, the women’s legal qualifications had nothing to do with this. The reports do not present the women as legal witnesses.

ii. Could Be Legal Witnesses If No Men Were Present

(i.) Lowder: Lowder notes that women could serve as witnesses if no men were present and references Josephus regarding Masada and Gamala.

iii. Women Were the Obvious Candidates Since They Were Present at the Cross

(i.) Casey: The women were the “obvious candidates” as witnesses since they were the ones reported as being present at the crucifixion.

(ii.) Crossley: Notes that with the male disciples scattered, the accounts appear to require the women as witnesses.

iv. Existence of Jewish Women Heroines

(i.) Casey: Casey notes that there are valuable examples of heroic women in Jewish culture (e.g., Esther, Ruth, Judith) and finds this to be an appropriate context for understanding the women at the burial.

(ii.) Crossley: Crossley notes that the women were given positive roles in Jesus’s ministry, and this could have contributed to their reports being more acceptable.

(2) Disciples in Hiding

(a) General Comments

i. Allison: Allison says that there is no reason to believe that the disciples fled “directly after” Jesus’s arrest (or were attempting to commute on the upcoming Sabbath). Allison strongly comments that the notion that the disciples fled is a “feeble construct, a pure postulate without basis in the evidence.”

ii. Craig: Says the disciples hiding in Jerusalem further exacerbates the embarrassing nature of these accounts. Not only are the women the ones who attend to the tomb, but the disciples are portrayed in a negative light as well. These disciples would have been church leaders at the time of these writings. Why would they be put in such a bad light unless these accounts are true?

C) Multiple Attestation

(1) General Comments

(a) Davis: Davis refers to the empty tomb tradition having “very broad support” within not only the Gospels (including the special material), but with possible references in Acts and 1 Corinthians. Davis argues that 1 Corinthians 15 and Mark have been shown by “most” interpreters to be two in-dependent traditions. He thinks that this is one of the better arguments.

(b) O’Collins: He argues that the empty tomb has multiple attestation.

(d) Staudinger: Highlights the fact that multiple attestation is related to the empty tomb.

(e) Stein: Stein notes the multiple attestation of the empty tomb reports.

(2) Gospels

(a) Craig: Craig notes that the empty tomb tradition is found in three or four Gospel strata (Mark, Matthew, John, and probably Luke).

(b) Harris: Harris similarly notes that the empty tomb is found in multiple Gospel levels or strata.

(c) Wenham: Wenham notes that the reports of the women are found in all four Gospels and suggests that it is a “primitive tradition.”

D) Enemy Attestation

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Various scholars argue this point regarding the Jewish response, which assumes the empty tomb.

(b) Bird: Bird notes that the Jewish authorities provide a response that presupposes the empty tomb, as attested in Matthew, Justin Martyr, and Gos. Pet.

(c) Craig: Notes that the incidental details from Matthew inform us of the response by the Jewish authorities, namely that Jesus’s body was not in the tomb because it was purportedly stolen by the disciples. The tomb was empty, and their explanation was that the disciples stole the body.

(d) Davis: Says the empty tomb was “conceded by all parties, friend and foe alike,” and was probably checked. The focus was on the disciples stealing the body, not that the body was in the tomb. Davis notes that this objection is seen in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue.

(e) Dunn: Dunn points out that the opponents of Jesus followed the same logic that has been observed by others, namely that the empty tomb could be explained in a number of ways other than Jesus’s resurrection. Indeed, saying the disciples stole the body would be just one of those ways.

(f) Elliott: Even Elliott agrees that Jews spread rumor of a stolen body after the empty tomb stories spread.

(g) Pannenberg: Pannenberg argues that there was a widespread acknowledgment that the tomb was empty, and since its emptiness was proclaimed in Jerusalem—a place where it could quicky be falsified—this is also significant. In any event, there is no evidence that the opponents believed Jesus’s body was in the tomb. Pannenberg makes similar comments elsewhere.

(h) Wenham: Points out that the Jewish authorities did not argue against the claim that the tomb was empty.

(2) Toledot Yeshu

(a) Craig: Craig briefly discusses this tradition.

(b) Maier: Maier discusses this source at multiple points.

(3) Concerns against Enemy Attestation

(a) Allison: Allison notes some concerns with this argument. Primarily, that its date of origin is unknown, which makes him cautious about thinking it was there from the outset. In a response to Allison in an issue of Philosophia Christi, Craig notes signs that show that the controversy was one that extended for a period of time. But how long is another question.

(b) Lowder: Lowder raises the possibility that this is just a literary device and also notes the uncertainty of the date.

E) Early Empty Tomb Tradition

(1) General Comments

(a) Brown: Says part of the “early preaching” in Acts 2:29–31 may imply the empty tomb. Brown opposes the view that the empty tomb developed later, because this position assumes that just because it shows up in later texts means that it couldn’t have been held earlier, when there are signs that it was.

(b) Craig: Craig suggests that there was not enough time for legend to develop. He adds that Luke’s testimony is reliable and should be considered on par with Paul. The reports are early and well attested.

(c) Crossley: Crossley believes that Wright has demonstrated that not only are the appearance traditions “very early,” but so are the empty tomb traditions.

(d) Davis: Davis argues that a majority of scholars agree the tradition behind the empty tomb account goes back to the earliest reports of Jesus’s resurrection. Elsewhere he adds that to charge the Gospel accounts are late is a circular argument. Davis finds the Acts material, especially Acts 13:29–37, relevant to the early preaching of the empty tomb.

(e) Fuller: Says Luke’s traditions are early and well attested. The empty tomb is an early Palestinian tradition. He adds that the empty tomb narratives are “fully compatible” with the creed in 1 Corinthians 15. Accordingly, the empty tomb remains early “despite its absence from Paul.”

(f) Goergen: Goergen also examines the dates of the traditions used by Luke.

(g) Guillaume: Notes there is early tradition behind Luke’s account of Peter’s trip to the empty tomb.

(h) Jansen: Jansen notes the “growing consensus” regarding the fact that the empty tomb is part of earlier Christian traditions and not the later ones.

(i) Maier: Says the Gospels compare well to ancient historical sources on the aspect of time.

(j) Neirynck: Discusses the early nature of Luke’s traditions.

(k) Osiek: With some qualification, Osiek recognizes that “the empty tomb seems presupposed twice in Acts” (Acts 2 and 13).

(l) Perkins: Perkins notes that Luke’s traditions are reasonably early.

(m) Segal: Segal surprisingly hints at the possibility that John’s account of the empty tomb may be earlier than Mark’s but provides little by way of argument and less by way of reference.

(n) Staudinger: Says Luke could have done some general checking with the disciples. Staudinger argues that the preaching in Acts 2 and 14 presents “one of the oldest testimonies” of the empty tomb. He argues like Brown regarding the early proclamation.

(o) Stein: Stein makes comments similar to Brown and Staudinger on this point. He also seems to think the empty tomb is presupposed in Acts.

(p) Wenham: Wenham states that a “good case can be made for regarding the empty tomb story as primitive tradition” because it is attested in all the Gospels and is reported by the women first.

(2) Linguistic Clues

(a) Davis: Although not wanting to place a great deal of emphasis on this point, Davis still believes it worth noting that the empty tomb accounts have linguistic elements that point toward an early tradition. This includes the use of “Miriam” instead of Mary and a couple of other details.

F) Semitisms

(1) Craig: Argues that Semitisms and other indications of the early date of tomb traditions include the mention of the “first day of the week” instead of the “third day,” which “points to the primitiveness of the tradition” since the latter comes from the pre-Pauline creed.

(2) Stein: Stein argues similar to Davis above.

3. Pre-Markan Passion

A) General Comments

(1) Various Scholars: Various scholars have commented on the pre-Markan passion narratives.

(2) Craig: Craig argues for a pre-Markan source (utilizing Pesch and including many details). He says it is “theologically unadorned.” Craig gives four reasons why he thinks the pre-Markan narrative included the empty tomb: (1) it is interconnected to the burial account; (2) there are linguistic similarities; (3) the passion narrative must have included the victory portion of the story; and (4) it corresponds with 1 Corinthians 15.

(3) Collins: Although Collins argues that more recent criticism makes this view “untenable,” she does admit a pre-Markan account that includes only Jesus’s passion and death.

(4) Fuller: Mark 16:1–9 has a history for Fuller.

(5) Pannenberg: Says the pre-Markan text also includes the empty tomb.

(6) Perkins: Perkins thinks that although Mark relies on earlier material, it is difficult to know if it was ever “an independent tradition.” But Perkins affirms the pre-Markan account. She notes the minimal miraculous detail and development. Additionally, the tomb accounts do not show heavy influence from the Old Testament.

(7) Sheehan: Sheehan admits the pre-Markan “legend.” He claims it did contain an empty tomb.

(8) Soards: Marion Soards surveys thirty-four scholars on the subject and concludes that there is a pre-Markan passion narrative in Mark 14–15.

B) Early

(1) “High Priest”

(a) Craig: Craig argues for the empty tomb as part of this passion narrative, stating that the silence regarding Caiaphas’s name indicates that he was the high priest when this account was being formulated because his name would have been well-known and thus there was no reason to mention it. This also means, according to Craig, that the latest the tradition could be is AD 37.

(2) Use of “First Day” Motif over “Third Day” Motif

(a) Allison: Allison does not discuss the empty tomb directly but comments on the differences of creeds that use “on the third day” versus “after three days.” “On the third day” appears in Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4. “After three days” appears in Matt 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34.

(b) Craig: Says the pre-Markan narrative lacks “third-day” language, which also suggests an early date. If the tradition were late, it would have utilized later language.

(3) Lack of Theological and Apologetic Development

(a) Craig: States that theological or apologetic elements are absent in the New Testament passion narratives (unlike, however, those in Gos. Pet.).

C) Concerns against Earliness

(1) Lowder: Lowder argues that Craig’s arguments regarding the empty tomb as part of Mark’s source material and its use of “the first day of the week” are not persuasive.

4. “Emptiness” of Tomb Was Not Disputed

See also: “Enemy Attestation” earlier in this chapter (section 1.B.2.D).

A) General Comments

(1) Davis: As noted above, Davis argues that the tomb being empty was not contested, but rather the opponents of Christianity focused on the disciples stealing the body. Davis spends a few pages unpacking this argument.

B) Concerns against the Lack of Disagreement

(1) Carrier: Carrier rejects this argument. He suggests that there would not have been any authors alive who could have challenged Mark’s claim. In Carrier’s view, Paul did not believe that the tomb was empty. Carrier also wonders if early opponents to Christianity even cared and adds that we should not expect any objections to the empty tomb accounts anyway.

5. Investigation by Peter and John

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig notes that the visit of the disciples to the empty tomb has multiple attestation (Luke 24:12, 24; John 20:3), and Peter’s denials would indicate that Peter would have wanted to verify the women’s account of the empty tomb. Craig also notes that there is no evidence for the disciples going directly to Galilee.

B) Concerns against Peter and John’s Investigation

(1) Lowder: Lowder wonders why this account is not mentioned in Mark or Matthew.

6. Jerusalem Factor

A) General Comments

(1) Anderson: Anderson highlights the empty tomb being proclaimed in Jerusalem.

(2) Bird: Bird notes that the Jerusalem factor would be problematic for Christian claims.

(3) Craig: Craig thinks it would have been “impossible” to have claimed the empty tomb in Jerusalem. An additional reason for this is because Jewish beliefs would not have understood resurrection as having occurred to Jesus without something having happened to his body.

(4) Cranfield: Cranfield thinks that the body could have been produced if Jesus was not raised.

(5) Davis: Similar to Craig, Davis thinks that from both psychological and apologetic angles, it would have been “impossible” for Christians to proclaim an empty tomb in Jerusalem. Apologetically, they would not have been convincing if the body was in the tomb, or their claims would have been directly falsified with the presentation of a body. The reason they were successful was because no body was presented. This line of reasoning constitutes one of the best arguments for Davis.

(6) Dawe: Mentions the connection between Jerusalem and empty tomb claims.

(7) Dunn: Notes that this message could have been disproven due to being preached in Jerusalem. This is even more amazing since this was being told shortly after the events themselves. The disciples’ claims were open to being shown false. There are no claims that Jesus’s original burial location was tampered with. The early Jewish opponents realized they needed a way to explain why the tomb was empty so as to defuse their claim. Similar to Craig, the Jewish understanding of resurrection implied that something had to have happened to the body.

(8) Evans: Evans agrees with the argument that preaching in Jerusalem would have been a challenge if Jesus’s body was in the tomb.

(9) Harris: Harris discusses the empty tomb being proclaimed in Jerusalem.

(10) Hebblethwaite: Notes this connection and points out that a body was never produced.

(11) Kasper: Kasper says, like Davis, that this is the “most important argument” since the empty tomb reports could not have originated in Jerusalem if the body was still there.

(12) Lorenzen: Raises some important issues against this claim.

(13) Maier: If the body was in the tomb, Maier argues that the “very last place” a resurrected Jesus would be preached is in Jerusalem since it would quickly get refuted.

(14) Moltmann: Points out the difficulty of claiming the empty tomb in Jerusalem.

(15) O’Collins: Discusses the Jerusalem factor. O’Collins also addresses three concerns regarding the lack of a body.

(16) Packer: Packer notes that Jerusalem is evidence for the empty tomb since it could be falsified there.

(17) Pannenberg: Emphatically states the relevance of Jerusalem as the original location of the believers’ preaching. He argues that Jewish views of resurrection would have made it “hardly conceivable” that the Christian message could grow in Jerusalem if Jesus’s body were in the tomb.

(18) Samuel: Samuel highlights how the location of Jerusalem would have made the claims of the empty tomb falsifiable.

(19) Stein: Stein points out the importance of Jerusalem for preaching and claiming an empty tomb.

B) Jewish Authorities Would Have Been Concerned

(1) Davis: Davis argues that the authorities would have wanted to show the body “at all costs” and were unable to do so. Accordingly, both sides agreed that the tomb was empty.

C) Concerns against the Jerusalem Factor

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison has hesitations regarding Jerusalem being a factor regarding the empty tomb (though he still holds to the empty tomb).

(b) Carnley: Comments on the time interval from the death and resurrection events to the initial preaching.

(d) Küng: Notes that time had elapsed between the disciples’ claims about Jesus being alive and the events themselves.

(e) Lindars: Says it’s unlikely that anyone in a Jewish environment would open the tomb to check anyway.

(f) Martin: Regardless, Martin notes that even Acts says the initial preaching took place fifty days later, and by then Jesus’s corpse would have been so decomposed that it could not be identified as having been Jesus. One of the people he references is Lüdemann.

(2) Authorities Not Concerned about Christianity

(a) Lowder: Lowder suggests that the authorities might simply have been indifferent.

(3) Body Decomposed

(a) See also: “Jesus’s Body Would Be Unrecognizable or Decomposed” (section 1.C.5) later in this chapter.

(b) Casey: Casey argues that identifying a decomposing body like Jesus’s would be unconvincing and likely would not have stopped the disciples anyway.

(4) Body and Tomb Irrelevant

(a) See also: “The Tomb Is Irrelevant” (section 1.C.8) in this chapter.

(b) Casey: Says that given that it might not have made any difference, the authorities may not have even cared to undertake the unpleasant task of getting Jesus’s body since it would likely have no real consequence.

(5) Denial

(a) Lowder: Lowder argues that the disciples could have been in denial even if the body was produced, such that no amount of disconfirming evidence would have changed their minds. The same can be said for skeptics, so it is a double-edged sword.

7. Any Body Would Have Refuted the Resurrection but None Was Available

A) General Comments

(1) Allison: If Jesus was buried alone, all one would need to do is check to see if there was any body inside the tomb, and it would have disproved the claim of the disciples, as the condition of the corpse would not matter.

(2) Davis: The presentation of any body could have falsified the claims of the disciples.

(3) Dunn: Dunn seems to imply that any body presented could have provided a counter to the claims of the disciples.

(4) Goergen: Says even if verification was impossible by the time the disciples began preaching, there is no evidence that there was even an effort to present a body. There is no evidence of someone in a grave who could have been Jesus. The repeated question is “why—not whether.”

(5) Gundry: Addressing Lüdemann but also applicable at least to Martin and Price, Gundry argues that Lüdemann says Jesus’s body wouldn’t be recognizable fifty days later, but Grant answers that at least a skeleton would be left. Thus it would be clear the tomb was not empty.

(6) Wright: Wright argues that even if the body were so decomposed that only the bones remained before they were placed into an ossuary (as was the common practice), Jesus’s bones would have remained in the tomb and identifiably so (otherwise they could not be placed into an ossuary). These bones would have been sufficient to disprove the disciples’ claims. See also Allison below.

B) Buried with Others

(1) Allison: Allison argues that if Jesus was buried with others, then m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6 indicates the body could still be identified. “The rabbinic text presupposes that, even if a criminal had been buried dishonorably, it was yet possible for relatives to claim the skeleton after some time had passed.” In order for the relatives to do this and collect the victims’ bones into a bone box (ossuary), the corpses must have been in an identifiable position. Allison appears to contradict himself (although he may be playing more of a devil’s advocate role against Craig) in his response to Craig in Philosophia Christi, but he still notes that Jesus would seemingly, although not obviously, be recognized. He notes Genesis Rabbah 100:7, which indicates that appearances of corpses could become quickly disfigured.

C) Concerns against Any Body Refuting the Resurrection Claim

(1) Lowder: Lowder argues that if Jesus were buried with other corpses, it would make the identification of Jesus’s body much more ambiguous. If Jesus were buried alone, then by the time the preaching started, it is questionable whether opponents would have gone and checked the tomb. So time is also a factor.

(2) Price: Price does not think the tomb would have been checked seven weeks later when the disciples started preaching. He even suggests that the disciples might have waited on purpose to avoid disconfirmation!

(3) Parsons: Parsons thinks that the body would have decomposed to the point that it would not have been identifiable in any meaningful way.

8. Empty Tomb Assumed in the New Testament

A) Paul Knew or Assumed the Empty Tomb

(1) See also: chapter 9, “Bodily Nature of Resurrection.”

(2) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison thinks Paul “probably” assumes an empty tomb but also notes that Paul fails to say much about the empty tomb or its discovery. Thus, all that Allison thinks can “safely” be inferred is that Paul believed the tradition that he delivers. He notes, though, that resurrection involves bodies for Paul. Paul is not a witness for or against the empty tomb tradition.

(b) Barclay: Barclay raises the issue in his work.

(c) Barnett: Barnett argues that the death and burial “implies that the tomb was empty.” The language is literally that Jesus was “entombed.”

(d) Borg: Borg offers some comments about Paul’s possible assumptions.

(e) Brown: Brown thinks that this tradition, maybe, implies an empty tomb.

(f) Caird: Caird discusses this argument.

(g) Cranfield: Cranfield makes comments regarding Paul’s assumptions.

(h) Craig: Craig argues that Paul “believed” in an empty tomb. Craig adds that the quadruple hoti in 1 Corinthians 15 is an indication of this.

(i) Crossan: Notes that perhaps Paul implies an empty tomb and maybe knew that women “had seen the risen Jesus” but didn’t record it.

(j) Davis: In addition to the sequence in 1 Corinthians 15, Davis also finds Rom 8:11 helpful.

(k) Fitzmyer: Fitzmyer makes some comments on Paul’s sequencing of death, burial, and being raised.

(l) Fuller: Fuller notes that the empty grave implied a resurrection.

(m) Gundry: Gundry notes the implications of Paul’s argument (death, burial, and being raised).

(n) Jansen: Jansen notes that the sequence of death, burial, and resurrection may imply an empty tomb.

(o) Ladd: Ladd thinks the order of events Paul provided in 1 Cor 15:3–5 has obvious implications for the former Pharisee.

(p) O’Collins: Notes that “perhaps” Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15:3–5 implies an empty tomb, but it’s “highly tentative.”

(q) Pannenberg: Pannenberg makes some cautious comments along this line of thinking (that Paul assumed an empty tomb).

(r) Perkins: Perkins thinks that Paul’s omission does not mean he was ignorant of the empty tomb.

(s) Robinson: John A. T. Robinson says the sequence of events in 1 Cor 15:3–5 “clearly” implies the empty tomb.

(t) Stein: Stein makes multiple comments regarding Paul’s implications in his letters.

(u) Wenham: Wenham notes in a footnote the similarity of Paul and Luke–Acts regarding the abbreviated list of appearances. Given one’s view on these appearances, an empty tomb could be implied or assumed by Paul.

(v) Witherington: Witherington understands the sequence of death, burial, and resurrection used by Paul as implying an empty tomb.

(w) Wright: Wright argues that it is clear that Paul has assumed the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15. It is comparable to reports in Acts as well. These comments occur elsewhere in Wright.

(3) Paul as Persecutor and as a Christian

(a) Wright: Writes that when Paul was persecuting the church, it is “highly likely” that Paul knew about the empty tomb and that it was not falsified.

(4) Jewish Concept of Resurrection and Paul

(a) Allison: Allison acknowledges that the argument regarding the Jewish conception of resurrection is, “at least initially,” a good point relating to bodily resurrection. Allison notes the many texts in Jewish writings that affirm bodily resurrection. Some of these texts include Gen 5:24; 2 Kgs 2:11; Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:5–6, 13; Dan 12:2; Sib. Or. 4.181–182; Matt 27:53; 4 Ezra 7.32; 2 Bar. 50.2.

(b) Craig: Craig recognizes that the Jewish understanding of resurrection included something that happened to the body.

(c) Davis: Davis agrees that the term for resurrection in early Christianity referred to something that happened to the physical body.

(d) Dunn: Being raised from the dead, according to Dunn, would “most likely” be interpreted as a physical body being restored: “physical resurrection necessarily implied empty tomb.” Coincidentally the Jewish opposition used the “same logic,” but they explained the emptiness of the tomb differently.

(e) Tabor: Tabor points out that in Judaism, to be raised from the dead did not mean that one would then exist as a spirit or soul in heaven.

(5) Pharisaic Background

(a) Allison: Allison appears to agree that Paul’s Pharisaic background is evidence for Paul believing in a physical resurrection and indicates that he believed the tomb was empty. (Allison questions whether or not Paul is a credible source for the empty tomb, as he does not say very much about it.)

(b) Craig: Craig recognizes the influence of Paul’s Pharisaic background on his understanding of the concept of resurrection.

(c) Crossan and Reed: There was “only one meaning” for Paul regarding resurrection and that was the “general bodily resurrection,” which was to occur at the end of time. Does this mean that Paul would assume an empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15?

(d) Wenham: Wenham argues that with Paul’s background as a Pharisaic Jew, he would “most probably” have thought about the resurrection in bodily terms.

(6) Christian Belief in Bodily Resurrection

(a) Allison: Allison notes the absence of evidence for a “non-physical resurrection” in Paul and the early church in Jerusalem.

(7) Paul’s Doctrine of Resurrection and Transformation of the Body

(a) Craig: Paul’s understanding of the resurrection involves a transformed body.

(8) Buried and Raised Language

(a) Craig: The word order is particularly important here according to Craig.

(b) Wenham: Says Paul’s language referring to burial and raising, along with his Pharisaic background, indicate he had bodily resurrection in mind.

(9) “On The Third Day” and “From the Dead” Language

(a) Craig: Craig stresses the importance of these two expressions for understanding what Paul meant regarding resurrection.

(10) Ambiguous Evidence (Empty Tomb Alone Proves Nothing)

(a) Wenham: For Wenham, Paul may not have mentioned the empty tomb since it could be construed in any number of ways and is, thus, an ambiguous type of evidence he did not want to include.

(11) Brevity

(a) Wenham: Another reason that Paul could have omitted the empty tomb is because he was presenting a brief case where he was not communicating an exhaustive account.

(12) Proof of the Resurrection for Paul Was the Appearances

(a) Pannenberg: For Paul, the proof of the resurrection was the appearances, not the empty tomb. The empty tomb could have different explanations other than resurrection. The empty tomb may have been more important in Jerusalem, though not quite as much in Corinth.

B) Empty Tomb Assumed in Acts

(1) General Comments

(a) See also: “Arguments for a Bodily Resurrection” (section 3.A) in chapter 9, “Bodily Nature of Resurrection.”

(b) Davis: Says Acts 2 appears to presuppose the empty tomb without being directly stated. He adds that the empty tomb appears to be something of a question that is not readily understood. He refers to Luke 24:22–23. Cf. John 20:1–2, 13.

(c) Wenham: Wenham notes in a footnote the similarity of Paul and Luke–Acts regarding the abbreviated list of appearances. Given one’s view on these appearances, an empty tomb could be implied or assumed.

(d) Wright: Wright argues that it is clear that Paul assumed the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15. This is comparable to statements in Acts as well.

(2) Concerns against the Empty Tomb in Acts

(a) Casey: Casey argues against Wright’s arguments regarding Peter’s implication that the tomb was empty in Acts 2:34 but ignores Acts 13:34 (Paul).

9. Empty Tomb Has Ability to Explain Other Details

A) Wright: Wright strongly argues against the invention of the empty tomb as a way for the earliest believers to explain an “experience.”

10. Burial of Jesus and Tomb Location Known

A) General Comments

(1) Allison: Allison points out that the tomb location would be known since Jesus was buried by a member of the Sanhedrin.

(2) Craig: Craig stresses the connection between the burial and empty tomb. Notably, the accuracy of the burial account is connected to the accuracy of the empty tomb account since the burial location would have been known. Craig presents nine arguments for Jesus’s burial.

(3) Davis: Davis notes that the burial is widely agreed upon by scholars. Similar to Allison, the burial by Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, means that it is likely the tomb location was known. Indeed, the evidence we do have indicates that the tomb location was known.

(4) Lindars: Thinks there might be an element of historicity to Joseph’s burial of Jesus (which can connect to the question of the empty tomb).

(5) Lorenzen: Says the story about Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus makes sense.

(6) Muddiman: Notes the importance of the burial.

(7) Stein: Notes that Joseph is a very obscure person. Stein holds that the account is firm in all four Gospels.

B) Concerns against a Known Burial Location

(1) Lowder: Lowder, who holds to the relocation hypothesis (the body was placed in the tomb on Friday and moved Saturday), writes that the disciples would not know where Jesus’s body was relocated. It’s strange that Lowder only seems to say in passing that the disciples would have suspected that the body had been moved. If the practice was so common that everyone would know about it, then so would the disciples and the authors of the Gospels. Second, the bodies would presumably be identifiable so that they could be placed in an ossuary, otherwise we must wonder why both honorable and dishonorable Jews were buried in tombs such that they could, presumably, be collected later to be placed in an ossuary. Lowder notes that even those who were dishonorably buried would be placed in a tomb rather than a shallow grave.

11. No Mention of a Second Burial

A) Craig: Craig notes that there are no other burial traditions, not even in the Jewish polemics. Craig also notes that Crossan’s attempts to find a second burial account ultimately leave out the burial and are late and derivative accounts.

B) Wright: Wright similarly argues that there are no reports of a secondary burial of any sort. If Jesus was not raised, then this second burial would have occurred, and the bones would have shown that Jesus was not resurrected.

12. No Tomb Veneration

A) General Comments

(1) Barclay: Barclay notes that tomb veneration is absent.

(2) Clifford and Johnson: They consider the lack of tomb veneration to be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence for Jesus’s resurrection.

(3) Craig: Craig emphasizes that “Jesus’ tomb was not venerated as a shrine indicates that the tomb was empty.” He then goes on to give some additional details regarding the tomb veneration and bones of other prophets.

(4) Dunn: Dunn considers the absence of tomb veneration to be “striking” since the veneration of tombs is “well attested.” He cites several relevant sources. He then asks why wouldn’t Christians venerate the tomb? The reason is that they did not believe there was a body present in the tomb. He adds that the Gospels give a good solution to these questions. Furthermore, Dunn thinks that it is “inconceivable” that the disciples would have removed the body without placing it in another location “reverently” and then subsequently venerating it.

(5) Grayston: Grayston comments on the absence of any tomb veneration.

(6) Harris: Harris highlights the lack of tomb veneration.

(7) Kasper: Kasper discusses the absence of tomb veneration as well.

(8) Perkins: Perkins offers various comments on the lack of tomb veneration.

(9) Stuhlmacher: He points out the lack of tomb veneration.

(10) Wright: Wright points out that “no evidence” exists that Jesus’s tomb was venerated. He argues elsewhere that unless it was empty, we would expect it to be venerated. Wright notes that the tombs of Jewish martyrs were typically venerated, and we would expect the same with Jesus’s tomb.

B) Concerns against the Lack of Tomb Veneration

(1) Allison: There are reasons why people might not have venerated the tomb. Allison speculates about the possibility of a criminal’s grave as one such reason. However, Craig has argued about Allison being inconsistent since they agree the cross was redeemed, and a burial location could be redeemed even more easily. Allison states in response to Craig’s objections that although he may have been too hasty, nevertheless he still feels “uneasy” about the lack of tomb veneration as a proof for the empty tomb. It seems the main thrust of this concern is a number of unanswered and (potentially) unanswerable questions and the lack of veneration for other Jewish figures (such as John the Baptist or Hillel). Ultimately, Allison concludes that the argument as it stands “leads nowhere.” Allison offers a few comments on the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as well.

(2) Carrier: Carrier thinks the tomb would have been venerated even if it was empty, and so the lack of tomb veneration is a double-edged sword that is consistent with both views. He goes on to give some additional reasons why the tomb might not have been venerated (new body, end of the world was coming, etc.).

(3) Casey: Says the fact that there is no tomb veneration is evidence against an original tradition of the empty tomb, which is why Paul did not include it. Casey argues that the site would assuredly have been known and that it would have been important to Christian narratives. He also argues (against Dunn) that the tomb would not need to contain Jesus’s bones in order to be venerated and that the Christians did not know where Jesus was dishonorably buried.

(4) Crossley: Crossley notes that the lack of tomb veneration could be explained by visions that caused believers to assume the tomb was empty, so they wouldn’t have checked it. This point gains more strength if no one knew where Jesus was buried. But Crossley concludes that “explanations based on shrines and pilgrimages that we know nothing about either way are far too speculative to be of any serious use.”

(5) Kirby: Kirby agrees that it is “most reasonable” to conclude that if Jesus’s body was in the tomb, then we would expect the tomb to be venerated. Thus, this is evidence against views that suggest Jesus’s body was in the tomb. Kirby also thinks that it is “equally evidence” that the tomb was empty. He, like Carrier, thinks the tomb would have been venerated whether Jesus was there or not. The argument cuts both ways. However, he seems to argue against this theory a page later.

(6) Lowder: Lowder says he is “undecided.” He thinks the lack of tomb veneration is consistent with a dishonorable burial as well as an empty tomb.

(7) Parsons: Says that if the tomb location was known, it would have been venerated. The lack of veneration indicates that Jesus’s followers did not know where it was.

C) Cross Redeemed

(1) Dunn: Dunn argues that those who believe that Christians did not venerate the tomb for various reasons are mistaken. “But does that follow? Christians soon venerated a cross, of all things!”

13. Lack of Theological or Apologetical Development

A) General Comments

(1) Bird: Bird notes a lack of Old Testament proof texts in the empty tomb texts.

(2) Brown: Brown notes the absence of apologetic development regarding the empty tomb.

(3) Craig: Craig observes this apologetic absence as well.

(4) Davis: Davis doubts that the empty tomb is an apologetic legend.

(5) Lorenzen: Lorenzen also notes the absence of these elements.

(6) O’Collins: O’Collins makes a similar point regarding the absence of the apologetic elements.

(7) Perkins: Also observes the lack of apologetics.

(8) Sheehan: Sheehan acknowledges that the empty tomb is not (or is rarely) used apologetically by the early church.

B) Empty Tomb Is Nonapologetic in Early Church

(1) Davis: States that the empty tomb traditions simply lack what we would expect if this were an apologetic invention. Indeed, throughout the New Testament the empty tomb does not play this role. He says the empty tomb is more of a puzzle than an apologetic (referring to Luke 24:22–23; cf. John 20:1–2, 13).

C) If Apologetic, the Empty Tomb Is a Bad Apologetic

(1) Davis: Davis notes the empty tomb would be a “weak” apologetic. He adds that the testimony of the women is one reason why this would be a bad apologetic.

D) “Emptiness” of Tomb Was Not Disputed

(1) Davis: As noted above, Davis thinks the tomb was checked and acknowledged as empty by those interested.

E) Guard at Tomb Is an Unlikely Apologetic Legend

(1) Davis: The story appears “apologetically useless” without it either being a well-known truth or “completely uncheckable.” Conversely, if it is a legend, it would need to be demonstrated to be a legend and not simply because it addresses the disciples stealing the body.

F) Mark

(1) Allison: Allison thinks that the “paucity” of either theological or apologetic elements in Mark regarding the empty tomb is a “hint” and not just Christian fiction.

G) Concerns against the Lack of Theological or Apologetic Development

(1) Lowder: Lowder doesn’t believe that this makes the empty tomb true, and he notes that he believes the “young man” in Mark was a legendary development.

14. Appearances Alone Are Insufficient

A) See also: “Resurrection versus Cognitive Dissonance” (section 1.D.3) in this chapter.

B) Allison: Over the course of a few pages, Allison appears to argue that the appearances alone could have been insufficient. Experiences of a risen Jesus would not have necessarily led to believing the resurrection occurred, but the empty tomb would give the added confirmation of resurrection belief.

15. Jewish Idea of Resurrection Was Bodily

A) See also: chapter 9, “Bodily Nature of Resurrection.”

B) Barclay: Seems to point toward the empty tomb as following from the Jewish view of resurrection.

C) Craig: Says an empty tomb would be expected by Jewish views of the resurrection.

D) Davis: States that the Jewish understanding of resurrection contained “highly physical notions.” Jesus’s disciples would have expected something to have happened to Jesus’s body.

E) Harris: Says Jewish views argue for a bodily resurrection and thus an empty tomb.

F) Maier: Indicates that Jewish views are relevant to understanding an empty tomb.

G) Pannenberg: Notes that a Jewish view of resurrection argues for an empty tomb.

H) Perkins: Perkins argues that “resurrection language” for ancient Jews leaned toward the “absence of physical remains.”

I) Stein: Suggests the relevance of Jewish bodily resurrection views for understanding the empty tomb.

J) Wright: Notes the Pharisees believed that if a person had been raised from the dead, then their tomb would be empty.

16. Archaeological Evidence

A) Dunn: Dunn points out that evidence from archaeology provides some circumstantial considerations. Dunn is referring here to the practice of secondary burial (i.e., the use of an ossuary), which is based on the Jewish belief of physical resurrection. The use of ossuaries is Dunn’s focus.

B) Evans: Evans highlights a number of different aspects of archaeological evidence for the burial of executed persons in general.

17. Guard at Tomb

A) See also: “Guard at Tomb Is an Unlikely Apologetic Legend” (section 1.B.13.E) in this chapter.

B) General Comments

(1) Craig: Although leaving it an open question, Craig provides a number of reasons for the historicity of the Jewish guard at the tomb.

(2) Davis: Says it must be demonstrated that this is actually a legend rather than just assumed to be one, because it addresses the question of the disciples stealing the body. Moreover, it would have been a wasted apologetic unless it was widely accepted as true or unfalsifiable.

(3) Thrall: Makes similar arguments regarding the guards.

C) Concerns against the Guard at the Tomb

(1) Carrier: Carrier argues that the guard in Matt 27:62–65 is a legend.

18. Nazareth Decree Inscription

(1) Maier: Maier discusses the Nazareth Decree (which warns against destroying or robbing tombs) and its relevance to the empty tomb.

(2) Pannenberg: Pannenberg offers his own comments about the Nazareth Decree.

(3) Staudinger: Staudinger connects the Nazareth Decree to the empty tomb in a couple of places.

(4) Wright: For Wright, the Nazareth Decree supplies a bit of teasing embroidery around the edge of the argument.

19. Sunday Worship

(1) Craig: Craig argues similar to Stein regarding Sunday worship and the empty tomb.

(2) Harris: Harris discusses the relationship between Sunday worship and the empty tomb.

(3) Stein: States that the appearances were on the “third day,” while the “first day” is due to the empty tomb.

(4) Williams: Williams connects the importance of the empty tomb with Sunday worship.

20. No Alternative Accounts

(1) Goergen: Says all agree concerning the empty tomb. The question is why is it empty, not if it is empty.

(2) Hebblethwaite: Points out that there is an absence of alternatives.

(3) Maier: Highlights that there is only one account regarding the empty tomb.

(4) O’Collins: O’Collins points out that there were no competing theories.

(5) Pannenberg: Says no early source denied the report of the empty tomb.

(6) Perkins: Perkins also notes that there are no alternative accounts about the empty tomb.

C. Arguments against an Empty Tomb

1. Methodological Naturalism

A) Tabor: Tabor appeals to a “scientific view of reality,” which makes explaining the empty tomb “simple,” in that someone must have moved the body. He adds some comments as to how this could have occurred.

2. Untrustworthy Sources

A) Paul

(1) No Mention of the Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15

(a) General Comments

i. See also: “Empty Tomb Not Mentioned” (section 3.E.2) under “Facts of the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15” in chapter 3.

ii. Barclay: Barclay points out that the tomb is not mentioned in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed.

iii. Casey: Casey does not think that the creed assumes the empty tomb and holds that Paul’s exclusion of the empty tomb might mean he did not believe it either.

iv. Collins: Collins notes that the creed omits any mention of an empty tomb.

v. Conzelmann: He briefly notes the tomb is not mentioned in the creed.

vi. Crossley: Crossley notes that Wright argued so persuasively that 1 Corinthians 15 indicates an assumed empty tomb that it “in fact provides evidence in favour of there being no genuine eyewitness knowledge of the empty tomb, particularly when compared with the Markan resurrection narrative.”

vii. Eddy: Eddy likewise notes the tomb is missing from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

viii. Elliott: Claims Paul probably doesn’t even know the empty tomb tradition.

ix. Evans: Notes that Paul doesn’t mention the empty tomb, but this doesn’t mean he didn’t know about it.

x. Fuller: Says the tomb is not mentioned, but it may be implied.

xi. Funk: Paul does not mention the empty tomb in the creed.

xii. Goergen: Goergen mentions the absence of the tomb in the creed.

xiii. Grayston: States there is no mention of the empty tomb in the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

xiv. Helms: Helms highlights that the empty tomb is missing from the Corinthian creed.

xv. Hoover: Says there is no report of an empty tomb found within the creed.

xvi. Kee: Alistair Kee notes the Corinthian creed does not mention the empty tomb.

xvii. Kirby: According to Kirby, Paul provides no evidence of an empty tomb account similar to that of the pre-Markan tradition.

xviii. Lindars: Notes there is little interest in the empty tomb in the creed.

xix. Lorenzen: Lorenzen notes this omission from the creed.

xx. Lüdemann: States there is no mention of the empty tomb in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15 creed or otherwise in Paul. Paul and the disciples may not even have been interested in an empty tomb.

xxi. Osiek: Osiek notes the absence of the empty tomb from the creed (and the women are missing too).

xxii. Pannenberg: Pannenberg makes the observation that the empty tomb is not mentioned with some reservation.

xxiii. Perrin: Perrin points out the absence of an empty tomb in the creed.

xxiv. Segal: Segal places a good amount (perhaps too much?) of emphasis on Paul’s silence. Segal notes the absence of a reference to the empty tomb.

xxv. Wedderburn: Wedderburn approvingly cites Lüdemann on Paul’s lack of interest here.

(b) Empty Tomb Is Assumed, but Is It Historically Accurate?

i. Allison: Allison thinks that Paul “probably” assumes and believes that the tomb is empty. Allison notes that the actual discovery of an empty tomb could explain the existence of this old tradition, but so could a legend that Paul mistakenly believed this. So there is caution regarding Paul as a credible source for the empty tomb.

ii. Crossley: Crossley notes that the ancient language of “raised” would likely mean that a body was no longer in the tomb. He then states that from this we can only know that “Paul believed that there was a bodily resurrection.” He then notes that unlike the appearances, when it comes to the empty tomb, “there is no mention of eyewitnesses” by Paul (cf. 1 Corinthians 15).

(2) Concerns against Paul as an Untrustworthy Source

(a) See: “Paul’s Reliability” (section 6.B) in chapter 3.

B) The Empty Tomb Is a Late Development

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Various scholars have argued that the empty tomb is a later development.

(b) Ehrman: Ehrman stresses that the account of the empty tomb “appears” to him as a late tradition. Mark is the first report of it, which is about three or four decades after Jesus’s death. Ehrman offers no discussion on a pre-Markan narrative or its possibility.

(c) Segal: Segal does not think that Mark’s tradition of the empty tomb goes back to the time of Jesus, though he does seemingly suggest that John’s account may be earlier. Segal places a good amount of emphasis on Paul’s silence on the subject.

(2) No Pre-Markan Empty Tomb Account

(a) Collins: Collins argues that more recent criticism makes this view “untenable.” Although she does admit a pre-Markan account that includes only Jesus’s passion and death.

(b) Crossan: Says there is no pre-Markan account of the empty tomb.

(c) Donahue: Donahue admits that there “has been a general consensus” in favor of a pre-Markan narrative, but he rejects it.

(d) Kelber: Kelber questions the pre-Markan account.

C) The Empty Tomb Is a Legend

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Various scholars have made comments regarding the possibility of the empty tomb reports being a legend.

(2) Compared to Other Legend Accounts

(a) Carrier: Carrier thinks it “likely” that the Delphi legend reported in Herodotus is similar to that of the empty tomb, as both took about two generations to develop. He notes that the empty tomb should seem quite tame compared to these other accounts. He continues to point out that Herodotus and Josephus both present legends similar to those of the empty tomb because they are both of “symbolic significance” and had many witnesses.

D) The Empty Tomb Is an Apologetic Addition

(1) General Comments

(a) Various Scholars: Various scholars comment on the empty tomb serving an apologetic purpose.

(2) Concerns against the Empty Tomb as Apologetic Addition

(a) Bird: Bird wonders what benefit an apologetic legend of the empty tomb would give and why it would even be needed when other, less falsifiable legends could be created.

(b) Davis: Davis responds to what he believes to be a major objection: that 1 Corinthians 15 does not mention the empty tomb. Davis argues that 1 Corinthians 15 and Mark have been shown by “most” interpreters to be two independent traditions. Additionally, Acts 2 clearly presupposes an empty tomb, even though it is not explicitly stated. He also responds to claims that the empty tomb is a late development. Davis questions the critics regarding their criteria for deciding which parts of the empty tomb accounts are late, as it appears there are no criteria. He goes further and challenges the critics to show a period when there was belief in a resurrection without also a belief in the empty tomb. Davis thinks that if the empty tomb was a late tradition, then we would expect some more pushback and that critics would have disputed the reports. Instead there seems to be widespread agreement that the tomb was empty. The only issue surrounded why the tomb was empty. Moreover, the empty tomb alone is not considered to be the decisive proof for Jesus’s resurrection. Davis refers here to Luke 24:22–23 (cf. John 20:1–2, 13). Although not wanting to place a great deal of emphasis on this point, Davis still believes it to be worth noting that the empty tomb accounts have “linguistic features indicative of early tradition.” This includes the use of “Miriam” and not “Mary” in Matt 28:1. Davis responds to claims that the empty tomb is an apologetic legend. He doesn’t think that the empty tomb has the “characteristics” of an apologetic legend since, for example, it doesn’t play an apologetic role in the early church. Rather, by itself it is rather mysterious. It would be a weak apologetic argument. He then notes the women and the hiding disciples as two reasons why it would be a weak argument. Davis also responds to the idea that there are discrepancies in the Gospels. Finally, Davis objects to the idea that because Paul does not mention the empty tomb in his writings it should thus be considered a later development. The main point for Davis is that despite the differences, which can be reconciled, all of the accounts report that “early on the first day of the week certain women, among them Mary Magdalene, went to the tomb; they found it empty; they met an angel or angels; and they were either told or else discovered (Mary Magdalene in the fourth Gospel) that Jesus was alive.” Davis also stresses that the empty tomb was widely accepted.

3. The Women Are a Legendary Development

A) General Comments

(1) Various Scholars: Various scholars, such as Crossan, Funk, and Mack, have suggested that Mark invented the story of the women discovering the empty tomb. Some, such as Collins and Helms, think Mark may have done so “reverently” and not as an outright invention.

(2) Ehrman: Although Ehrman used to believe that the women could not be invented, he changed his mind and now thinks this argument suffers “from a poverty of imagination.” Some of the reasons that explain why Ehrman imagines the women might be invented are mentioned below.

B) Empty Tomb Narratives Are Late and Hellenistic

(1) Watson: Since the tomb narratives are late and Hellenistic, according to Watson, there is no “Jewish” argument that applies to the women being witnesses.

C) Not a Court of Law

(1) Ehrman: He notes that the women’s reports were not given in a courtroom.

D) Women Could Invent or Have Motive to Invent the Account

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman imagines that “maybe” women would want to invent women as the first witnesses.

E) Burial Preparations Done by the Women

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman also observes that it was women who typically prepared bodies for burial, thus they should be expected to be at the tomb and to have been the ones who found it empty.

F) Only the Women Were Present as the Disciples Fled

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that the women were the only ones left in the account who could have gone to the tomb.

G) Literary Reasons

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman curiously writes that he is not suggesting that he actually thinks Mark invented the story, but we can “imagine” reasons for him doing so.

4. Possible Reasons the Empty Tomb Was Invented

A) Reassures Believers

(1) Casey: Casey considers that the empty tomb account “reassures believers” that Jesus actually resurrected, especially in the face of opposition. This seems to be an odd reason as to why they needed to invent the empty tomb, especially given Casey’s comments on the diversity of Jewish views of resurrection (see below).

B) Diversity of Jewish Views of Resurrection

(1) Casey: Casey holds to the idea that the first disciples believed Jesus to have been raised to the heavenly throne while his body was in a common burial pit. However, many Jews did believe in a bodily resurrection, and as this latter view was applied to Jesus, “it would follow that his tomb was empty.”

C) Centrality of the Empty Tomb to the Resurrection

(1) Ehrman: For Ehrman, the “most important” reason one would invent the empty tomb was because of its centrality to Jesus’s resurrection. For without the empty tomb, there was no bodily resurrection.

D) Apologetic of the Empty Tomb Was Necessary

(1) Segal: Segal believes the empty tomb was needed to solve the “critical difficulty” facing believers, namely, that nobody saw Jesus rise from the dead. It’s not clear how this actually solves that problem, and even Segal seems to notice this.

5. Jesus’s Body Would Be Unrecognizable or Decomposed

A) Allison: Allison states that a poor version of this type of hypothesis argues that God sped up the process of decay and provided veridical visions.

B) Casey: According to Casey, Jesus’s body would have been “unrecognizable” by the time Christians started preaching, and nobody would have wanted to undertake such a “revolting task.” He adds that it is likely this would not have stopped the disciples anyway.

C) Ehrman: Ehrman notes that Jesus’s body had to be distinguished from others and that decaying bodies would quickly have become indistinguishable from one another.

D) Lowder: Lowder contends that presenting a body would not decisively convince people because properly identifying it would be problematic. It would always remain problematic.

E) Price: Price does not think the tomb would have been checked seven weeks later when the disciples started preaching. He even suggests that the disciples might have waited on purpose to avoid disconfirmation!

F) Thrall: Thrall wonders how long a corpse would remain identifiable in that climate. This issue is then exacerbated because of the length of time between Jesus’s death and the initial preaching.

6. Stolen Body

A) General Comments

(1) Carrier: Carrier provides a chapter titled “The Plausibility of Theft” where he contends that the general idea of theft is more plausible than the resurrection by (1) arguing against William Lane Craig’s objections to theft; (2) stating that Christian believers would follow Matthew’s account over that of the Jewish elite’s claims that the disciples stole the body, regardless of any evidence presented to them; (3) claiming that the guarded-tomb account in Matthew is a myth; and (4) identifying Matthew’s account as a remake of Daniel in the lion’s den.

B) Disciples Stole Jesus’s Body

(1) Allison: Allison notes that this is not a very plausible hypothesis but presents it as a possibility (again, not probable). Deliberate deception is argued only in modern times by Carrier. Some have argued that the disciples enjoyed being the religious leaders who got free meals and housing from followers and then stole Jesus’s body and proclaimed that he resurrected.

C) Jewish Authorities Stole Jesus’s Body

(1) Allison: Allison notes that this is not a very plausible hypothesis, but again presents it as a possibility (though not probable). He even speculates the possibility that the authorities disposed of Jesus’s body so that the tomb would not be venerated.

D) Unknown Tomb Robber Stole Jesus’s Body

(1) Allison: Allison mentions this view in passing and thinks it to be a conjecture (cf. Nazarene Decree inscription).

E) The Gardener Stole Jesus’s Body

(1) Allison: Allison mentions in passing the view that perhaps the gardener stole the body and thinks it to be conjecture.

(2) Tabor: Tabor notes that this theory is referenced by Tertullian, and in the Toledot Yeshu, as well as in a sixth-century Coptic text that claims the gardener’s name was Philogenes. Tabor thinks that these are ultimately embellishments of John’s account.

F) Necromancers or Sorcerers Stole Jesus’s Body

(1) Allison: Allison considers the possibility that necromancers or sorcerers could have taken the body and notes that this is not a very plausible hypothesis but still presents it as a possibility (again, not probable). Allison mentions this view in passing and thinks it to be conjecture.

G) Skeptical Responses to Traditional Objections

(1) No Motive to Steal the Body

(a) Disciples

i. Carrier: Carrier argues that the point of the disciples stealing the body would be to “restore [Jesus’s] good name” and then Jesus’s teachings would then be followed.

(b) Others

i. Carrier: Carrier argues that necromancers and sorcerers would have motives to steal the body. How prevalent were necromancers in Jerusalem? The Nazarene Decree and other ancient texts could indicate there were more than one might think. Carrier cites Macer, “Public Prosecutions 1 (from the Digest of Justinian [ = D.] 47.12.8); Paul, Views 5 (D. 47.12.11); Gaius Institutes 2.2–10; and Ulpian Duties of the Proconsul 2 (D. 47.12.1), citing a decree of emperor Septimius Severus reasserting existing law (ibid., 25; D. 47.12.3.3 and 7).”

(2) Only Joseph of Arimathea Knew the Tomb Location

(a) Carrier: Carrier postulates that someone in Joseph’s party or grave robbers who happened to stumble upon Jesus’s body could have moved it.

(3) Unlikely to Steal in Such a Short Window

(a) Carrier: Carrier speculates that thieves had two nights to steal the body. However, a pious thief might have taken the time to take Mark 3:4 seriously, whereby it is considered lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

(4) Presence of Grave Clothes

(a) Carrier: Carrier’s response is that the clothes could be a legend or left by body snatchers. Carrier even suggests that a “pious thief would want to create the illusion of an ascension, so they might deliberately leave” the grave clothes. Why would the illusion of an ascension need to be one that affected Jesus’s body? Arguing for this explanation of pious theft also appears to point toward a bodily resurrection.

(5) Conspiracies Come to Light

(a) Carrier: Carrier suggests that conspiracies do not often come to light. Not only might the body be identified by the thieves, but they do not make it a habit of bringing attention to their crimes.

(6) Theft Fails to Explain Appearances

(a) Carrier: Carrier’s response is seemingly that explanatory scope alone is an insufficient reason and that the appearances are legendary.

(7) Argument from Silence

(a) Carrier: Carrier argues that we shouldn’t expect any additional surviving evidence of theft.

7. Tomb Location Unknown or Body Location Unknown

A) General Comments

(1) Barclay: Barclay comments that the earliest believers may not have known where Jesus was buried.

(2) Casey: Casey notes that it is possible the disciples did not know where Jesus’s body was dishonorably buried (lack of tomb veneration indicates that the location was not known or that a dishonorable burial could not be venerated).

(3) Coakley: Coakley also notes that the burial location may not have been known.

(4) Crossan: Says the disciples and other follwers didn’t know where Jesus was buried.

(5) Galvin: Galvin mentions that Jesus’s burial location may not have been known.

(6) Goulder: States that early believers did not know where Jesus’s body was buried.

B) Concerns against an Unknown Tomb Location

(1) Allison: Allison finds this objection to be “less than persuasive.”

8. The Tomb Is Irrelevant

A) General Comments

(1) Davis: Davis deemphasizes instead of disproves the empty tomb by discussing the probability of the importance or relevance of the empty tomb.

(2) Hoover: Similarly considers that it is possible that the earliest believers did not care or know about the burial.

(3) Lindars: According to a review by David A. S. Ferguson, Lindars considered the possibility that the disciples did not even care about the burial location.

(4) Lüdemann: He thinks either the disciples didn’t know or didn’t care about the burial, possibly both.

B) Spiritual Resurrection

(1) General Comments

(a) Collins: Collins moves from apotheosis accounts to the legend of the empty tomb. This may indicate that she is thinking similarly.

(b) Perkins: Perkins notes that the presence of some Jewish belief in a spiritual resurrection makes it possible that some might not have automatically thought the tomb was empty.

(2) No Mention of the Empty Tomb in Paul or Acts Summaries

(a) Collins: Collins claims that the preaching summaries in Acts (specifically mentioning passages in Acts 2–5, like 2:22–24) don’t mention the empty tomb, even though Brown and others mention Acts 2:29–31 as a positive empty tomb argument.

(b) Davis: Davis presents this objection, but then responds to it.

C) No Need for Disciples to Check the Tomb, as Their Beliefs in the Appearances Were Convincing Enough

(1) Allison: Allison believes that this objection is harder to nullify since he considers it possible that the earliest Christians might have been so thoroughly convinced by the appearances that they did feel the need to check the tomb.

(2) Casey: Says the disciples’ belief that Jesus was raised was “not dependent” on the empty tomb account.

(3) Crossley: Claims the earliest believers “could” believe that the tomb was empty because of their cultural beliefs regarding bodily resurrection.

(4) Davis: Davis presents this objection before responding to it.

(5) Ehrman: Ehrman suggests that it was the visions, and nothing else, that caused the resurrection faith. The empty tomb alone would not have inspired resurrection faith and was later developed.

D) Jewish Authorities Might Not Have Checked the Tomb

(1) Allison: It is important to note that Allison is trying to come up with only possible scenarios, not ones that he believes are probable. Regarding the authorities checking the tomb, Allison suggests both possibilities. Then he gives a few reasons why they might not have checked (focus on the parousia; did not care; accepted it without checking; etc.).

(2) Coakley: Coakley makes similar comments but adds no Jewish documents to support this claim.

(3) Davis: Davis references a version of this objection: the Jews had a “taboo-like fear of contact with cadavers” and so would not have gone to the tomb. But he believes this to be “feeble.”

(4) Watson: Says that the Jewish leaders accepting the emptiness of the tomb proves nothing unless we know that they weren’t simply responding to the Christian proclamation.

E) Concerns against the Tomb Being Irrelevant

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison finds an unknown body or tomb location theory to be “less than persuasive.”

(2) Against Claiming Spiritual Resurrection

(a) Allison: Allison also finds the idea of a spiritual resurrection “less than persuasive.” Allison believes that there is “no good evidence” for a resurrection belief that did not involve the body. This is the case for Paul as well as the Jerusalem church.

(b) Brown: Says it is “biblically irresponsible” to say that the Christian faith in the resurrection is “independent” of whether Jesus was still buried in Palestine.

(3) A Body Would Refute Resurrection

(a) General Comments

i. Davis: The presentation of a body would have refuted the claims of the apostles.

(b) Buried Alone

i. Allison: States that if Jesus were buried alone, as the New Testament indicates, the condition of the body would not have mattered.

i. Allison: Similarly, if Jesus’s body was buried with others, there still would have been a way to identify the body (following m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6) since it would have been made identifiable so that it could later be placed in an ossuary. This also applies to criminals.

9. Wrong Tomb

A) Mary

(1) Allison: Like so many other theories, Allison is concerned to note what is possible, not that he thinks these views are remotely probable. Here he briefly considers just the possibility that Mary and the other women went to the wrong tomb. Allison mentions this view in passing and thinks it to be conjecture.

B) Mistaken

(1) Carrier: Carrier considers the possibility that Jesus’s followers were mistaken about what they found, despite Jesus’s body being located elsewhere though forgotten.

10. Body Moved

A) Joseph

(1) Allison: Another possibility noted by Allison is that “maybe” Joseph of Arimathea moved the body. Allison mentions this view in passing and thinks it to be conjecture.

B) Jewish Authorities

(1) Allison: Allison considers whether the Jewish authorities removed the body to prevent veneration (which is ultimately rejected by Allison).

C) Women

(1) Tabor: Tabor, referring to the Gospel of John, considers the curious possibility of the women moving the body.

11. Stone Prevented a Thorough Investigation of the Tomb

A) Allison: Allison briefly discusses the possibility that those visiting the tomb saw the stone sealing the entrance still in place and decided against moving it.

12. Earthquake Swallowed Jesus’s Body

A) Allison: Allison mentions in passing the view that Jesus’s body fell into the earth after an earthquake, but thinks it to be conjecture.

D. Additional Responses

1. General Comments

A) Craig: Addresses Goulder’s numerous parallels from the Old Testament to show how the burial and empty tomb stories were created. He ultimately accuses Goulder of reductio ad absurdum.

B) Davis: Davis answers five major objections to the empty tomb in detail: (1) Not only are harmonizations readily available, but there is “an amazing degree” of agreement on “the basic facts.” (2) As noted above, Davis thinks the argument that the empty tomb accounts are late is often circular. Further, there are several signs that these accounts are early. (3) Are the tomb accounts apologetic legends? Probaby not since (a) they don’t have apologetic characteristics; (b) it would be bad apologetics because of the embarrassment of women being the chief witnesses instead of the disciples; (c) the empty tomb was agreed upon by all sides and was probably checked; (d) the burial story, including the role of Joseph of Arimathea, are all on strong grounds and well accepted by critical scholars; and (e) the story of the Roman guards would be useless unless the tomb was empty. (4) There are other options explaining why Paul doesn’t explicitly mention the empty tomb, such as he implies it anyway, along with Rom 8:11. (5) Davis has no problem with the early Christian faith being based on the appearances and not the empty tomb, as we do not have to choose between them. Later, Davis addresses the additional objection that the disciples retreated to Galilee and that preaching in Jerusalem was downplayed.

C) Evans: Critiques Crossan’s thesis on the empty tomb on three grounds: (1) the empty tomb tradition predates Mark; (2) Mark’s ending could well have included an appearance; and (3) a number of historical considerations justify the empty tomb accounts, such as the preaching in Jerusalem, Jewish concessions, and the women (all included in list above). The empty tomb served to connect Jesus’s death and burial with the resurrection. Evans concludes that “Mark neither invented the Empty Tomb tradition nor was he the first to employ it.”

D) Neirynck: Neirynck makes some rather novel responses to tomb issues like John having only Mary Magdalene go to the tomb. He also examines Jesus telling Mary not to touch him. Additionally, Neirynck responds to Luke having only Peter go to the tomb while John has Peter and John go.

E) O’Collins: Offers an in-depth treatment of the empty tomb, including responses to “tomb theories” He provides six reasons opposing Adela Yarbro Collins’s argument (and perhaps others, like Crossan and Mack, who take a similar view) that Mark invented the empty tomb account.

F) O’Neill: Chiefly addressing Lüdemann, he says that in 1 Cor 15:4 the words “he was buried” would be “superfluous” if they did not apply to Jesus’s body, as the word “resurrection” meant bodily resurrection. Paul’s later comments in 1 Corinthians 15 on the nature of the resurrection body shows he was interested in Jesus’s body. Lüdemann mentions the rise of alternate theories to the empty tomb, but this itself assumes the fact.

2. No Mention of Women in 1 Corinthians 15

A) Response to No Mention of Women in 1 Corinthians 15

(1) See also: “Women Absent” (section 3.E.3) in chapter 3.

(2) Cranfield: Says Paul not mentioning or including the women’s testimony in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed is explained by the fact he did not want to cite witnesses who were likely to be rejected as acceptable. And this applied to the women’s status as unreliable witnesses in both Jewish and gentile culture.

(3) Wright: Wright finds it “impossible” to believe that the women were added to the tradition after Paul’s writings. It is far more likely that Paul intentionally omits the women from his accounts so that he can avoid unnecessary mocking. Wright provides good sources as well as refers to the debate between Origen and Celsus as an example of the problems of the references of women.

B) General Comments

(1) Allison: Allison finds objections to the lack of women in 1 Corinthians 15 to be “less than persuasive.”

C) Any Dead Body Would Refute the Empty Tomb Claims

(1) General Comments

(a) Davis: States that the presentation of a body would have refuted the claims of the apostles.

(2) Buried Alone

(a) Allison: Says if Jesus were buried alone, as the New Testament indicates, the condition of the body would not have mattered.

(3) Buried with Others

(a) Allison: Similarly, Allison claims that if Jesus’s body was buried with others, there still would have been a way to identify the body (following m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6) since it would have been made identifiable so that it could later be placed in an ossuary. This also applies to criminals.

D) Disciples Did Not Check the Tomb Because Their Beliefs Were Convincing Enough

(1) Jesus’s Appearance Alone Would Not Lead to Resurrection Language

(a) Allison: Allison notes that the disciples understood resurrection in terms of bodily rising from the dead. He adds that postmortem visions alone would not account for the use of resurrection language.

(b) Wright: Not necessarily in the same context, Wright points out that the appearances alone would not have led to the accounts we have because it was taken for “granted that people sometimes have strange experiences involving encounters with the dead. . . . [The disciples, like everyone else in the ancient world], had language for this, and it wasn’t resurrection. However many such visions they’d had, they wouldn’t have said Jesus was raised from the dead; they weren’t expecting such a resurrection.”

E) Jewish Authorities Might Not Have Checked Tomb

(1) See also: “Jerusalem Factor” (section 1.B.6) in this chapter.

(2) Craig: Craig finds it “fantastic” to suggest that the tomb was not checked, even by the authorities.

3. Resurrection versus Cognitive Dissonance

A) Disciples Could Have Claimed Soul Ascension or Vindication Instead

(1) Allison: Allison observes that in later accounts we find ascensions of saints, but they are not said to have resurrected. The first Christians were different, however. They said Jesus was resurrected before the general resurrection of the dead, and a good reason for this is because they believed the tomb was empty. Allison also points out that ascensions and vindications of the dead are not the same as resurrections.

B) Resurrection Is Actually Cause for Cognitive Dissonance

(1) Allison: Says Jesus’s resurrection “did not conform to anyone’s expectations,” but rather this belief would force the “disciples to reinterpret their expectations in drastic fashion. Far from being the straightforward product of dissonance, then, Easter faith must have been, if anything, the cause of dissonance.”

E. Jewish Response

1. Cranfield: Cranfield argues that it is “highly significant” that neither the Jews nor Romans were able to discredit the disciples’ claims about the resurrected Jesus, and he stresses that the Jewish authorities would have been especially motivated to do so.

2. Dunn: Notes the Jewish response was inadequate.

3. Maier: Maier discusses the Jewish response to the early Christian claims.

4. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson believes the “best explanation” that could be given by the Jewish authorities was that the disciples stole the body.

F. Conclusions and Importance of the Issue

1. Conclusions

A) Affirmative

(1) Allison: Allison concludes that the “tomb was probably empty.” Though he thinks there are decent arguments on both sides, the argument for the empty tomb has a “slightly stronger possibility.” He notes that many of the arguments against the empty tomb tradition are generally speculative while the arguments in favor are grounded evidentially. He finds the discovery of the empty tomb by the women to be “likely.” Allison also notes that he holds his conclusion tentatively. Craig offers a good response to Allison on his reservations, noting that Allison’s reservations are primarily due to possibilities (a point Allison seems to recognize, as noted above).

(2) Craig: Craig argues like Kremer below and states that “by far, most exegetes hold firmly” to the empty tomb accounts being reliable. Craig adds eighteen more scholars to Kremer’s list while noting that he (Craig) thinks the number of scholars accepting the empty tomb are increasing. Craig points to ten evidences and says more could be added. He adds that alternative explanations “have thoroughly failed” in attempting to account for the historical data.

(3) Davis: Davis concludes that the tomb was empty and that the arguments for it are strong, while those against it are weak. “My own view is that the tomb was empty because God miraculously raised its occupant from the dead.” He also notes that most scholars think the tomb was reported empty shortly after Jesus’s burial.

(4) Doré: Seems to refer to the empty tomb as an objective occurrence.

(5) Drane: “The grave of Jesus was found empty” according to Drane.

(6) Dunn: “I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty.” Dunn concludes that, historically, the evidence points toward the empty tomb. He then adds that the “chief alternatives” are all worse. For these reasons the probability weighs “fairly heavily in favour of the historicity of the empty tomb.”

(7) Fuller: Although he accepts the empty tomb, in his 1979 publication Fuller states, “There is widespread and growing consensus in Germany, Britain and in this country, that the empty tomb is what Bultmann called a ‘late legend.’ This is the view of most recent books. . . . The one refreshing exception in the critical camp is the radical theologian but rather conservative New Testament scholar, John A. T. Robinson.”

(8) Gibson: Gibson isn’t direct, but it looks like he leans toward the tomb being empty: “Various strange and outlandish theories have been put forward to try to explain away the empty tomb, but they are all based on nonsense.” For Gibson, “The reality is that there is no historical explanation for the empty tomb, other than if we adopt a theological one, i.e., the resurrection. I leave it up to the reader to make up his own mind.” It seems the conclusion as to why the tomb is empty gives Gibson pause.

(9) Goergen: “Yet, historiographically, it is still more probable that the grave was empty. The corpse was not there.”

(10) Grant: “The historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb” because the normal application of historical criteria shows that the evidence is strong enough to “necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”

(11) Grayston: Although he accepts the empty tomb, he says Paul assumed the body decomposed. Grayston concludes “that the tomb was empty, that it was not logically necessary for the resurrection, and in the end did not matter.”

(12) Kasper: Says there is “a great deal that is convincing and definite to be said for” the empty tomb “and little to be said against it.” The most that can be concluded on historical grounds is that the empty tomb is probable.

(13) Kremer: Kremer says that by far most contemporary critical scholars accept the empty tomb, naming over two dozen of them.

(14) Lapide: In spite of the above comments about the women witnesses, Lapide disavows the historicity of the empty tomb.

(15) Maier: Maier thinks it is historically “justifiable” to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty Easter morning.

(16) Moltmann: Moltmann argues that the empty tomb is something that can be known historically. “That Jesus’ tomb was empty seems to be an extremely well attested fact.”

(17) Neill and Wright: “What we are left with, as historians, is the very strongly attested fact that the grave of Jesus was empty.”

(18) O’Collins: O’Collins concludes that the empty tomb reports have much positive evidence in their favor, while the arguments against them are not convincing. He believes the empty tomb account, at its core, is “solidly probable.” He also names more than thirty scholars who accept, to varying degrees, the core of the empty tomb reports.

(19) Osborne: Osborne presents a lengthy discussion of claimed discrepancies. Then he concludes that while “a limited amount of tradition-development does exist, however, all of it takes place within pericopes rather than in the empty tomb tradition as a whole.” Accordingly, the “empty tomb is most definitely a historical event.” In spite of unresolved problems, “the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive.”

(20) Perkins: Perkins concludes that the women discovering the empty tomb should be “presumed to be historical.” She also says the fact that it is early (since there is “no clear evidence to controvert it”) also adds to its historicity.

(21) Perry: Perry follows Pannenberg in accepting the empty tomb.

(22) Robinson: John A. T. Robinson states that the empty tomb “looks like the most solid piece of evidence of all . . . it is very hard to dismiss.” Data suggests that while “the empty grave was not invented by the early Church it neither created belief nor was created by it.” Yet the empty tomb has multiple explanations by itself. He says that while Paul doesn’t mention it, this doesn’t mean he didn’t know it; the material in 1 Corinthians 15 “clearly presupposes a relationship between Jesus and the tomb itself.” Further, it makes no sense to say the church invented the story at a later date.

(23) Sheehan: “Jesus’ tomb was probably found empty after his death.”

(24) Stein: “The witness of the empty tomb remains. The unsatisfactory nature of the theories that attempt to explain the empty tomb is clear. No convincing rationalistic explanation exists . . . the gospel explanation remains the most convincing.”

(25) Stuhlmacher: Stuhlmacher argues that archaeology and the “Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem alone are enough to render such a critical view of the reports of the empty tomb untenable.” Such indications make it “impossible to consider the New Testament reports of the empty tomb to be fictive stories of a later period. One must rather come to the conclusion that the empty tomb confronted the early Christian witnesses as an historical phenomenon.”

(26) Torrance: Torrance lists the empty tomb as one of the “empirical correlates in space and time” that is “open to testing.”

(27) Wilson: “I find it equally hard to believe that they did not find the tomb empty.”

(28) Wright: Wright ends with the following “secure historical conclusion: the tomb was empty and various ‘meetings’ took place not only between Jesus and his followers . . . [but also] between Jesus and people who had not been among his followers. I regard this conclusion as coming in the same sort of category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.” He also states that the empty tomb is both “historically secure” and “historically highly probable.” The tomb is part of a “watertight” argument. Elsewhere he calls the empty tomb one of the “fixed historical points.” The empty tomb is as “well established . . . as any historical data could expect to be.” Historically, “we are bound to say: there really was an empty tomb, and there really were sightings of Jesus, the same and yet transformed. History then says: so how do you explain that?”

B) Agnostic

(1) Borg: For Borg, it “simply . . . doesn’t matter” and he is “very comfortable not knowing whether or not the tomb was empty. Indeed, the discovery of Jesus’ skeletal remains would not be a problem.”

(2) Carnley: Carnley argues that both cases for and against the empty tomb are “insufficient,” and “at best the story of the empty tomb can continue to raise the possibility of the resurrection in our minds and offer itself for our puzzlement.”

(3) Lorenzen: In spite of all the many reasons above, Lorenzen leaves the subject open. But after all the dust has cleared, he seems to think it is probable at least that the women discovered the tomb empty. “No scholarly consensus.” Ultimately, the “matter must remain undecided.”

(4) Lowder: “I suggest that the historian qua historian should be agnostic on the matter.” It seems that Lowder believes the “initial” tomb was empty because the body was later relocated. An important point to note is that the relocation hypothesis that Lowder holds is one that seeks to account for the relevant empty tomb data. Note Lowder’s tentative agreement with Craig’s position.

(5) Pesch (via Galvin): According to Galvin, Pesch thought the empty tomb couldn’t be established because we don’t know if disciples even knew of it, and their preaching may have started in Galilee. They could speak of resurrection without reference to the tomb.

(6) Vögtle (via Galvin): Vögtle agrees the empty tomb can’t be established.

C) Negative

(1) Carrier: Carrier argues the empty tomb is a legend. Yet elsewhere in the same book (but in other chapters), he tries to explain why the tomb was empty by suggesting it was either a mistake (relocation of the body?) or empty due to theft. So, does he believe the tomb was empty, or is he looking for any port in the storm to explain it away?

(2) Casey: Casey believes the empty tomb story to be a later, unhistorical development, as Jesus was most likely buried in a common pit.

(3) Crossley: Crossley does not believe there is “serious evidence” for the empty tomb.

(4) Ehrman: “I no longer think that these are relatively certain historical data; on the contrary, I think both views (his burial and his empty tomb) are unlikely.” Note Ehrman’s concluding comments on burial and his apparent fluctuation between affirming the event did not happen and agnosticism about whether we can know it occurred or not (see especially the section on burial). The former is a stronger historical claim about the past than the latter.

(5) Goulder: Goulder employs Jewish Midrash to explain “with some confidence” how Mark wrote, composed, or developed his empty tomb narrative: by drawing bits and pieces from Genesis, Psalms, Daniel, and other scriptural texts. Goulder holds that Mark was not lying but “discovering” truth from his sources.

(6) Henaut: Says too many commentators on the empty tomb suffer from “a massive failure of nerve” in not owning up to the high burden of proof that is necessary to prove a miracle. After surveying a number of tomb studies like those by Grayston, R. Brown, and R. Fuller (and also mentioning a few others), Henaut says that “each has failed to meet the initial burden of proof.”

(7) Kirby: Kirby notes almost thirty scholars who doubt the historicity of the empty tomb. These include Marcus Borg, Günther Bornkamm, Gerald Boldock Bostock, Rudolf Bultmann, Peter Carnley, John Dominic Crossan, Stevan Davies, Maurice Goguel, Michael Goulder, Hans Grass, Charles Guignebert, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Randel Helms, Herman Hendrickx, Roy Hoover, Helmut Koester, Hans Küng, Alfred Loisy, Burton L. Mack, Willi Marxsen, Gerd Lüdemann, Norman Perrin, Robert M. Price, Marianne Sawicki, John Shelby Spong, Howard M. Teeple, and John T. Theodore.

(8) Küng: “The majority of critical biblical exegetes . . . conclude that the stories about the tomb are legendary elaborations of the message of the resurrection.” Although Küng also admits, “Even critical exegetes allow for the possibility that the tomb might have been empty.” Earlier, Küng wrote, “Historical criticism has made the empty tomb a dubious fact,” which is unlikely to “refute the assumption that the stories of the tomb are legendary elaborations of a message of the resurrection.”

(9) Perrin: Perrin thinks the tradition is late and that “scholars are coming increasingly to the conclusion that the empty tomb tradition is an interpretation of the event” rather than an event.

2. Importance

A) General Comments

(1) O’Collins: Makes three points on the significance of the empty tomb: (1) Jesus never saw corruption; (2) it symbolizes new life; and (3) it is connected to redemption. The empty tomb “means the transforming of this material, bodily world with its whole history of sin and suffering. . . . God’s radical sign that redemption is not an escape to a better world, but an extraordinary transformation of this world.”

(2) Polkinghorne: “The emphasis on the prospect of a redemption of cosmic scope is surely reinforced by the message of the empty tomb. Its implication is that the Lord’s risen and glorified body is the transmuted form of his dead body.”

B) Empty Tomb Rules Out Reductive Theories (Including “Spiritual” Resurrection)

(1) Davis: For Davis, the empty tomb (1) “rules out all reductive theories” relating to Jesus’s bodily resurrection, (2) shows continuity with the earthly Jesus, and (3) highlights the Christian understanding of resurrection from spiritual ascension views. It is something that happens to Jesus’s body.

(2) Fuller: On the significance today of the “empty tomb story,” Fuller writes that it “certainly still rules out the spiritistic misunderstanding of the resurrection.”

(3) Pannenberg: Pannenberg argues that “the tomb tradition is significant for the total witness to the Easter event. It creates difficulty for the theory that the risen Lord might have been mere hallucinations. It also resists any superficial spiritualizing of the Easter message.” Citing von Campenhausen, Pannenberg argues that empty tomb accounts cannot be “a late Hellenistic legend,” because it would have looked very different had this been the case, especially regarding the women at the tomb. Alternative accounts must then explain how one could speak of resurrection without it affecting the physical body. The footnote here concludes that although there were different Jewish views of resurrection, “the basic concept was that human existence must be corporeal.”

C) Adds Probability to the Resurrection

(1) Jansen: For Jansen, the most satisfactory conclusion is that the empty tomb was part of the early Easter message and that it “becomes a pointer to the greater reality” of Jesus’s appearances.

(2) Pannenberg: States that because of the empty tomb, the physical and bodily nature of the resurrection becomes more obvious.

D) Same Person Who Was in the Tomb Was Resurrected

(1) Davis: Davis points out that the empty tomb “makes it clear” that the same person who died is the same one who rose, and he then examines the important implications of this fact.

(2) O’Collins: Says one indication of the empty tomb is the “the personal continuity” between the one who died and the one who rose.

E) Empirical Claim

(1) Davis: Says the empty tomb makes the Christian view distinct from mere spiritual understandings. “To put the point emphatically, the Christian resurrection claim is an empirical claim.”

2. JESUS WAS BURIED

A. General Comments

1. Allison: Allison writes that it is “likely enough” that Jesus was buried in a known location by a member of the Sanhedrin.

2. Brown: Brown argues that “Jesus was buried is historically certain” and claims the fact that Jesus’s “burial was done by Joseph from Arimathea is very probable.” Brown also sees “no reason for denying Nicodemus” and cautiously accepts it. He also details the various views of Roman and Jewish burial.

3. Casey: States that, most likely, the story of burial in tomb is false and it “is probable” Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a common criminal’s grave. Casey then offers some caution about the burial location. He does acknowledge that the Romans sometimes allowed the Jews to bury those who were crucified, noting that the Jews would want to bury those who were crucified (Deut 21:22–23) and the story has aspects that are not consistent with the early church or Mark making it up. He also acknowledges that Joseph was historical but not a disciple.

4. Davis: Davis argues that almost all scholars agree that Jesus was buried. He finds the reports of Joseph of Arimathea so “strongly supported and inherently trustworthy” that alternative theories that postulate an unknown tomb are “quite implausible.”

5. Dunn: Says that although some assume that the body would have just been discarded by those in charge, “the tradition is firm that Jesus was given a proper burial (Mark 15.42–47 pars.), and there are good reasons why its testimony should be respected.” Dunn then provides five reasons in support of Jesus’s burial. Dunn finds it likely that Jesus was given a proper, but possibly hasty, burial.

6. Ehrman: “I no longer think that these are relatively certain historical data; on the contrary, I think both views (his burial and his empty tomb) are unlikely.” Interestingly, Ehrman seems indecisive, as he also says, “As a historian, I do not think we can say definitively that this tradition is false. . . . [But there are] some very compelling reasons to doubt it.” This is an important point in that one argues that the burial did not happen, while the other states that we don’t know whether he was buried. Saying Jesus was not buried takes on a larger burden of proof than just saying we do not know.

7. Elliott: “The perfunctory nature of the burial, as described in the first three gospels, is probably historic: the early church would not have invented this story.”

8. Evans: Evans concludes that Jesus’s body being buried in a known tomb by normal Jewish customs is “highly probable” and that it is “also probable” that the tomb was discovered empty by the women.

9. Gibson: “In my opinion, the intention to bury Jesus in a rock-cut tomb existed all along and had Joseph of Arimathea’s burial chamber not been available, Jesus would have been buried in another cave.”

10. Kremer: Kremer specifically discusses the different burial accounts in the Gospels.

11. Küng: “The Crucified was not left to be covered over with earth as executed Jews usually were. Roman custom permitted the body to be handed over to friends or relatives.”

12. Ladd: Claims Jesus’s burial is one of the certain facts that must be explained.

13. Lowder: “While I tentatively agree with Craig that Jospeh of Arimathea placed Jesus’ body in a tomb that later became empty,” he disagrees that Jesus resurrected. “Therefore, the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability.” Lowder believes that Jesus’s body was later relocated.

14. Maier: Maier concludes “according to the canons of historical research” that Jesus’s burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb is historical.

15. Meier: Jesus “was quickly buried” by “Joseph of Arimathea and the assistance of some of his women followers.”

16. Peterson: Noting that the women had to wait for the Sabbath to pass to finalize the burial process, Eugene Peterson writes, “The one thing we know they did not do is what was most pressing and what they were most motivated to do—embalm Jesus’ body.”

17. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson states that “few historians . . . would question the basic historicity of the arrest, crucifixion and burial of Jesus.” He adds that “the burial of Jesus is one of the best attested facts about him, being recorded in 1 Corinthians, all four Gospels, and Acts.”

18. Salvoni: Salvoni notes that Jesus’s body disappeared from the burial clothes while in the tomb (similar to the old cocoon view).

19. Segal: Although Segal notes some reasons why the burial may be unlikely (those executed would not have been buried, and Joseph’s involvement is questionable), he notes that it is a stable part of the Gospel tradition. Ultimately, he does not give his own view as to what he believes, but the indication seems to be that he leans toward it (even though he questions the empty tomb and is similarly unclear as to where he stands on that issue too).

20. Sheehan: Sheehan writes that “there may well be historical truth to the gospel stories” of Jesus’s burial.

21. Stuhlmacher: Stuhlmacher notes that we have strong archaeological and textual details concerning the burial performed by Joseph and the women. Stuhlmacher discusses the “common core” of the tradition.

22. Tabor: “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead and that his temporary place of burial was discovered to be empty shortly thereafter.” He considers Jesus’s burial an “undisputable” fact. Tabor considers the various sites claiming to be the location where Jesus was buried.

B. Arguments for Jesus’s Burial

1. Criteria

A) Early Evidence

(1) Paul

(a) Craig: Craig argues for 1 Cor 15:3–5 as being very early (AD 30–36). Craig also notes that there was not sufficient time for legend to develop and that Paul undoubtedly knew the stories behind the traditions he delivered.

(b) Ehrman: Ehrman is not arguing for the burial, but here he notes that there is early attestation to a burial. He thinks the 1 Corinthians 15 creed should have included burial by Joseph.

(d) Wright: States the early tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–4 “includes the burial of Jesus.”

(2) Pre-Markan

(a) Brown: Brown outlines a “detectable pre-Gospel account of the burial of Jesus by Joseph.” He adds that this account could plausibly be historical.

(b) Craig: Points out the agreement regarding Mark’s source material containing a burial account.

B) Multiple Attestation

(1) Allison: While he claims Paul is an important source, Allison also cites Matt 27:62–66; 28:11–15; Mark 14:8; 16:1–8; Luke 24:13–35; and John 20:1–10, 11–18 as additional accounts that presuppose that Jesus was buried.

(2) Bird: Bird notes that there are multiple accounts (Mark, Paul, John) and that Paul’s is Palestinian and early.

(3) Craig: After citing Borg on the importance of multiple attestation, Craig points out that Jesus’s burial is attested by the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, Mark’s passion tradition, and the Acts sermon summaries as well as by Matthew, Luke, and John.

C) Embarrassing Testimony

(1) The Women Witness Jesus’s Burial

(a) Bauckham: Bauckham recognizes the value the women play as eyewitnesses at Jesus’s crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb. Indeed, they are, according to Bauckham, “appealing to their role as eyewitnesses.” Not only were these women likely well-known, but they were “authoritative sources of these traditions as long as they lived.” Indeed, Bauckham does not think they were anonymous, and the fact that the Gospels include specific names is not, he claims, fully appreciated. The subtle divergences in the accounts demonstrate the scrupulous care with which the Gospels present the women as witnesses.

(b) Craig: Craig notes that the names of the women at the burial would have been known. It is likely that because they were present at the crucifixion, they would have been present at the burial as well.

(c) Dunn: The women and their activity at the burial is likely “due to early oral memory than to creative story telling.” Dunn does not explicitly say that this is embarrassing testimony.

(2) Mary Magdalene Especially Embarrassing

(a) Peterson: Eugene Peterson writes, “Mary Magdalene—perhaps the most marginal of any of the early followers of Jesus—is the chief resurrection witness and the only person to appear in all four accounts. . . . The ‘seven devils’ could refer to an utterly dissolute moral life or to an extreme form of mental illness. Either or both of these pre-Jesus conditions, coupled with being a woman in a patriarchal society, put her at the very far edge of marginality.”

D) Form of Enemy Attestation

(1) Allison: Allison states that it goes against the typical fashion of the passion traditions to present a member of the Sanhedrin as being kind to Jesus. Yet this is exactly what they do, and probably why the Gospel writers emphasized Joseph’s uniqueness. Referencing Matt 27:57, Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50–51, and John 19:38, Allison thinks it is “likely” that Jesus was buried by one of the Sanhedrin in a known location.

(2) Bird: Bird argues that Joseph’s historicity is “very probable” and it is “unlikely” that the New Testament writers would have invented a member of the Sanhedrin acting kindly when they typically portrayed them in a very negative light.

(3) Dunn: Dunn finds Joseph to be a “very plausible historical character” and notes that “the creation ex nihilo of a sympathizer from among their number would be surprising.”

2. Burial Account as Simple and Lacking Apologetical or Theological Development

A) Allison: Allison makes this point in various ways.

B) Craig: Craig notes that the account of Joseph is not widely flourished with theological or apologetic motifs, a point that Bultmann also (surprisingly) observed and to which most scholars agree. Craig responds to some possible objections as raised by Crossan (Cross Gospel plus Deuteronomy 21 and Joshua 10) and raises several questions of Crossan’s position.

3. The Verb Thaptō (1 Cor 15:4) Means Burial, Not Dumping

A) Allison: Allison stresses that the verb for “buried” (etaphē) in the early creed found in 1 Cor 15:4 is significant for our understanding of what happened to Jesus. “The verb θάπτω [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 notes that in other texts, like Rom 6:4 and Col 2:12, Paul appears to assume that Jesus was buried.

4. Burial Assumes a Tomb

A) Evans: Similar to Allison’s comment above, Evans stresses that to be buried meant that one was placed in a tomb. To say buried “in a tomb” would be unnecessarily redundant. This is all the more the case in a creed. Evans then continues to illustrate this point by referencing Rom 6:4 and Jewish thoughts on burial.

5. Joseph of Arimathea Is Historical

A) General Comments

(1) Allison: Allison wonders why Joseph was even presented as having been involved in Jesus’s burial. He states that a “levelheaded explanation” is because people remembered him doing just that. As noted above, he thinks it is “likely” that members of the Sanhedrin buried Jesus in a known location.

(2) Casey: Casey thinks Joseph of Arimathea was not a follower of Jesus because Joseph worked with the chief priests as a member of the Sanhedrin. It would also clarify why the women do not appear to help Joseph. Matthew, Luke, and John add embellishments regarding Joseph of Arimathea’s relationships to the early Christians, while Mark’s modest description is accurate.

(3) Craig: Craig notes that “most skeptical scholars agree” that for Christians to invent a friendly member of the Sanhedrin is unlikely. Craig notes Crossan’s disagreement, but says it is merely asserted with no evidence.

(4) Davis: Davis points out that critics have not demonstrated that apologetical creations have been inserted into these accounts. Davis finds the accounts “strongly supported and inherently trustworthy,” while alternative accounts are “quite implausible.”

(5) Dunn: As noted above, Dunn finds Joseph to be a “very plausible historical character” and notes that “the creation ex nihilo of a sympathizer from among their number would be surprising.”

(6) Lowder: Lowder “tentatively” agrees with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus’s body in a tomb that later became empty. Lowder believes that Jesus’s body was later relocated, which was why the tomb was empty. Lowder also thinks Joseph is “unlikely to be an invention” and that there is “evidence favoring burial over nonburial, but not honorable burial over relocation.”

(7) O’Collins and Kendall: In their discussion of the historicity of Joseph, O’Collins and Kendall conclude the Gospel accounts remain unrefuted by Crossan’s common grave theory.

(8) Pannenberg: Says the burial by Joseph can “hardly” be a later invention.

B) Incidental Details

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison argues like Craig, noting that the incidental details offer obscure references to Joseph of Arimathea that have no clear apologetic or theological foundations.

(b) Craig: Craig finds incidental details that provide confirmation for the historicity of Joseph.

(c) Davis: Davis points out that Joseph played no significant role in later Christianity but is specifically mentioned regarding the burial.

(2) Name

(a) Allison: Allison notes that Mark does not appear to make it a habit of making up names and that Joseph of Arimathea is the only name attached to the burial of Jesus. Thus, just like the other names in Mark (John the Baptist, Herod, etc.), one might also consider Joseph on the same level of historicity.

(3) Joseph of Arimathea as a Rich Sympathizer of Jesus

(a) Craig: Several unintentional details reflect the historicity of Joseph according to Craig. These details include that Joseph was from Arimathea, rich, and a sympathizer of Jesus. He also notes the use of Joseph’s own tomb as an incidental detail.

(b) Dunn: Dunn notes the difficulty of Arimathea being an invention given that it is not a symbolic location.

C) Multiple Attestation

(1) Dunn: Dunn notes the multiple attestation of Joseph’s burial of Jesus in all four canonical Gospels as well as Gos. Pet.

6. Joseph’s Use of His Own Tomb to Bury Jesus Is Historical

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig notes the concerns of defilement one might have of placing the body of a criminal in a tomb. The fact that a new tomb was used is significant for Craig.

(2) Lowder: “Therefore, the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability.” Lowder states that “this point just might be true. . . . Joseph may well have been forced to store the body in his own tomb as a matter of practical necessity.” As noted, Lowder also thinks that the body was later moved.

B) Archaeology

(1) Craig: Craig points out that the description of the tomb is consistent with archaeology.

7. Jews Were Permitted to Bury Crucified Criminals

A) General Comments

(1) Bird: Bird briefly notes Philo’s comments (Flacc. 83–85) and that other Jews would be interested in burying their dead.

(2) Casey: Casey acknowledges that the Romans did sometimes allow the Jews to bury those who were crucified.

(3) Gibson: Says Jewish custom required Jesus’s burial in these situations, and the Romans would have allowed it.

B) Jewish Burial Laws

(1) General Comments

(a) Carrier: Carrier states, “There is no doubt that taking the bodies of the condemned down by sunset was a fundamental commandment that was sacrilege to disobey.” Thus, Jesus would have needed to be removed from the cross before sunset.

(b) Casey: Casey acknowledges the Jews would want to bury those who were crucified, following Deut 21:22–23.

(c) Dunn: Dunn refers to the requirements of the Jewish law (Deut 21:22–23) that mandated that those who are executed not remain hanging overnight but be removed from the cross that day. He adds that Josephus (J.W. 4.5.2) is added confirmation that this still occurred. Thus, though the Romans typically wanted the criminals to remain on the cross, they would likely have allowed the Jewish practice, especially during Passover.

(d) Tabor: “The Romans often left the corpses to rot on crosses but the Jews had a law [citing Deut 21:22–23] requiring those ‘hung on a tree’ to be buried the same day as they were crucified.”

(2) Multiple Attestation

(a) Allison: Allison argues that there are multiple reports regarding this practice and that it could include crucifixion victims. Relevant sources include Deut 21:22–25; Gos. Pet.; 11Q19 64:10–13; Tob. 1:17–18; Spec. 3.151–152; Flacc. 83–85; J.W. 4.5.2 (cf. J.W. 3.7.33 and Ant. 4.8.6); m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6; m. Semahot 2:11; and others. In addition to these sources, there is also the relevant archaeological evidence that confirms the practice.

C) Requests Could Be Made to the Romans for a Crucified Body

(1) General Comments

(a) Carrier: Carrier notes that Joseph’s request for the body was likely normal since it was a requirement of the Jewish law. Carrier thus sees nothing special about the request as it is presented in Mark. Since there were no family members to do it, the local leaders had to take on the role (to preserve the land from being defiled according to Jewish law). Ultimately, there was nothing unusual that occurred.

(b) Lowder: If the Romans really believed Jesus was leading a revolt, they would have crucified the disciples too. During revolts, the Romans would have been more likely to deny burial. This was not such a time.

(2) Multiple Attestation

(a) Lowder: He also notes that the Romans were “not absolute” in their practice of leaving crucifixion victims on the cross. There were exceptions and there was precedent. Similar to Allison in the section above, Lowder refers to multiple sources, such as Flacc. 83; Life 420–21; Antomius 2; Cicero, Phil. 2.717–18.

(3) Approaching Holy Days

(a) Dunn: As noted above, Dunn points out that though the Romans typically wanted criminals to remain on the cross, they would likely have allowed the Jewish practice, especially during Passover.

(b) Lowder: Lowder notes that the Romans would allow for burial when holy days were near (Roman or otherwise). He refers to Philo, Flacc. 83.

D) Romans Permitted Jewish Burial Law to Be Followed

(1) Carrier: “It is probable that Jewish law was applicable to the burial of Jesus even under Roman Government.” Prior to the Jewish revolt, Carrier states, the Jews were allowed to practice their law to “quite a remarkable degree.”

E) Refusal Could Have Created Unrest for Pilate

(1) Allison: Similar to the comments above regarding approaching holy days, Allison with others notes that there was no reason for Pilate to offend the Jews by allowing the body to remain exposed (especially during Passover).

F) Skeletal Remains of Jehohanan at Giv’at Ha-Mivtar Confirm the Burial of Crucified Jews

(1) General Comments

(a) Allison: Allison offers some comments on the discovery of this crucifixion victim who had been buried.

(b) Bird: Bird notes the relevance of this archaeological finding.

(d) Evans: Evans notes some of the issues involved with this archaeological find and highlights its historical significance.

(e) Gibson: Gibson helpfully discusses this discovery.

(f) Tabor: Tabor points out that the victim’s legs appear to have been broken, which is consistent with expediting the death of the victim.

(2) Why Only One Buried Victim Has Been Discovered If This Was Common Practice

(a) Allison: Allison considers a few reasons why nails may not be a common discovery, including the fact that they would be used for amulets. Jehohanan is an exception because the nail was stuck in his heel and could not be removed. See also Pliny the Elder, who refers to the taking of nails in Nat. 28.46.

G) No Evidence of Trench Graves

(1) Gibson: Gibson argues adamantly that there is no evidence for trenches in the immediate area, but they could be found on the fringes of the city. He notes that indeed one was found at Beit Safafa a “couple kilometers south of Jerusalem,” but that it has a unique circumstance. Gibson avoids the argument from silence by also noting that “land was at a premium” and to use arable soil for trench graves “would have been deemed wasteful.”

8. Public Crucifixion Meant a Public Burial (Location Would Be Known)

A) Allison: Due to the nature of who Jesus was and those around Jerusalem at that time, Allison says, “My guess is that most everyone knew whether they cared or not” where he was buried.

B) Pannenberg: Says the notion that Jesus’s burial place would be unknown is a “pure invention of modern scholarship without the slightest evidence.” He adds that the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead would have likely created additional interest.

9. Jesus Was Buried Late on the Day of Preparation

A) Craig: Craig notes that the time of death (on Friday) required that Jesus be buried before nighttime according to Jewish law. Accordingly, Joseph was likely able to accomplish this task.

10. Eschatological Relevance

A) Hurtado: States the eschatological significance is only possible if Jesus was really buried and really resurrected (not an apparition). The eschatological significance of the early church demands explanation. Something happened to the body. It could be added here that the practice of using ossuaries may also be indirectly relevant.

11. Burial Tombs Needed to Be Known to Confirm Death

A) Craig: The women were probably going to the tomb precisely because of what the Mishnah states about burial practices (rubbing or pouring aromatic oils and perfumes on the body), and this makes additional sense since the tombs were often opened for visitors to view or check on the bodies.

B) Gibson: Gibson notes that Jewish burial practices including making sure that the person being buried was actually dead. Jews would place the dead victim in the tomb with a small napkin over the mouth so that if the victim breathed, the napkin would move. The tomb’s location also needed to be known in order to check on the victim.

12. Graves of Jewish Holy Men Were Carefully Preserved

A) Craig: Craig refers to the fact that there was great concern for the graves of Jewish holy men and martyrs, which would be consistent with the disciples and the women being interested in where Jesus was buried.

13. No Other Burial Accounts

A) General Comments

(1) Craig: Craig notes that if the account of Joseph is a legend, it is odd that there are no other competing accounts of Jesus’s burial. Craig also notes that Crossan’s attempts to find a second burial account ultimately leave out the burial and are late and derivative accounts.

(2) Wright: There is no indication of a secondary burial.

B) Concerns against No Other Burial Accounts

(1) Lowder: Lowder contends that the absence of competing accounts does not make the Markan tradition probable.

C. Doubts Regarding Jesus’s Burial

1. Unreliable Accounts of Jesus’s Burial

A) Hoover: Hoover questions the Gospels’ burial stories because of their variation and lateness.

2. Jesus Was Given a Dishonorable and Common Burial or Was Left on the Cross

A) General Comments

(1) Carrier: Due to the situation in which Jesus was crucified as a criminal, Carrier states that Jesus would have been set apart for burial in a special location. These would be specially reserved burial locations for criminals.

(2) Casey: As noted above, Casey thinks it likely that Jesus was buried in a criminal’s tomb somewhere near the Holy Sepulcher.

(3) Crossan: Crossan famously argued that Jesus’s dead body was either left on the cross or buried by Romans in a shallow grave. Interestingly, Crossan in an earlier publication noted that it “is most probable that Jesus was buried by the same inimical forces that had crucified him.”

(4) Goulder: Goulder acknowledges the possibility of a common grave and also questions Joseph of Arimathea and the Gospels’ burial story.

(5) Lowder: Lowder rejects the hypothesis that Jesus was not buried but rather believes that Jesus received a dishonorable burial. It’s important to note on Lowder’s view that simply being executed, and apparently crucified (hung on a tree), was not enough in itself to receive a dishonorable burial.

(6) Parsons: Parsons argues that Jesus did not receive an honorable burial as depicted by the Gospels. Rather, at best, the Gospels report a dishonorable burial despite their efforts to make Jesus’s burial as respectable as possible. For Parsons, the Gospels give many indicators that Jesus received a dishonorable burial, which was considered embarrassing for the early church. It is not clear why a dishonorable burial was more shameful than the crucifixion. The early Christians often included embarrassing details in their reports. Additionally, Parsons does not appear to make any significant conclusion on whether or not Jesus was buried honorably or dishonorably. Rather, he says the early Christians were ashamed at the “fate of Jesus’ corpse.” Parsons, however, does note that multiple other authors in the edited book “hold that Jesus was given an honorable burial in an identifiable tomb.”

(7) Sheehan: Sheehan says that Jesus may have been buried in a common grave.

B) Jewish Laws for Dishonorable Burial

(1) General Comments

(a) Casey: Notes that Acts 13:28–29 fits well with the Mishnah (m. Sanhedrin 6:11), which says the Jews had special graves just for this reason. He does, however, note that this document is from a period later than Jesus. Nevertheless, Casey notes that the Mishnah contains older material. For Casey, one can reasonably infer that Joseph probably buried Jesus in a grave like one of those. Casey makes some final additional comments to this end by referring to Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; 5.1.14).

(2) No Burial Cloth Needed

(a) Casey: Casey notes the challenges of obtaining a burial cloth during this time of the year (Passover). Casey then notes that the Gospels try to make this difficulty more decent.

(3) Acts 13:27–29

(a) Casey: Casey argues that Acts 13:27–29 is consistent with Jesus being dishonorably buried by the Jewish rulers (i.e., the Sanhedrin).

(b) Kirby: Notes this text is consistent with the enemies of Jesus burying him.

C) Women Anointing the Body

(1) Parsons: For Parsons, the women returning to anoint the body of Jesus is evidence of a dishonorable burial.

D) Relocation Hypothesis

(1) Carrier: Carrier presents a unique scenario, though somewhat similar to Lowder’s. The body was stored before being attended to (reburied or relocated) properly.

(2) Lowder: Lowder’s relocation hypothesis suggests that Jesus’s body was only stored in Joseph’s tomb but was later moved to a second tomb (one for criminals), where Jesus was then dishonorably buried. Lowder responds to the objection that Joseph would have acted as a check against the disciples’ claim by arguing that the disciples did not preach the resurrection until several weeks later and, thus, Joseph would have been unable to show the body in the second burial site because it would have been decomposed, making the body impossible to identify and easy for the disciples to dismiss. Lowder notes that the “re-location hypothesis explains the empty tomb itself.” This is the case since it only explains why the tomb was empty. Lowder compares the relocation theory with Craig’s resurrection theory strictly in terms of the best explanation regarding the empty tomb (which both theories take into account).

(3) Parsons: Parsons considers this as a possibility.

E) Concerns against Dishonorable Burial

(1) Casey: As noted above, Casey notes that the location of criminal graves is not known.

3. The Romans and Pilate Would Not Want a Proper Burial

A) General Comments

(1) Ehrman: Ehrman argues that it was the common practice of the Romans to not want a proper burial for those who were crucified. Moreover, Pilate was unlikely to be charitable, given his history.

(2) Kirby: Kirby believes it was in Pilate’s best interest to prevent any further honors from being given to Jesus.

B) Crucified Bodies Normally Left Exposed

(1) Ehrman: As noted above by Ehrman, this was the common practice, as it was also considered a deterrent against crime.

C) Common Graves Were More Common

(1) Ehrman: The rule, according to Ehrman, was that criminals were “tossed into common graves.” Though as he notes, crucifixion victims were usually left on the cross to be food for animals, part of the subsequent punishment was being put in a common grave where the bodies became indistinguishable.

4. Other Accounts of Jesus’s Burial

A) Kirby: Kirby refers to other accounts of Jesus’s burial, such as the Secret Book of James, the Gospel of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. Kirby considers that even if these other accounts could be understood as consistent with the Gospels, it “does not negate the possibility, indeed likelihood” that they derive from at least one different tradition. Kirby argues that these traditions are all earlier than Mark. Part of the reason appears to be the apparent need for Christians to make Jesus’s burial more respectable. Kirby argues that in the Secret Book of James there is a tradition that Jesus was given a dishonorable burial in a shallow grave and was not buried by Joseph. He thinks this source predates Mark.

5. Joseph of Arimathea Is Not Historical

A) Casey: Casey thinks Joseph is historical but is skeptical that he was actually a disciple.

B) Kirby: Kirby finds it challenging to believe that Joseph was a pious Jew or a secret disciple of Jesus (Carrier argues otherwise in the same work). Kirby figures Joseph couldn’t be bothered to bury Jesus. However, he does think that the “only” reason someone like a pious Jew would be concerned with burial was a belief that even the crucified deserved a proper burial, but this would also, according to Kirby, mean that Joseph disagreed with the charges against Jesus. Kirby cites Roy Hoover that the location of Arimathea has not been identified. Kirby also cites his personal correspondence with Carrier and concludes that Arimathea is a play on words that can be understood as “best disciple town.”

6. Acts 13:27–29

A) Casey: Casey argues that Acts 13:27–29 is consistent with Jesus being given a dishonorable burial by the Jewish rulers (i.e., the Sanhedrin).

B) Ehrman: Ehrman briefly makes mention of this text. He states that Paul doesn’t mention Joseph of Arimathea, and Acts 13:27–29 says “they” (i.e., the Jewish people and rulers) buried Jesus.

C) Kirby: Finds this text consistent with the claim that Jesus’s opponents buried him.

D) Lüdemann: Lüdemann thinks there is a discrepancy or conflicting tradition between the Gospel accounts of the burial and Acts 13:27–29, the latter of which states that the Jews buried Jesus.

7. Jesus Was Cremated

A) Derrett: Derrett suggests that Jesus’s body was cremated.

B) Drange: Drange notes the possibility of cremation.

8. No Mention of Joseph of Arimathea by Paul

A) Ehrman: Ehrman points out that Joseph is not mentioned by Paul and his name does not appear in the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

9. Mark’s Burial Narrative Makes Little Historical Sense

A) Ehrman: Ehrman’s argument regarding Mark’s narrative can be summarized in three points: (1) As a member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph would have agreed to Jesus’s death. (2) Paul does not mention Joseph, while Acts 13 refers to a plural “they” who buried Jesus. (3) Joseph looks more pious through legendary development.

D. Responses to Objections and Doubts Concerning Jesus’s Burial

1. Against Jesus Being Buried in a Common Pit or Left Exposed

A) General Comments

(1) Lowder: As noted above, Lowder rejects the nonburial hypothesis and believes that Jesus received a dishonorable burial. The evidence is strong enough to overcome the claim that the body was left on the cross. Moreover, due to the upcoming Passover, the Romans were likely to have been respectful of Jewish burial practices. Accordingly, there is a “high probability” that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea.

B) Fails to Explain the Claim That Jesus Was “Resurrected”

(1) Wright: Wright briefly addresses this view, noting that if this were the case, then the disciples would not have claimed Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Wright also notes the importance of Paul making this claim.

C) The Greek Verb Thaptō (1 Cor 15:4) Means Burial, Not Dumping

(1) Allison: As noted above, the language used is not dumping language but that for burial.

D) Other Burial Accounts

(1) Allison: Allison regards the Apocryphon of James (i.e., the Secret Book of James) as a “dubious exception” and argues that we should not make much use of this work because (1) the reading of the text is uncertain; (2) it is usually dated to the third century; (3) the text presupposes James’s martyrdom and canonical Gospel information; and (4) the interpretation itself is unclear.

E) Small Event

(1) Lowder: As indicated above, Lowder noted that Jesus was not crucified with his disciples.

F) Response to Objections That Tradition Transferred Jesus from a Pit to a Grave to Spare Dishonor

(1) Allison: Allison rightly argues that this theory would have us believe that Christians managed to overcome the dishonor of Jesus being crucified but were unable to overcome a dishonorable burial (as if that were somehow worse). Allison adds that if the early Christians changed Jesus being put into a common burial pit, then the Christians “must” have changed this tradition very early since it is located in 1 Cor 15:4.

2. Against Prophecy Historicized

A) Allison: Allison notes that Isa 53:9 fails as a prophecy made historical because it would also have kept the body in the tomb.

3. Against the Gospel of Peter Burial Account

A) Akenson: Akenson is critical of the Gospel of Peter, the Cross Gospel, and the Signs Gospel. He ultimately concludes the New Testament writings are the best texts to use when studying Jesus.

B) Allison: Allison makes various comments as to why these considerations are “not compelling.”

4. Against Acts 13:29 Making the Book of Mark’s Burial a Secondary Development

A) Luke Does Not Find Tension

(1) Allison: Allison points out that Luke apparently does not find a tension in referring to Joseph of Arimathea in his Gospel and using the term “they” in Acts 13:29, referring to the Jewish authorities who buried Jesus.

B) Plurality in Acts Matches Plurality in Mark

(1) Allison: Allison points out that Mark 16:6 implies Joseph “did not act alone.” This is consistent with Luke’s report.

5. Against the Use of a Rectangular Stone Entrance Covering

A) Gibson: Gibson, an archaeologist, notes that “from my own (back-breaking) experience in archaeological excavations with the opening of stone doors of tombs, it is clear to me that even a rectangular or square stone had to be ‘rolled’ in and out of position when a tomb was being closed or opened.”

E. Talpiot Tomb

1. Tabor: Tabor notes the impossibility of proving the Talpiot Tomb was related to Jesus. Tabor also notes that experts did not find the names mentioned in the tomb as “noteworthy,” since they were “exceedingly common” at that time. Tabor goes on to cite the official report on the tomb, which believed the probability that it contained the remains of Jesus’s actual family was close to zero. Tabor similarly notes the limitations of using DNA.

3. JESUS’S DEATH LED THE DISCIPLES TO DESPAIR

A. See also: “The Disciples Did Not Expect the Resurrection (or Crucifixion)” in chapter 3 (section 4.C).

B. Allison: Says that from multiple directions the disciples had a “moral collapse” at Jesus’s death and fled. Then when the disciples heard from the women about the empty tomb and a “vision of angels,” the “women met with disbelief on the disciples’ part.”

C. Brown: States the disciples’ doubt is a recurring theme in the Gospels, but it “may” contain an “apologetic dimension.” He seems to be saying that the disciples at first didn’t believe that Jesus was risen.

D. Cranfield: “There is no reason to question the historicity of [the disciples’] frightened and dejected condition” at Jesus’s death because it is not something the early church would have likely invented and, moreover, is something that could reasonably be expected given the circumstances. Nobody “had the slightest expectation of their Master’s being raised from the dead before the general eschatological resurrection.”

E. Dawe: Dawe points out that the disciples experienced “fear and despair” as they fled.

F. Doré: “Accablement total. . . . Accables par la mort de Jesus” (Total despondency. . . . Overwhelmed by the death of Jesus).

G. Drane: Says that the disciples were “thoroughly disheartened” and “by all the rules of historical probability [were] depressed and disillusioned by their master’s crucifixion.”

H. Elliott: Notes the disciples were not expecting a resurrection before the general resurrection. Additionally, the “despair of the disciples at the crucifixion is likely to be historical . . . it was an embarrassment to record an episode in which the disciples of Jesus are depicted as deserting their master at his arrest.” The disciples were frightened because of Jesus’s crucifixion. Elliott adds that one of the main themes is doubt, especially because the resurrection was unexpected.

I. Fuller: States the disciples “fled and scattered to their own homes” after Jesus was arrested. Further, it is quite a “natural” response for the disciples to doubt, and this doubt was not alleviated until they saw the risen Jesus. In Luke’s account, doubt does not provide an apologetic component. The same is true in Matt 28:17.

J. Funk: “Scholars are confident that the disciples abandoned Jesus and fled at his arrest.” After his death, Jesus’s early followers faced “disappointment” as they were “frightened” and “fled.” This includes Peter.

K. Goergen: Says the disciples did not expect to see Jesus raised. Goergen points out that it was not stories about the tomb that changed them, but only after they saw Jesus (noting that the male disciples “did not believe” the women’s reports).

L. Grant: Grant argues that without the appearances of Jesus, the disciples would have done “just as other Messianic sects [and] . . . faded away when their leaders had vanished.”

M. Grayston: Says Jesus’s followers “were unprepared or at a loss.”

N. Hagner: Even after the resurrection appearances, Hagner states that the Synoptic Gospels denote the disciples’ “terror, amazement, and fear . . . great distress and doubt . . . confusion.”

O. Harvey: Speaking of Jesus’s followers, Harvey believes they were “clearly . . . demoralized and frightened.”

P. Hengel: Says the disciples were “utterly overwhelmed and disoriented” before their experiences of the risen Jesus.

Q. Jackson: According to the Gospels, Jesus’s disciples were “numbed by the shock of the crucifixion.” Jackson concludes that the “crucifixion, therefore, must have been acutely psychologically inconsistent with the disciples’ expectations.” They expected Jesus to conquer, but he was crucified instead. Jackson adds that it can be assumed that the disciples were “badly shaken.”

R. Kasper: Says Jesus’s death ended the disciples’ “hopes” as they were “disappointed . . . resigned . . . discredited.” These and other similar emotions are reported in the Gospels and Acts.

S. Kee: Alistair Kee says it must have been embarrassing that “while James and John hid in fear and trembling, their mother followed Jesus to Golgotha and stood by him to the end.” Jesus’s followers cowered behind locked doors in fear, “and all experienced disillusionment and despair. . . . Faith and hope died with Jesus on the cross.”

T. Kent: States the disciples’ hallucinations came from their grief. They struggled over a period of fifty days and then recovered. Ultimately, they had “profound grief . . . and experienced uncertainty, fear, guilt, anxiety, and denial.”

U. Koester: Koester notes that the earliest believers experienced various emotions that would be expected with the loss of a loved one.

V. Küng: Notes several references to Jesus’s disciples giving up the cause and abandoning him after his death.

W. Ladd: Says the disciples did not believe, had “lost hope,” and “something had to happen to create their faith. It was not faith which created the experiences of the appearances, but the appearances which created belief in the resurrection.” For Ladd, the disciples were entirely “unprepared” for Jesus to be crucified.

X. Lapide: Lapide stresses that nobody was expecting Jesus’s resurrection. He also observes that the disciples were “scared,” “frightened,” and in “despair.” Finally, Lapide notes “the fact that the solid hillbillies from Galilee who, for the very real reason of the crucifixion of their master, were saddened to death.”

Y. Lieu: Notes that the women gathered “the scattered and disillusioned disciples.”

Z. Lindars: Says Jesus’s death was a “shattering blow” for the disciples, but they sought to explain “the tragedy” in terms of exaltation. Elsewhere, Lindars says the disciples abandoned Jesus after his arrest.

AA. Lorenzen: Says New Testament data “strongly favors” the disciples fleeing after Jesus’s arrest, as the report would have been “an embarrassment to the early church.” There was an early need for the church to explain the problem with their leaders that, beyond their disappointment, the disciples were not even present at the cross, burial, or tomb. This also includes the disciples’ despair and their returning home to Galilee. Their “psychological makeup” is also a factor.

AB. Marxsen: States that Jesus’s supporters “were disturbed,” and Marxsen considers that the disciples may have “even disbanded,” but at the very least they “were perplexed and confused.”

AC. Moltmann: Says the disciples fled to Galilee, and they did so “out of disappointment and fear, in order to save their own lives.” Moltmann adds that “their shameful flight is interpreted with the words of Zech. 13.7: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered’ (Mark 14.27). . . . Jesus’ disciples did return home, giving up their discipleship.”

AD. Muddiman: Mentions that contemporary theories need to account for the disciples’ despair.

AE. O’Collins: Says for the disciples to be in a state of “shock and spiritual disillusionment” is what should be expected, even if we did not have the testimony of the New Testament. The crucifixion created a “profound theological crisis” and “shattered their faith.” “Only by ignoring this evidence” can we postulate that the disciples kept their faith intact and generated resurrection faith. Mark tells us that, even after Jesus’s prediction of his death and resurrection, the disciples still did not expect it.

AF. Osborne: Says the doubt motif in the Gospels surfaces frequently.

AG. Pagels: States Jesus’s death caused the disciples to be “scattered, shaken with grief and terrified for their own lives.” As a result, many of them thought their opponents had won and “the movement had died with their master.”

AH. Pannenberg: Pannenberg notes that there are challenges to understanding how it is possible that the disciples could continue in their faith even though Jesus died.

AI. Perkins: Says that during the passion all the disciples “failed Jesus.” This started with Judas’s betrayal, then Peter’s denial, then with the disciples fleeing.

AJ. Pesch (via Galvin): Galvin reports that for Pesch, the disciples experienced a crisis of faith.

AK. Pilch: Notes that the experience of the risen Jesus “lessened their grief and disappointment.”

AL. Plevnik: Plevnik provides many details on Luke’s portrayal of the despair and unbelief of the women and disciples.

AM. Samuel: Argues the importance of realizing that the “resurrection was not expected.”

AN. Sanders: Says that the “disciples at first fled” is one of the “equally secure facts” about Jesus. The disciples hid; some of the women were probably braver than the men, but “all his followers were disappointed.” The disciples “fled to Galilee.”

AO. Sheehan: Peter experienced “despair” after Jesus’s death.

AP. Sloyan: Writes that “Peter’s threefold denial” and “the disciples’ flight” are probably both “authentic reminiscences, on the theory that nothing so damaging to the early leadership would have been passed along if it were not regrettably true.”

AQ. Spong: “When [Jesus] was dying it was clear that his movement was crushed.” “There was grief . . . fear . . . confusion . . . perplexity. If he had been the messiah, he could not have died. He did die; therefore, he could not be the messiah.” Jesus ultimately died without any of the disciples, since they fled. Jesus’s disciples probably went back to Galilee.

AR. Staudinger: Staudinger points out that the Gospels’ description makes it clear that after Jesus’s death, the disciples “had completely abandoned Jesus’ cause.” He adds that Jesus was “surrounded by his enemies and abandoned by his friends” during the crucifixion. So, Jesus’s appearances created not only joy but were also awkward for the disciples.

AS. Stein: Says the women were expecting to anoint Jesus’s dead body, and Jesus’s disciples doubted.

AT. Thrall: States one can “plausibly” suggest that Jesus’s death was also the death of the disciples’ dreams and was a significant “shock.”

AU. Verweyen: Galvin notes, “[Verweyen] grants . . . that Jesus’ crucifixion posed such a psychological barrier to at least most of the disciples that only special occurrences after the crucifixion enabled them to overcome the shock of Jesus’s execution.”

AV. Watson: During a critical discussion of what can be known here, Watson concedes that Jesus’s followers “abandoned Jesus at his arrest, and no doubt were deeply discouraged.” Later, Watson writes that Jesus’s death was a “severe blow to the disciples’ hopes.”

AW. Wedderburn: Says there was “initial despair and hopelessness” for the disciples. Wedderburn also thinks the Gospels’ presentation of the disciples as disheartened is not indicative of a group who was expecting an imminent resurrection. It is “likelier” they were surprised since they were unprepared for what followed. Wedderburn also notes that this is one way in which Christianity is different from other messianic movements, as the Christian movement continued despite the death of their leader. Wedderburn adds that the “evidence” that transformed the disciples was the appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

AX. Witherington: All reports show the disciples abandoning Jesus. Witherington writes that their “hopes had been utterly shattered.”

AY. Wright: Wright also notes the dejection of the disciples.

4. RESURRECTION PROCLAIMED INITIALLY IN JERUSALEM

A. Anderson: “It is a matter of history” that many converts came to Christ due to the apostles “in Jerusalem, within a very few weeks, . . . preaching the resurrection.”

B. Barnett: Says Paul provides evidence for the churches in Jerusalem after Jesus’s death. His writings show that the church, which was connected to Jesus and the disciples, existed in Jerusalem. Barnett believes that Paul’s conversion occurred within one year of the start of the church, which means the church must have started shortly after Jesus’s death.

C. Blomberg: Blomberg argues against comparing the spread of Christianity with the game of telephone because there were apostles in Jerusalem from the beginning who occasionally supervised the gospel message as it was preached.

D. Craig: Craig argues that Christianity’s start in Jerusalem, the city in which Jesus died and was buried, is “powerful evidence” that the tomb was, in fact, empty.

E. Cranfield: Cranfield examines the Jerusalem preaching.

F. Dawe: Notes that the preaching of Jesus as raised from the dead occurred in Jerusalem “within a short time” after the crucifixion.

G. Dunn: Dunn argues that there are “strong” indicators that Christianity “took off” in Jerusalem “within a short time” of Jesus’s crucifixion. Dunn elsewhere discusses the early preaching in Jerusalem.

H. Fuller: States Christianity and its preaching began in Jerusalem. Fuller makes repeated references to early apostles in Jerusalem and their preaching, such as Paul visiting there with Peter and James. He notes “the Jerusalem leaders . . . the Jerusalem preachers.”

I. Harris: Harris comments on the preaching in Jerusalem.

J. Meier: Meier briefly notes the pillars associated with Jerusalem after the crucifixion. He refers to the “multiple attestation” favoring Jerusalem as the center of early Christian activity, as indicated in both the early chapters of Acts and the Jerusalem Council. It is also confirmed by Gal 2:9, which speaks to Paul’s knowledge of James, Peter, and John.

K. Moltmann: Moltmann reports that the disciples risked their lives when they returned to Jerusalem and preached. After fleeing to Galilee, the disciples went back to Jerusalem, where they preached the resurrected Jesus. There they proclaimed Christ “boldly.”

L. O’Collins: O’Collins discusses the Jerusalem preaching.

M. Pannenberg: Pannenberg argues the early church in Jerusalem preached Jesus’s resurrection.

N. Spong: Spong stresses that it is “not questioned that Christianity broke out in . . . Jerusalem” and “there is no doubt” that is where Christianity was “born.” So if some hoax occurred, Jerusalem would have been the best place to expose the fraud, but this did not happen.

O. Williams: Williams makes multiple mentions of the preaching in Jerusalem.

5. CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED AND GREW, WITH SUNDAY AS THE PRIMARY DAY OF WORSHIP

A. General Comments

1. Anderson: States that history informs us that many converts came to Christ “within a very few weeks, by preaching the resurrection.”

2. Barnett: Barnett stresses that Paul’s Letters provide evidence for the establishment of a church in Judea.

3. Brown: Colin Brown notes that Jesus’s resurrection is presupposed throughout the New Testament and the church.

4. Clifford and Johnson: They consider the creation of the church to be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence for Jesus’s resurrection.

5. Craig: Says the Christian way, faith, and church would never have started without belief in Jesus’s resurrection.

6. Cranfield: States the start of the church is an indicator of the reality of Jesus’s resurrection.

7. Davis: Davis argues that a large majority of scholars (“virtually all”) recognize that the church began as a movement based on the belief that Jesus was resurrected.

8. Drane: Notes that the transformed disciples became the center of a church that grew.

9. Durrwell: Durrwell provides a biblical-theological treatment of the period from the resurrection to the birth of the church and ecclesiology.

10. Elliott: Writes it is a “historic fact” that the church began due to the belief in Jesus’s resurrection. If they did not have this belief, then the movement would have died out like other messianic groups did. Paul also reminds us that the church is the result of the resurrection.

11. Goergen: Like others, but more nuanced, Goergen notes that Jesus’s resurrection “contributed” to the beginning of the church and that if there were no resurrection, there would be no church.

12. Hick: Like Meier above, Hick holds that anything less than some sort of objective vision of Jesus “could hardly have launched the movement which sprang up so vigorously after Jesus’ death.”

13. Houlden: Contrary to many others, Houlden thinks it is a mistake to argue that the resurrection explains the start of the church and that there are similar movements where “mortal blows” have failed to kill the movements and even increased them.

14. Künneth: Künneth discusses the connection between the resurrection and the church.

15. Lindars: Notes that the list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 probably accounts for the beginning of the church. Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve denotes “the formal inauguration of the Church.”

16. Lüdemann: Lüdemann discusses the early Jerusalem meetings between Jesus’s disciples and the initial believers.

17. Meier: Meier, similar to Ehrman elsewhere, argues that it was not Jesus’s ministry that started the early Christian movement, but rather it was the belief that Jesus resurrected (and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit) that gave the disciples a “vigorous mission” to contribute to the start of the church. He adds elsewhere that disciples were “commissioned” by the resurrected Jesus to spread the gospel.

18. O’Collins: Approvingly cites Moule and Alan Richardson on their appeal to the need of explaining the existence of the church. O’Collins adds that the issue is not only the emergence of the church but also its uniqueness from Judaism.

19. Pagels: Says that for the early Christians it was the resurrection of Jesus that connected the disciples with the wider organization that developed.

20. Pannenberg: Preaching the risen Jesus in Jerusalem is what “established the Christian community.”

21. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson notes that one of the things that came from Jesus was the church.

22. Samuel: Samuel points out that an historical explanation is needed for the existence of the church.

23. Sanders: Sanders says that after Jesus’s death, Jesus’s “followers created a movement” that eventually grew. Earlier, Sanders said, “Without the resurrection, would his disciples have endured longer than did John the Baptist’s? We can only guess, but I would guess not.”

24. Stein: Stein observes that there has been an important link between development of the church and Jesus’s resurrection.

25. Thrall: It would be “very difficult” to explain the beginning of the church without recognizing that there really were experiences of the risen Jesus.

26. Wright: In a section entitled “How and Why Did the Early Church Begin?,” Wright asks at least six times what historical event after Jesus’s death could account for the existence of church. Wright quotes E. P. Sanders’s statement that, without the resurrection, Jesus’s disciples would not have lasted any longer than John the Baptist’s disciples, and Wright agrees.

B. Beliefs of the Church Need Explanation

1. Johnson: Writes that “something happened in the lives of real women and men” that transformed them in a “radically altered fashion.” Of course, once we acknowledge that something happened, then the tougher question of what actually happened still remains. Not only did the disciples change from being timid to being bold, but so did Paul. Behind all of the reports is the experience of a risen Jesus, without which there would be no Christianity.

2. Neill and Wright: These two note multiple times that the cause of the church is something that needs to be explained.

3. Wright: Wright brings explicit attention to the question of the origin of the church and argues the Third Quest cannot simply ignore the question of what happened the Sunday after Jesus’s death. One point emphasized by Wright is that other messianic groups ceased with their leader’s death, so what makes Jesus’s group different? This question also gains force when we consider the transformation of the disciples who were timid and then became willing to face persecution. Wright notes that the accounts of the experience of Apollonius’s disciples are not a parallel to Jesus’s disciples’ experiences. Wright finds it “simply inconceivable” for anyone to consider Jesus as the Messiah unless there was the resurrection and thinks that there is still more to consider. Jesus was considered to be the Messiah before the crucifixion, and the resurrection would have been a confirmation of this claim.

C. Sunday as the Primary Day of Worship

1. Clifford and Johnson: They consider Sunday worship to be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence for Jesus’s resurrection.

2. Cranfield: Cranfield argues that Sunday became the day for Christian worship, which is “highly significant” and “presupposes a sufficient cause” for transcending God’s command regarding the Sabbath.

3. Harris: Harris provides a brief discussion on Sunday worship.

4. Purves: Purves notes that Sunday is the day of witness to the resurrection.

5. Williams: Williams notes the issue of Sunday worship.

6. Wright: Like the origin of the church, Wright states the “emphasis on the first day” is “very hard to explain unless something striking really did happen.” Wright states that Sunday is already referred to as the Lord’s Day by the mid-50s.

6. THE RESURRECTION MESSAGE AT THE CENTER OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY

A. General Comments

1. Avis: Avis emphasizes that Jesus’s resurrection is obviously “absolutely central ” to Christianity, and without it, one does not have the gospel.

2. Barclay: States that for all the writers of the New Testament (except for James), resurrection is “foundational.”

3. Barker: Says Jesus’s resurrection (and death) is “central” to Christianity and is part of the “basis” for the theology of believers.

4. Barnett: After showing a similarity between Peter in Acts and Paul in 1 Corinthians, Barnett finds that “the letters of Paul confirm the central place of the resurrection of Jesus in the early preaching of Peter according to Acts.”

5. Barton: Citing 1 Cor 15:17, John Barton starts his essay by stressing the fact that Jesus’s resurrection is “central” for believers. Barton explains that he will list reasons why the resurrection matters without deciding the best grounds. It (1) demonstrates God’s power, (2) demonstrates life after death, (3) demonstrates Jesus has been exalted, (4) fits into an eschatological framework, (5) demonstrates the end times have arrived, and (6) has christological implications (which also have subsequent implications for morality).

6. Barton: Stephen Barton says the resurrection is “central” to Christian worship and identity, and is even found in their creeds.

7. Bartsch: Bartsch’s main thesis requires the centrality of the resurrection appearances and proclamation: “Nevertheless we may begin with the assumption that primitive Christian faith arose at Easter since our investigation of the tradition cited by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3–7 will confirm just this assumption. The first Christians believed on the Lord Jesus Christ because he had appeared to them as such.”

8. Borg: Says the resurrection is “central” for the New Testament.

9. Brown: Colin Brown states that for the Christian faith, the resurrection is a “cornerstone” and, as Paul says, is vain without it (1 Cor 15:12–19). The resurrection is presupposed in the New Testament and early church.

10. Casey: Says resurrection is the center of Christianity “from the earliest times.”

11. Clifford and Johnson: These two argue that the centrality of the resurrection to Christianity is the point of their book, and Jesus’s resurrection is the “lynchpin” of Christianity.

12. Cohn-Sherbok: Speaking about 1 Cor 15:14, Cohn-Sherbok states that the Christian view understands the resurrection to be the “linchpin” of its theology.

13. Craig: Says the belief in Jesus’s resurrection is what “founded” the church. The church, coincidentally, began and grew in the same city (Jerusalem) where the events were reported to have occurred.

14. Cranfield: States the significance of the resurrection in the New Testament cannot be doubted. It is mentioned “explicitly and with emphasis” in seventeen of the twenty-seven New Testament books, while the remaining ten writings include the seven shortest works of the corpus, and these others can be said to “imply it.” Many New Testament texts like Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:14; and 1 Pet 1:3 indicate this centrality, meaning that “it clearly matters tremendously whether . . . [Jesus’s being] raised from the dead is true or not.”

15. Davis: Davis recognizes that Jesus’s resurrection was universally seen as a foundational point of Christian theology. He then points out that the centrality of this belief is widely agreed on by an overwhelming majority of scholars. Elsewhere he writes, “As everyone recognizes, the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead was at the centre of the message that the earliest Christians preached.”

16. Dawe: For Dawe, the empty tomb and resurrection appearances are “basic” to the early Christian message.

17. Drane: Jesus’s resurrection was “central” to the Christian message.

18. Dunn: Dunn stresses that belief in the resurrection, not an earlier message of Jesus, was at the “heart” of Christianity’s unique message from the very beginning. This belief was “not only fundamental for Christianity as far back as we can trace, but also presuppositional and foundational. . . . As a historical statement we can say quite firmly: no Christianity without the resurrection of Jesus. As Jesus is the single great ‘presupposition’ of Christianity, so also is the resurrection of Jesus. To stop short of the resurrection would have been to stop short.” Dunn then lists several details regarding this early and unique claim, as well as various texts that presuppose this belief. Dunn also notes that this early, core belief is the “beginning of belief in Jesus as exalted.” So there were implications from resurrection to Christology.

19. Durrwell: In Acts, “the whole apostolate is bathed in the glow of Easter.”

20. Ehrman: Ehrman stresses that what was so special about Jesus from all others is that it was reported that Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion. This belief “changed absolutely everything.” The resurrection is so important that those who believe in it are saved according to early church teachings.

21. Elliott: Elliott states it is a “historic fact” that the foundation of the church was the belief in Jesus’s resurrection. Without it, the movement would have died out like any other failed messianic movement.

22. Fitzmyer: “The resurrection, the heart of Christian faith.”

23. Frei: Says Jesus’s resurrection is “central” to the Christian doctrine.

24. Fuller: Says Jesus’s resurrection was “central” to the proclamation of the church and there “was no period of time when this was not so.”

25. Funk: Notes the conviction of Jesus’s resurrection was “the cornerstone” of the early Christian confession. He also refers to it as the “centerpiece” of a systematic worldview.

26. Galvin: Calls the resurrection “this central Christological issue.”

27. Grant: Grant argues, similar to Dunn, that the resurrection is “indispensable and undetachable” from the earliest Christian message. Elsewhere he notes, similar to Paul, that without the resurrection, there would be no Christianity.

28. Green: Joel Green briefly notes the centrality of the resurrection.

29. Guillaume: “La resurrection de Jesus est le centre de l’histoire du salut, le sommet du fait evangelique.”

30. Hagner: Says Jesus’s death and resurrection are at the “heart” of the early Christian preaching.

31. Harris: Briefly notes the centrality of the resurrection.

32. Hopkins: “No one will deny, I think, the centrality of the myth of the resurrection in Christian theology.” “At the core of each [Gospel] . . . lies the passion and death of Jesus” and, in every Gospel except (probably) Mark, Jesus’s “reappearance.”

33. Hurtado: Hurtado points out that it is “commonly agreed that all Christian reflection of the person and work of Jesus flows from the belief in the resurrection of Jesus in the earliest Christian community.”

34. Jensen: The resurrection is the “central miracle” of the Bible and, similar to Paul, the entire Christian message is “at stake” on this point.

35. Johnson: “The resurrection faith is the birth of Christianity.” Johnson says there are two ways in which the resurrection is central to the Christian faith: (1) it “is the grounding for the entire Christian life,” and (2) it is “the chronological beginning.” There is no evidence of a “Jesus movement” without belief in Jesus’s resurrection, whereas the evidence “that Christianity was birthed by the resurrection faith is displayed everywhere” in the New Testament. Johnson considers the possibility of Acts being a continuing account of Jesus’s resurrection power. The New Testament writings “all assume the resurrection.” Later, he argues similar to Ehrman above that Christianity is based on Jesus’s resurrection, not Jesus’s ministry.

36. Johnstone: Says Jesus’s resurrection is a “fundamental belief” for Christians.

37. Kent: According to the Gospels, Kent writes, “the central message of the disciples changed” to the resurrection and their preaching of it.

38. Koester: Says the resurrection and appearances were the “catalyst” that prompted the early Christian missionary activity.

39. Küng: “Christianity begins with Easter. Without Easter there would be no gospel, not a single narrative, not a letter in the New Testament.”

40. Künneth: Discusses the centrality of the resurrection in history.

41. Ladd: Ladd refers to the resurrection as the “cornerstone” of the New Testament. The resurrection “remains fundamental” to believers today as well.

42. Lehmann: Says the resurrection has been “central” to Christianity (including worship) since the earliest period.

43. Leuschen: Leuschen notes, “Christian, hope is assured; it is directed to the future, and its content is the resurrection.” He adds, “It will come as a shock to many people to discover that when the Scriptures refer to the core content of the original faith, it is just this first item of truth above to which they unanimously point. They point not so much to the blood, the atonement or the death of Christ but chiefly to his resurrection.”

44. Lincoln: Briefly notes the centrality of the resurrection and notes that it “is beyond dispute” that the resurrection message dominates John.

45. Lindars: Says in the earliest church it cannot be doubted that Jesus’s resurrection is of “cardinal importance.”

46. Marshall: In an essay on the resurrection of Jesus in the Qur’an, Marshall argues that not only is there a “logical centrality” of Jesus’s resurrection, but it is the “key factor” for hope in eternal life.

47. Merklein: Notes one form of early Christology is “Messianic christology,” which “seeks to place cross and resurrection qua eschatological salvation-event consistently at the center.”

48. Meyer: Says the “most prominent themes” in earliest Christianity were the crucifixion and resurrection. The “key” to the Christian message is the resurrection. It “grounded their hopes.” There is “no stage of consciousness in which the exaltation of Jesus was lacking.” The Synoptic Gospels were “born” because of the belief in Jesus’s resurrection.

49. Moltmann: Moltmann agrees with 1 Cor 15:14. For Paul and the rest of earliest Christianity, the resurrection is the “foundation.” He adds that the “special thing about Christianity is the central importance of Christ, and above all the importance of Christ in his death and resurrection. Only the Christian faith is essentially a resurrection faith.”

50. Neill and Wright: Though critiquing E. P. Sanders, Neill and Wright note that he agrees that the early church is incomprehensible without the resurrection.

51. Newport: “As far as the early Christians were concerned, the most important event—the resurrection of Jesus—had already happened.”

52. O’Collins: In Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:5–8, the resurrection appearances “are considered essential” to resurrection belief.

53. Perkins: “There is no element of early Christian belief in Jesus of Nazareth that is not marked by the ‘resurrection.’” Even Q’s teachings contains the empty tomb. Perkins also refers to the “central place” of the resurrection within the New Testament.

54. Perrin: States the resurrection is at the foundation of Christian origins.

55. Perry: “There is no Christian faith without the resurrection.”

56. Peterson: Eugene Peterson notes that most of Paul’s references to the resurrection are either related to the centrality of the resurrection or claim our resurrection will be like Jesus’s.

57. Price: Charles Price says the resurrection is the most important question in the Christian faith.

58. Purves: Purves argues that Christians need to reclaim the centrality of the resurrection in Christian consciousness and practice.

59. Robinson: John A. T. Robinson calls the church age “the resurrection order.” He says that the death and resurrection of Jesus are of “decisive importance for the early Christian preaching” and this “dominates the early sermons.”

60. Rowland: Rowland argues that it is “unlikely” that there is a moment in early Christianity where the resurrection was not central.

61. Scuka: Scuka recognizes that Jesus’s resurrection is not only “central” but constitutes Christianity.

62. Selby: “The centre of Christian faith is the raising of Jesus from the dead. . . . If the resurrection falls we fall with it and our words, our discipleship and our worship fall too.”

63. Sheehan: Says Peter’s and the other disciples’ experiences are the “origins of Christianity.”

64. Shuster: Says Jesus’s resurrection cannot be doubted as being “central” to the earliest Christian message.

65. Smith: Robert Smith’s volume is largely devoted to showing that the resurrection was central to all four Gospels: “The Gospels are Easter books not only because they end as they do. They are Easter books from beginning to end.”

66. Staudinger: Says the resurrection was the “decisive question” from the beginning. The Gospels point to the resurrection as well.

67. Thatcher: Following Paul, Thatcher says that if Jesus was not raised, “our faith is futile.”

68. Thielicke: Says the resurrection is “the basic teaching of Christianity.”

69. Ware: Refers to the resurrection as having “decisive importance” for Christianity throughout history.

70. Wedderburn: Wedderburn recognizes that, in the life of the Christian, it is the “central issue.” Later he adds that the resurrection is an “integral part” of Christianity as exemplified by early Christian creeds and writings. Furthermore, it was a “basic tenet” for Christians since the beginning.

71. Wilckens: Says Christianity would never have begun without the resurrection because the resurrection is the “basis” for Christianity.

72. Wilson: States Christian theology is concerned “almost exclusively” with Jesus’s resurrection.

73. Wright: Like many above, Wright says “there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief. . . . It was the central driving force, informing the whole movement.” Wright agrees with Paul in 1 Cor 15:14. Jesus’s resurrection is what Christians “centered” their hope upon. “The cross and resurrection, in short, are clearly central to virtually all known forms of early Christianity.” He further argues that Jesus’s resurrection validated Jesus’s claims. Believers hoped that they would be raised because Jesus was raised, which is one reason why the resurrection was so central for believers. “It is totally absurd to say that Christianity from then on [i.e., the earliest times] didn’t make the resurrection of Jesus central . . . it is impossible to marginalize the resurrection.” He adds that the opposite is the case—the resurrection cast its light over the Gospels to such an extent that we have the problem of trying to tell what pre-cross material didn’t get interpreted in light of the resurrection. The resurrection is central in all of the New Testament books except for Hebrews. It is referenced more often in the New Testament than in other comparable Jewish writings. Wright argues that the resurrection is part of the core definition of the gospel (he refers to 2 Tim 2:8–9 as a parallel to Mark 8:34–38 and Rom 1:3–4). Wright argues that when Paul talks about “the gospels,” he is referring to the resurrection and does not mean “justification by faith.” Wright sees the evidence for this in a comparison between Rom 1:3–4 and 1 Cor 15:1–4. Centrality and future hope are evident in the second century for Wright as well.

B. Paul

1. Barnett: Barnett stresses the importance and centrality of Jesus’s resurrection for Paul.

2. Borg: Says that for Paul, the resurrection is central.

3. Borg and Crossan: “That God raised Jesus is the presupposition of all of Paul’s letters.”

4. Caird: Writes that after his conversion, Paul “rapidly built it [the resurrection] into the structure of his theology.”

5. Callahan: For Callahan, “the only thing Paul really tells us about Jesus is that he rose from the dead.”

6. Carrier: Carrier argues that the resurrection for Paul is an “essential element” of the gospel and why he was willing to “risk everything.”

7. Conzelmann: Seemingly discussing Paul’s view, Conzelmann notes that when Paul preaches Jesus, he is preaching the resurrection.

8. Cranfield: Mentioning some texts like Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 15:14, he says these make clear the centrality of resurrection belief for Christians.

9. Davis: Says that at the “heart” of Paul’s message is that Jesus rose from the dead.

10. Dunn: Referring to the gospel in texts like Rom 1:9; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 9:13; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2; and 2 Thess 1:8, Dunn argues that the preaching probably included Jesus’s “Davidic descent (Rom. 1.1–3; 2 Tim. 2.8), and particularly his death and resurrection.” “In [summary, Paul’s] message as ‘gospel’ was not that he excluded the tradition of Jesus’ mission and teaching from the gospel. Rather the importance of that term is that he centred the decisive gospel significance of Jesus’ mission on his death and resurrection.”

11. Durrwell: Says Paul’s apostleship “is grounded upon . . . the resurrection of Christ,” including 1 Cor 9:1.

12. Evans: He notes that Paul’s gospel “centers” on Jesus’s resurrection.

13. Funk: Rather than Jesus’s ministry, Funk says it was Jesus’s resurrection that was the “focal” point for Paul’s message.

14. Harris: Says in Paul’s writings, the focus is on eternal life and the resurrection.

15. Houlden: Even Houlden admits the centrality of the resurrection for Paul, with some caveats.

16. Kent: States Paul “founded churches based on his idea of belief in the resurrected Jesus Christ.” “Paul’s most important and bedrock theme was his deeply felt and absolute faith” that God had resurrected Jesus.

17. Lorenzen: Says the resurrection is the “the center of Paul’s theology” and the “very foundation of his life and apostleship.”

18. Segal: Says “Paul’s central proclamation” is that Jesus is Lord and that we can share in his death and resurrection.

19. Shuster: States the “proclamation of the resurrection” was central for Paul.

20. Sumithra: “The heart of Christology is [Christ’s] Resurrection.”

21. Wedderburn: Paul’s defense in 1 Corinthians 15 demonstrates the centrality of the resurrection.

22. Wenham: Says the “primary” point for Paul was the resurrection.

23. Wright: The resurrection is “Paul’s own theological starting point.” It is Paul’s “foundation,” and everything “thus hinges on Jesus’ resurrection.” Wright argues that Paul’s worldview was centered on and around Jesus’ resurrection. “So central was the resurrection to Paul’s preaching among the gentiles . . . that the Athenians even misheard Paul and imagined that he was preaching two new divinities, Jesus and ‘Anastasis.’” Paul “had woven resurrection so thoroughly into his thinking and practice that if you take it away the whole thing unravels in your hands.” Paul’s defense in 1 Corinthians 15 also illustrates the centrality of the resurrection for Paul.

C. Objections to the Centrality of the Resurrection

1. Collins: Without espousing her view, Adela Yarbro Collins says that the centrality of the resurrection could be questioned in that some books don’t explicitly refer to it.

2. Houlden: Says the centrality of resurrection is often claimed. But “half a dozen of the shorter books contain no mention of the resurrection,” with some examples being given. While the centrality of resurrection is basically true for Paul, it is not the case in the Gospels. Houlden treats this noncentrality in each Gospel. So while the resurrection faith was central in the early church, Houlden seems to think it is hard to find this in the Gospels. Houlden does recognize that Luke–Acts is a bit of an exception, but not entirely so. Houlden’s conclusion: “In their various ways, all the evangelists placed the real heart of what made Christianity salvific elsewhere than in the resurrection.” However, throughout the article, Houlden repeatedly makes highly questionable claims or omissions. Here are a few of them: (1) Jesus’s death and exaltation in Hebrews absolutely requires resurrection; without it, there would be no message there, as Heb 13:20 connects them. (2) Even if Mark stresses that faith is “not demonstrable,” how does that militate versus the centrality of resurrection? (3) So what if “Matthew devotes the most space” to dismissing the theft theory? Doesn’t he do so because he is defending the resurrection? (4) Even if Luke uses the resurrection as a way to get to the ascension and exaltation, isn’t the resurrection absolutely essential here too? (5) Even if John’s theme is about Jesus’s mission, isn’t John 20:31 significant? Further, as O’Collins points out, it is not an issue of the percentage of the New Testament writings that is spent on the resurrection, but the role the resurrection plays in the New Testament.

3. Price: “One of Burton Mack’s most important suggestions is that the resurrection gospel was a myth that fit the interests of some early Jesus groups but not others. It was the product of one faction of early Christianity, not the foundation of any sort of Christianity at all.”

Notes

Robert Greg Cavin, “Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 24, 30–31, 41n30.

Ross Clifford and Philip Johnson, The Cross Is Not Enough: Living as Witnesses to the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 84.

Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 72.

Jeffery Jay Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 261.

Lowder, 298.

Lowder, 268.

Lowder, 295–98.

James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 230.

Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 305. See also 347.

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, no. 2 (2005): 175. Cf. 173–75, 177.

Crossley, 173. See also 174–75, 177.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 84. See also 182.

Stephen Neill and N. T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 309.

Michael Welker, “Theological Realism and Eschatological Symbol Systems,” in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, ed. Ted Peters, Robert J. Russell, and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 37.

David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 369.

N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 59.

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 48.

Bauckham, 48–51.

Richard Bauckham, “The Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 1 (2003): 51.

Bauckham, 51.

Bauckham, 52.

Bauckham, 54.

Bauckham, 52. See also 55.

Bauckham, 53. See also 54.

William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” in Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 151.

James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 832.

Dunn, 832.

Dunn, 840–41.

Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 140–41, 167, 170–73; Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 215, 218, 243; John E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis with Text-Synopsis, Calwer Theologische Monographien 5 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975), 105; John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 122; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), 276; Hugo Staudinger, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and as ‘Object’ of Historical Research,” Scottish Journal of Theology 36, no. 3 (1983): 324; Rowan Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1982), 106; Brian Hebblethwaite, “The Resurrection and the Incarnation,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993), 158; Donald G. Dawe, Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God (Atlanta: Knox, 1985), 105; Dale C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 166; 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; David M. Stanley, “‘To Know Him and the Power of His Resurrection’ (Phil. 3:19): The New Testament Witness to the Central Mystery of Faith,” in How Could We Sorrow? Essays on the Resurrection, ed. Michael W. Higgins (Waterloo: University of St. Jerome’s College Press, 1989), 31; Ben Witherington III, “Resurrection Redux,” in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, ed. Paul Copan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 141–42; Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 39; 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), 104–23; Craig L. Blomberg, “The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith: Harmony or Conflict?,” in Copan, Real Jesus, 101; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Themelios 5 (1979): 264–65; Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 216–17; J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1982), 60–67, 102–5; Michael Goulder, “The Empty Tomb,” Theology 79 (1976): 211.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 329.

Allison, 327.

Michael F. Bird and James G. Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London: SPCK, 2008), 42.

Raymond Edward Brown, A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 70.

Sarah Coakley, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection: Response to Alston,” 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.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 151.

William Lane Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,” New Testament Studies 31, no. 1 (1985): 58. See also Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” in Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, vol. 2 of Gospel Perspectives, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 192; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” Modern Theology 6, no. 1 (1989): 59.

C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Expository Times 101, no. 6 (1990): 168–70.

Cranfield, 168.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 182.

Davis, 73. See also 72–75.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 832–33. See also James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1985), 65.

Craig A. Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence 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.

Reginald H. Fuller, “The Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1979), 103.

Fuller, 102.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 179, 182.

Donald Goergen, The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, vol. 2 of A Theology of Jesus (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 140–41. See also 150–51.

Goergen, 140.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 176 (plus n6), 232.

Jean-Marie Guillaume, Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus (Paris: Gabalda, 1979), 269.

Guillaume, 270.

Donald A. 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.

Hagner, 109.

Hagner, 110.

Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 95. Cf. 96.

Lapide, 128.

Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Chapman, 1983), 126; O’Collins, Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1987), 126; O’Collins, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Some Current Questions,” America 153 (1985): 425; O’Collins, The Easter Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980), 29, 42–43, 99; O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 22–23.

Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Theological Studies 48, no. 4 (1987): 631.

O’Collins and Kendall, 633–34, 644–46.

Carolyn Osiek, “The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 102.

Osiek, 107n13 provides good situations and sources.

Osiek, 104.

Osiek, 106.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:356.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “History and the Reality of the Resurrection,” in D’Costa Resurrection Reconsidered, 131.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:356.

Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 94. See also Pheme Perkins, “‘I Have Seen the Lord’ (John 20:18): Women Witnesses to the Resurrection,” Interpretation 46, no. 1 (1992): 40.

Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 35. Cf. 40.

Perkins, 31.

Perkins, 35. Cf. 40–41.

Perkins, 40. See also 41.

Perkins, 41.

Perkins, 32, 41.

Paul Barnett, Peter Jensen, and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality (Sydney: Aquila, 1994), 12–13.

Eugene H. Peterson, Living the Resurrection: The Risen Christ in Everyday Life (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2006), 25–26.

Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead,” trans. Jonathan M. Whitlock, Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 46–47, 55.

Stuhlmacher, 48.

Peter Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu, trans. Jonathan M. Whitlock (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1998), 50–51.

Wenham, Paul, 369n93.

Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Steward (Edinburgh: St. Andrew’s Press, 1977), 116–17.

A. N. Wilson, Jesus (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992), 241.

Walter Wink, review of The Cross That Spoke; The Origins of the Passion Narrative, by John Dominic Crossan, The Christian Century 105 (1988): 1159–60.

N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 607–8.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 327.

Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” 90.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 327.

Allison, 328–29.

Allison, 324.

Allison, 328–29.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 833.

Dunn, 833.

E. Peterson, Living the Resurrection, 25–26.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 324.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 833.

Dunn, 834.

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: Continuum, 2010), 475.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 283.

Lowder, 283.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 475–76.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 60.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 475.

Crossley, “Historical Plausibility,” 184.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 331.

Allison, 330.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 151.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 78. See also 182.

Davis, 72.

Davis, 78–79. Davis also notes that the basic facts agree (69).

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 216–17.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324.

Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 264. See also Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 25.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 182.

Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 38.

Wenham, Paul, 369n93. Also cautiously noting Perkins, Resurrection, 94.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 222; Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126; O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 126; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 43; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22; Craig A. Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8, no. 2 (1978): 53; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 323; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171; Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 59; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 193–94; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 60; Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 154; Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 22; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 200; J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 123; David Samuel, “Making Room in History for the Miraculous (Part 2),” Churchman 100, no. 2 (1986): 111; Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 264–65; Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 66, see also 54–55, 61.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 42.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 152.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 73.

Davis, 74.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

J. K. Elliott, “The First Easter,” History Today 29, no. 4 (1979): 218.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:357–58.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 101; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 130; Pannenberg, “The Historicity of the Resurrection and the Identity of Christ,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago, IL: Regnery Gateway, 1984), 261.

Wenham, Paul, 369n93.

Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 54.

Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 200–201; Paul L. Maier, “The Empty Tomb as History,” Christianity Today 29, no. 13 (1975): 5.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 312.

William Lane Craig, “Dale Allison on Jesus’ Empty Tomb, His Postmortem Appearances, and the Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in His Resurrection,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 2 (2008): 295–96.

Dale C. Allison, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 2 (2008): 321–22.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 291.

Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 164; Raymond E. Brown, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 1374.

Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 164.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 57.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 58. Very similar in Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 187–89, 192–93; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59.

William Lane Craig, “The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb (Lk 24,12.24, Jn 20,2–10),” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 619.

Crossley, “Historical Plausibility,” 177.

Stephen T. Davis, “Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational? A Response to Michael Martin,” Philo 2, no. 1 (1999): 55. See also Davis, Risen Indeed, 82.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 70, 75–77.

Davis, 71–72.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 102–3, cf. 135–36; John C. Lodge, Donald Senior, Eugene LaVerdiere, and Reginald H. Fuller, The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1984), 59 (comment by Fuller).

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 69, 171, 179.

Fuller, 69. Cf. 171.

Fuller, 179.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 140, 151.

See part 1 of Guillaume, Luc interprète.

John Frederick Jansen, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 41–42.

Cf. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 179–83, 197.

Frans Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories,” New Testament Studies 30, no. 2 (1984): 176–77.

Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 105. See also 102.

Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36, 40.

Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 454–55.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324.

Staudinger, 322.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 28.

Stein, 29.

Wenham, Paul, 369n93. Also cautiously noting Perkins, Resurrection, 94.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 71.

Davis, 71, 82.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 58. See also Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 58.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 25.

Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1976), 127; Guillaume, Luc interprète (part 1); Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 51, 53; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 174; Lodge et al., Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord, 6; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 216, who also mentions the “Semitic terminology of Mark 16:2” (218); Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 21.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 57–58; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 182–83, 190–91; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 57–58.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 58. See also Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 150.

Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Empty Tomb in the Gospel according to Mark,” in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, ed. Eleonore Stump and Thomas P. Flint, University of Notre Dame Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 7 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 115; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 129.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102; Lodge et al., Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord, 59.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 104.

Pheme Perkins, “The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 436–37.

Perkins, Resurrection, 115–16.

Perkins, 94.

Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 135, 140; Thomas Sheehan, “Two Easter Legends,” Philosophy and Theology 1, no. 1 (1986): 36, 40.

Sheehan, First Coming, 143; Sheehan, “Two Easter Legends,” 43.

Marion Soards, “The Question of a Premarcan Passion Narrative,” in Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1523–24.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 150.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 231.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 150.

Craig, 150.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 276–80.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 74. See also 71–73.

Richard C. Carrier, “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 177, 179.

Carrier, 178.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 151.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 286.

Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 1984), 125.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 42.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 59, see also 56–57; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 193. Similarly, Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 151–52.

Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 79. See also 182–83.

Davis, 80.

Davis, 78–79.

Dawe, Jesus, 107.

Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

Dunn, 837.

Dunn, 836.

Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 53.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 38–39.

Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” 158.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127–28.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171–72.

Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 5; Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 203.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 222.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 43.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126–27.

James I. Packer, “Response to the Debate,” in Miethe, Resurrection Debate, 149.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 100–101; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 130; Pannenberg, “Historicity of the Resurrection,” 262; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu—Historie und Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91, no. 3 (1994): 326–27; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:357; Pannenberg, “Reality of the Resurrection,” 69.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:357–58.

Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 111.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 25–26; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 264.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 80.

Davis, 73.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 320; Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 323–24.

Peter Carnley, The Structure of Resurrection Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 55.

John P. Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu: The Foundational Christology of Rudolf Pesch,” Theological Studies 38, no. 3 (1977): 514.

Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 364–65.

Barnabas Lindars, “The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 128–29.

Michael Martin, “Reply to Davis,” Philo 2, no. 1 (1999): 67.

Gerd Lüdemann, “Closing Responses,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 153.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 288.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 497.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 288–90.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 496–97. See also 456, 473.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 290.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 80.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 837.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 153–54.

Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” 114.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 58.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 324.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 273–74.

Robert M. Price, “By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 423.

Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 448.

Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 323.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 316.

Allison, 316.

Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 22.

Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 129–30.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 25–26.

Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 132.

Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 164; Brown, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1374.

G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 239, 267.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 168.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 56.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 56–57. See also Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 173–76, 181, 187–89; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 57.

John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 550.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 76.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ According to the New Testament,” The Month 20, no. 11 (1987): 405.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48–49.

Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” 118.

Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 41.

George Eldon Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 106.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 44.

Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 130. However, Pannenberg seems to make a different point years earlier; see Pannenberg, Jesus, 100.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 435.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 121.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 27–28; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 266.

Wenham, Paul, 370. Wenham notes parallels with Luke–Acts in n97.

Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 133.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 321.

Wright, 455n13.

N. T. Wright, “Early Traditions and the Origin of Christianity,” Sewanee Theological Review 41, no. 2 (1998): 127; Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 119; N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 145.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 691. Cf. 321.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 315.

Allison, 314–15.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 149.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 79–80.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 232.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 315–16; Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 323.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 149.

John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 342. See also 343.

Wenham, Paul, 369. Regarding the views of the Pharisees, Wenham cites the work of Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 130.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 149.

Craig, 149.

Wenham, Paul, 369.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 149.

Wenham, Paul, 369.

Wenham, 369.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:359.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 72.

Davis, 72–73.

Wenham, Paul, 370. Wenham also notes parallels with Luke–Acts in n97.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 321.

Wright, 455n13.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 459–60.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 707.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 146.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 58. See also Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 74. Cf. 79.

Davis, 82.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 130.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 170.

Muddiman, “Resurrection of the Body,” 130–32.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 26–27.

Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 265.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 272.

Lowder, 266.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 149.

Craig, 170n19.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 707–8.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 58.

Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 22.

Clifford and Johnson, Cross Is Not Enough, 84.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 152. See also Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 60.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 837. See also Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 837n53.

Dunn, 838.

Kenneth Grayston, “The Empty Tomb,” Expository Times 92, no. 9 (1981): 266.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 40.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127.

Perkins, Resurrection, 94.

Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 707. See also Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 147.

Wright, “Early Traditions,” 138.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 62.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 313.

Craig, “Dale Allison on Jesus’ Empty Tomb,” 296–97.

Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 322–23.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 313.

Carrier, “Spiritual Body of Christ,” 179.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 460–61.

Casey, 461. On the former point, Casey follows Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship.”

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 61.

Peter Kirby, “The Case against the Empty Tomb,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 255.

Kirby, 256.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 293.

Lowder, 293–94.

Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli,” 447.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 838n55.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 42.

Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 164; Brown, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1374.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 58.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 72.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171, 180.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 99.

Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 41.

Sheehan, First Coming, 145; Sheehan, “Two Easter Legends,” 45.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 72.

Davis, 72–73.

Davis, 73.

Davis, 75.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 321.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 280–82.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 321–26.

Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 22.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 181. See also 190.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 183.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 39.

Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 5.

Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 130; Pannenberg, “Reality of the Resurrection,” 69–70.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 436.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 25.

Wright, “Early Traditions,” 127.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 834.

Dunn, 834–35.

Dunn, 834.

Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” 83–87.

William Lane Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” New Testament Studies 30, no. 2 (1984): 273–81.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 75.

Davis, 75. See also 183.

Margaret E. Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” Thomist 43, no. 2 (1979): 200.

Richard C. Carrier, “The Plausibility of Theft,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 358–59; Richard C. Carrier, “The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 386.

Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202–3.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 101.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 316, 323.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 708–9. Cf. 75.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 176–81, 191.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 39–40.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 27; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 265.

Williams, Resurrection, 105.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 153–54.

Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” 158.

Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 6; Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 203.

O’Collins, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 425; O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:358.

Perkins, Resurrection, 94.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 234.

Tabor, 235.

Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 20.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 458–61.

Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 127.

Hans Conzelmann, First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 255.

Crossley, “Historical Plausibility,” 177.

G. T. Eddy, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Consideration of Professor Cranfield’s Argument,” Expository Times 101, no. 11 (1990): 328.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 215.

Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 52.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48–49. See also Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 101.

Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 259.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 139–40.

Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 264.

Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (New York: Prometheus, 1997), 130, 135.

Roy W. Hoover, “A Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 129–30.

Alistair Kee, From Bad Faith to Good News: Reflections on Good Friday and Easter (London: SCM, 1991), 106, 108.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 234.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 128.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 173, 176, 180.

Gerd Lüdemann, in Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, eds., Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 43–45 (opening statement) and 153 (closing response).

Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 46.

Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 102.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 100. Though he does seem to affirm Paul’s knowledge of an empty tomb in Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 130.

Norman Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 80.

Segal, Life after Death, 446–47.

Alan F. Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection in Its Jewish Context,” New Testament Studies 44, no. 3 (1998): 415.

A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 87.

Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 323.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 315–16; Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 323.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 52. Cf. 58.

Bird and Crossley, 52.

Dieter Zeller, “Der Ostermorgen im 4. Evangelium (Joh 20,1–18),” in Auferstehung Jesu—Auferstehung der Christen: Deutungen des Osterglaubens, ed. Ingo Broer and Lorenz Oberlinner, Quaestiones disputatae 105 (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 145–61; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 259; Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 136; Michael Goulder, “The Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 98; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 128; Barnabas Lindars, “Jesus Risen: Bodily Resurrection but No Empty Tomb,” Theology 89 (1986): 94; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 128, 131; Sarah Coakley, “Is the Resurrection a ‘Historical’ Event? Some Muddles and Mysteries,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 98; A. Kee, From Bad Faith to Good News, 107; Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 20; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 167–69.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 165.

Segal, Life after Death, 446. Cf. 454–55.

Collins, “Empty Tomb,” 115; Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 129.

John Dominic 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), 136.

John R. Donahue, “Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative,” in Kelber, Passion in Mark, 8–9, 14–15.

Werner H. Kelber, “Conclusion: From Passion Narrative to Gospel,” in Kelber, Passion in Mark, 158.

Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 562; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 271; Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 131, 136; Joseph Plevnik, “The Origin of the Easter Faith According to Luke,” Biblica 61, no. 4 (1980): 494; Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 514; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34n17; Perkins, Resurrection, 91–93; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 132; Lindars, “Jesus Risen,” 94–95; Davis, Risen Indeed, 64–66; Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” 105–6; Goulder, “Explanatory Power of Conversion-Visions,” 99; James Keller, “Response to Davis,” Faith and Philosophy 7, no.1 (1990): 114; Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 20.

Carrier, “Spiritual Body of Christ,” 173.

Carrier, 173.

Carrier, 174.

Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 405; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 132; Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 20.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 66.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 67.

Davis, 72.

Davis, 65–66.

Davis, 70.

Davis, 79.

Davis, 71.

Davis, 73.

Davis, 72.

Davis, 72–73.

Davis, 71.

Davis, 66–67. See also 72.

Davis, 72.

Davis, 72–73.

Davis, 73.

Davis, 64–65.

Davis, 67.

Davis, 69.

Davis, 73.

John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995), 185; Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 558, 561–62; Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord,” 135, 145.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 221.

Burton L. Mack, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, History and Theory 28, no. 2 (1989): 223.

Collins, “Empty Tomb,” 129–30; Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 145–47; Helms, Gospel Fictions, 135.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 166.

Francis Watson, review of The Resurrection: What Actually Happened and What Does It Mean?, by Gerald O’Collins, Theology 91 (1988): 144.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 166.

Ehrman, 167.

Ehrman, 168.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 476, 487, 498. See also 507–8 (discussion of accounts being rewritten to accommodate bodily resurrection).

Casey, 476.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 168.

Segal, Life after Death.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 212–13. Allison cites John Michael Perry here.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 497.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 161.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 273–74. See also 269, 272, 288–90.

Price, “By This Time He Stinketh,” 423.

Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 201–2.

Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 307–48.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 207–8.

Allison, 207–8. Allison offers as examples Thomas Woolston (1668–1733) and Hermann Reimarus (1694–1768).

Allison, 334.

Allison, 334. See also 203–4.

Allison, 203–4.

Allison, 202. Allison references Tertullian (Spect. 30) here.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 234.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334.

Allison, 202–4.

Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 351.

Carrier, 350–51.

Carrier, 365n4.

Carrier, 352.

Carrier, 353.

Carrier, 353–54.

Carrier, 353.

Carrier, 354.

Carrier, 357.

Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 20.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 460–61, 507.

Coakley, “Muddles and Mysteries,” 98.

John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 158; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperOne, 1991), 394.

Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 514.

Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 209.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 67–68. See also Lindars, “Jesus Risen,” 91; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 134; Sheehan, First Coming, 143–46; Sheehan, “Two Easter Legends,” 43–46.

Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 136.

David A. S. Ferguson, review of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis, in Scottish Journal of Theology 49, no. 3 (1996): 388.

Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 44–45; Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 23–24.

Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 138–47.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 435.

Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 127.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 67.

Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 105. See also 102.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 496–97. See also 456, 473.

Crossley, “Historical Plausibility,” 174–75.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 67–68.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 184–86.

Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 324.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 319.

Coakley, “Muddles and Mysteries,” 98.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 80.

Watson, review of The Resurrection (by O’Collins), 144–45.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.

Allison, 317.

Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 165n226.

Ferguson, review of Avis, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 388.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 80.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

Allison, 318.

Allison, 334.

Allison, 203–4. He cites Kirsopp Lake (1907) and Percival Gardner-Smith (1926) here.

Carrier, “Burial of Jesus,” 388.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334.

Allison, 203–4. He cites here Oskar Holtzmann (1904), Joseph Klausner (1925), and Guillaume Baldensperger (1925).

Allison, 334.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 235.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 319; Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 325.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 203–4. He cites Reinhold Schmiedel (1925), Gerhard Lohfink (1968), and Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel (1903).

William Lane Craig, “Closing Responses,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 166–67.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 69.

Davis, 70–72.

Davis, 72–75.

Davis, 76n24. See also 75–77.

Davis, 77–78.

Davis, 82.

Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 53.

Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” 167.

Neirynck, 168.

Neirynck, 173–77.

O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 121–27.

Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection: The State of the Questions,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 15–17.

J. C. O’Neill, review of The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, by Gerd Lüdemann, Theology 99 (1996): 155.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 168.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 607–8.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 80.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

Allison, 318.

Allison, 324–25. See also 332.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 58. See also 62.

Craig, “Dale Allison on Jesus’ Empty Tomb,” 298. It is important to acknowledge that Allison responds to this criticism by noting that he was trying to come up with only possible scenarios, not ones that he thought were probable. Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 324.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 325.

Allison, 324.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170.

Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67.

Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 200. See also Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 4–6.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 123.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 346, see also 343–44. Cf. 311.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 331–32; Allison, “Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” 323–24.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 332.

Allison, 332.

Craig, “Dale Allison on Jesus’ Empty Tomb,” 299.

Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 60. Kremer’s quote and stats on 67n88. See also Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 194.

Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 60.

Craig, 60.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 84.

Davis, 180–81. See also 15, cf. 171.

Joseph Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” Études 356 (1982): 532.

John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), 101.

Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 76.

Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 101.

Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 165.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 151.

Grant, Jesus, 176.

Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 264.

Grayston, 267.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 128.

Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien: Geschichten um Geschichte, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: VKatholoisches Bibelwerk, 1981), 49–50.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 128. His comments that indicate an empty tomb may be inferred from 125. The denial of the Gospel of Peter is found on page 128.

Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 6.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 243.

Moltmann, 222.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 308.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 38–39. See also O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 127.

Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection Revisited,” Gregorianum 79, no. 1 (1998): 172.

O’Collins, “State of the Questions,” 14.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 198–218.

Osborne, 218. He closes by listing Craig’s eight evidences (218–19).

Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 35. Cf. 40–41.

Perkins, Resurrection, 94.

Charles Austin Perry, The Resurrection Promise: An Interpretation of the Easter Narratives (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 25–27.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 121.

Robinson, 123.

Robinson, 121.

Robinson, 122.

Sheehan, First Coming, 98, 255.

Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 270.

Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47.

Stuhlmacher, 48.

Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 189–90.

Wilson, Jesus, 241.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 710.

Wright, 686, 687.

Wright, 707.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 58.

Wright, 63.

Wright, 69–70.

Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 131.

Carnley, Structure of Resurrection Belief, 61–62.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 173, 180.

Lorenzen, 140, 170, 183, 185.

Lorenzen, 168. For two sides to the issue, see 127 and 171–72.

Lorenzen, 173. But see directly above, where he still seems to accept at least the historicity of the women finding the empty tomb.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 298.

Lowder, 261.

Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 514.

Anton Vögtle, “Wie kam es zum Osterglauben?,” in Wie kam es zum Osterglauben?, ed. Anton Vögtle and Rudolf Pesch (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1975), 85–98, as cited in Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu,” 519.

Carrier, “Spiritual Body of Christ,” 173–76.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 102, 448, 452, 455, 456, 487, 496, 497.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 58.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 7, 173. Says we cannot know it is true on 151, 174.

Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 208.

Goulder, 208–12.

Barry W. Henaut, “Empty Tomb or Empty Argument: A Failure of Nerve in Recent Studies of Mark 16?,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 15, no. 2 (1986): 178–79.

Henaut, 187.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 256n1.

Hans Küng, Credo (London: SCM, 1993), as cited in O’Collins, “State of the Questions,” 13.

Hans Küng, Eternal Life? Life after Death as a Medical, Philosophical and Theological Problem, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 104.

Küng, On Being a Christian, 364–66.

Perrin, Resurrection, 80.

O’Collins, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 425.

John Polkinghorne, “Eschatological Credibility: Emergent and Teleological Processes,” in Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection, 49.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 82–83.

Davis, 83.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 179.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:359.

Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 131.

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:358.

Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 44.

Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 131.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 83.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 127–28.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 83.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 317.

Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1240.

Brown, 2:1279.

Brown, 2:1207–11.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–53, 459, 461, 473–74, 497, 507.

Casey, 452.

Casey, 448.

Casey, 448–53, 451, 473–74, 507.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 180–81. See also 15. Cf. 171.

Davis, 82.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781.

Dunn, 781–83.

Dunn, 828.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 7, 163, 173.

Ehrman, 163. See also 151, 157, 174.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 212.

Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” 93.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 135. See also 110, 130–34, 137, 161.

Kremer, Die Osterevangelien, 30–48 (Mark), 57–79 (Matthew), 98–111 (Luke), and 163–83 (John).

Küng, Eternal Life?, 95.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 93, 132.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 261.

Lowder, 265–66.

Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 6.

John P. Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50, no. 4 (1996): 369.

E. Peterson, Living the Resurrection, 41.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 120.

Robinson, 123.

Fausto Salvoni, “The So-Called Jesus Resurrection Proof (John 20:7),” Restoration Quarterly 22, no. 1 (1979): 76.

Segal, Life after Death, 447.

Sheehan, First Coming, 102.

Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 45–47.

Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha?, 48. For the broader discussion on the burial and grave, see 20, 46–49.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 230.

Tabor, 228. See also 223, 310.

Tabor, 224–40.

William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 147. See also Craig, “Closing Responses,” 163–65.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 141–42.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 106.

Wright, “Early Traditions,” 127.

Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1240.

Brown, 2:1241.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 147. See also Craig, “Closing Responses,” 165–67.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354. Cf. 250.

Bird, in Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 41.

Craig, “Closing Responses,” 167 (esp. n7).

Bauckham, “Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions,” 51.

Bauckham, 54.

Bauckham, 52. See also 55.

Bauckham, 53.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782–83.

E. Peterson, Living the Resurrection, 25–26.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354–55.

Allison, 317.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 41.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 355–56.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 147. See also Craig, “Closing Responses,” 170–72.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 169n16.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 353.

Allison, 354.

Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” 90–91.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 356.

Allison, 317.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 449. See also 448–53, 451, 473–74, 507.

Casey, 449.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 147–48. See also Craig, “Closing Responses,” 168–70.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 170n17.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 79.

Davis, 82.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 261.

Lowder, 271. See also 261.

Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?,” Biblica 75, no. 2 (1994): 241.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 103.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 355.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 79.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 355. See also 356.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

Dunn, 782.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 265–66.

Lowder, 271.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 40, 41.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–49.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 110–13, 124, 130–35.

Carrier, “Burial of Jesus,” 376.

Carrier, 377. See also 380.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–50.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 360.

Allison, 361.

Carrier, “Burial of Jesus,” 371.

Carrier, 379.

Carrier, 379. Cf. 390n27 where Carrier notes that in John’s account, Jesus’s mother is present.

Carrier, 379.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 264.

Lowder, 264.

Lowder, 299n14.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 264–65. See also 266.

Carrier, “Burial of Jesus,” 371. See also 375 (the law was “applicable” in Jesus’s day).

Carrier, 373.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 361.

Allison, 361.

Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 40.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” 83–84, 86.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 110–13, 132.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 220.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 361. For more info on nails as amulets, see 361n634. Allison refers to m. Shabbat 6:10; Lucan, Pharsalia 6.547; and the Martyrdom of Pionius 13.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 133–34, 159.

Gibson, 134.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 362.

Pannenberg, “Reality of the Resurrection,” 69.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148.

Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 170.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 184.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 27–30, 134–35.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 148–49.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 149. See also Craig, “Closing Responses,” 172.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 170n19.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 707–8.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 271.

Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 131, 136.

Carrier, “Burial of Jesus,” 381. Cf. 390n31, where Carrier lists some possible charges worthy of stoning.

Carrier, 371.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–53, 459, 461, 473–74, 497, 507.

Crossan, Jesus, 152–58, 160; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 391–94.

Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord,” 152.

Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 98–100.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 263. See also 266–70.

Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli,” 447.

Parsons, 446.

Parsons, 447.

Parsons, 445, referring to Carrier, Lowder, and Kirby in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb.

Sheehan, First Coming, 100.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 449.

Casey, 450.

Casey, 451.

Casey, 449–50.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 247.

Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” 446.

Carrier, “Burial of Jesus,” 377. See also 380.

Carrier, 382.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 267. For a full account, see 266–70.

Lowder, 269.

Lowder, 268.

Lowder, 295–98.

Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli,” 447.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 452.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 160. Section discussion in 156–60.

Ehrman, 161. See also 162–63.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 246.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 160. Section discussion in 156–60.

Ehrman, 160.

Ehrman, 161.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 248.

Kirby, 248.

Kirby, 246.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 449. See also 448–53, 451, 473–74, 507.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 243.

Kirby, 244.

Kirby, 237.

Kirby, 238.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 449–50.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 153–55.

Kirby, “Case against the Empty Tomb,” 247.

Gerd Lüdemann, “Opening Statements,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 43.

J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 403.

Theodore M. Drange, “Why Resurrect Jesus?,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 55, 57, 62, 65.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 141–42.

Ehrman, 152.

Ehrman, 153–55.

Ehrman, 156.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 263. See also 266–70.

Lowder, 265–66.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 709–10.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 353. See also 354.

Allison, 359.

Lowder, “Historical Evidence,” 264.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354.

Allison, 356.

Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 95–98.

Akenson, 116.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 358–59.

Allison, 357.

Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 157.

Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 27.

Tabor, 24.

Tabor, 26.

Allison, End of the Ages, 164.

Allison, 166.

Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 34.

Brown, Introduction to New Testament Christology, 164.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 169.

Cranfield, 170.

Dawe, Jesus, 107.

Doré, “Croire en la résurrection,” 536–37.

Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 103.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 218.

Elliott, 210.

Elliott, 215.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2.

Fuller, 82. See also 101.

Fuller, 100.

Fuller, 81.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 270.

Funk, 40, 220.

Funk, 230.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 127–28.

Goergen, 139–40.

Grant, Saint Peter, 89.

Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 265.

Hagner, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection,” 120.

Nicholas Peter Harvey, “Frames of Reference for the Resurrection,” Scottish Journal of Theology 42, no. 3 (1989): 335.

Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 65.

Hugh Jackson, “The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy?,” Journal of Religion 55, no. 4 (1975): 419.

Jackson, 420.

Jackson, 422.

Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 124.

Kasper, 125. See also 139.

A. Kee, From Bad Faith to Good News, 45.

Kee, 59. See also 60–63.

Kent, Psychological Origins, 21, 33, 41, 47.

Kent, 26, 90.

Kent, 47.

Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:86.

Küng, Eternal Life?, 94–96, 106–7.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 22.

Ladd, 36. See also 37, 71–72.

Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 96.

Lapide, 125.

Lapide, 129. Cf. 88.

Judith Lieu, “The Women’s Resurrection Testimony,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 34.

Barnabas Lindars, “The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57, no. 2 (1975): 384.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 126.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 120.

Lorenzen, 121.

Lorenzen, 120, 184, 270.

Lorenzen, 122.

Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, 66.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 215–17, quote on 217.

Moltmann, 217.

Muddiman, “Resurrection of the Body,” 133.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 115. Cf. 118.

O’Collins, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 13–14.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 31.

O’Collins, 12.

Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 113, 146, 171–72, 251–54. See also 352.

Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 8.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 96.

Pheme Perkins, “Reconciling the Resurrection,” Commonweal 112 (1985): 204.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 431.

Pesch, cited in Galvin, “The Origin of Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus: Two Recent Perspectives,” Theological Studies 49, no. 1 (1988): 30.

John J. Pilch, “Appearances of the Risen Jesus in Cultural Context: Experiences of Alternate Reality,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 28, no. 2 (1998): 59.

Plevnik, “Origin of the Easter Faith,” 499–504, 507–8.

Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 111.

Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 11.

Sanders, 276.

Sanders, 278.

Sheehan, First Coming, 104–5.

Gerard S. Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 28.

Spong, Resurrection, 240–41.

John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 192.

Spong, Resurrection, 241.

Spong, 242. Cf. 259.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 321.

Staudinger, 322.

Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 271.

Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 210.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 36, citing “Die Ostererscheinungen,” 48.

Francis Watson, “‘Historical Evidence’ and the Resurrection of Jesus,” Theology 90 (1987): 366.

Watson, 367.

A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 41. Cf. 39.

Wedderburn, 45.

Wedderburn, 46.

Wedderburn, 47.

Wedderburn, 188.

Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 137. See also 135.

Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 108.

Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985), 125.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 93.

Barnett, 94.

Barnett, 93. In n9 he cites Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (London: SCM, 1983), 30–31, as dating Jesus’s death at AD 30 and Paul’s conversion between AD 32 and 34.

Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire, 33.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 151–52.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170.

Dawe, Jesus, 107.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 42.

Fuller, 14, 28.

Fuller, 29–30.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 38–39.

Meier, 3:219–20.

Jürgen Moltmann, “The Resurrection of Christ: Hope for the World,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 75.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 215.

Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 217.

O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126–27.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 100.

Spong, Easter Moment, 88.

Williams, Resurrection, 8, 11, 27.

Anderson, Jesus Christ, 125.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 93. See also 94.

Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 289.

Clifford and Johnson, Cross Is Not Enough, 84.

Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 68.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 180–81. See also 15, 188. Cf. 171.

Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 103.

Francis X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus: Mystere de salut (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 127–60; Francis X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study, trans. Rosemary Sheed, 2nd ed. (London: Sheed & Ward, 1986), 151–201.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 210. See also 219.

Elliott, 210.

Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 163–64.

John Hick, Death and Eternal Life (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 177.

Leslie Houlden, “The Resurrection and Christianity,” Theology 99 (1996): 200.

Walter Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung, 6th ed. (Giessen: Brunnen, 1982), 200–215, 285–86.

Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 127.

Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 49.

Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:251–52.

Meier, 3:625.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 65.

Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 9.

Pannenberg, Jesus, 101.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 113.

Samuel, “Making Room in History (Part 2),” 111.

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 340.

Sanders, 240.

Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” 23.

Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 197.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109–12.

Wright, 2:110.

Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 96–97. See also 98, 110–11.

Johnson, 101.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 20, 138–39, 194, 376.

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109.

Wright, 110.

Wright, 111.

Wright, 110–12n102.

Wright, 488. See also 538, 659–60.

Wright, 538.

Clifford and Johnson, Cross Is Not Enough, 84.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170.

Harris, Raised Immortal, 39–40.

Andrew Purves, The Resurrection of Ministry: Serving in the Hope of the Risen Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010), 70.

Williams, Resurrection, 105.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 62.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 297. See also Wright, 579. Referring to the “Lord’s Day,” he cites Rev 1:10; Ign. Magn. 9.1.; Did. 14.1. Regarding the first day of the week, he cites Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2. See also Wright, 707.

Paul Avis, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Asking the Right Questions,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1.

Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 15.

Margaret Barker, “Resurrection: Reflections on a New Approach,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs, JSNTSup 186 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 98.

Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 185.

John Barton, “Why Does the Resurrection of Christ Matter?,” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, 108.

Barton, 108–14.

Stephen Barton, “The Hermeneutics of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives,” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, 45.

Hans Werner Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des Urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26, no. 2 (1980): 180. See also 194–95.

Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 137.

C. Brown, Miracles, 288–89.

Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 455. See also 456 (resurrection belief was held in the “earliest times”).

Clifford and Johnson, Cross Is Not Enough, 15, 19–39, 42, 49, 60, 69, 73, 114, 202, 221, 225, 231, 242–43, 250, 275, 276.

Dan Cohn-Sherbok, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish View,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 185.

Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” 151–52.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 167.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 1, 15.

Davis, 180–81. See also 15. Cf. 171.

Davis, “Advice for Religious Historians,” 145.

Dawe, Jesus, 107.

Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 107.

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

Dunn, 826.

Dunn, 826. Dunn notes the primitive material in the sermons in Acts 2:22–32; 3:13–15, 19–21; 10:36–41 (436n50).

Dunn, 875.

Durrwell, Resurrection, 304; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 225.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 131. See also 132–33, 174.

Ehrman, 108. See also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 310.

Elliott, “First Easter,” 210.

Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 409.

Hans Frei, “Theological Reflections on the Accounts of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection,” in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, ed. George Hunsinger and William C. Placher (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 201.

Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48. See also 169.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 40.

Funk, 275.

Galvin, “Origin of Faith,” 44.

Grant, Saint Peter, 89. See also Grant, Saint Paul, 75.

Grant, Saint Paul, 79.

Joel B. Green, “‘Witnesses of His Resurrection’: Resurrection, Salvation, Discipleship, and Mission in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death, 244–45.

Guillaume, Luc interprète, 266.

Hagner, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection,” 118–19.

Murray J. Harris, “Resurrection and Immortality in the Pauline Corpus,” in Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death, 147.

Brooke Hopkins, “Jesus and Object-Use: A Winnicottian Account of the Resurrection Myth,” International Review of Psychoanalysis 16, no. 1 (1989): 93.

Hopkins, 96.

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 94.

Barnett, Jensen, and Peterson, Resurrection, 38.

Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 101.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 11.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 6. See also 11. Similarly, Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 101, 289.

Johnson, Living Jesus, 168. See also Luke Timothy Johnson, “Luke 24:1–11: The Not-So-Empty-Tomb,” Interpretation 46, no. 1 (1992): 57.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 138.

Johnson, 134.

Brian V. Johnstone, “Transformation Ethics: The Moral Implications of the Resurrection,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 339.

Kent, Psychological Origins, 48.

Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.

Hans Küng, Eternal Life?, 107.

Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung, 253–58.

Ladd, Resurrection of Jesus, 43.

Ladd, 149.

Paul Lehmann, “The Politics of Easter: A Political Celebration of Easter,” Dialog 19 (1980): 37.

James Leuschen, The Lost Gospel of the First Christians: The Original First-Generation Foundation You’ve Been Missing (Bloomington, IN: WestBow, 2013), 88.

Leuschen, 5, 63.

Andrew T. Lincoln, “‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’: The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel,” in Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death, 122.

Lindars, “Apocalyptic Myth,” 379.

David Marshall, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 175.

Helmut Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 72, nos. 1–2 (1981): 25–26.

Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 70.

Meyer, 60.

Meyer, 68.

Meyer, 63.

Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 73.

Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 213.

Moltmann, 238.

Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 395–96.

John P. Newport, “Facing toward the Millennial Year 2000 under Biblical Guidance with a Focus on the Resurrection,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 120.

Gerald O’Collins, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Theological Studies 48, no. 4 (1987): 636.

Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 442.

Perkins, Resurrection, 316.

Perrin, Resurrection, 11.

Perry, Resurrection Promise, 1.

E. Peterson, Living the Resurrection, 102.

Charles P. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Virginia Seminary Journal 42, no. 1 (1990): 2.

Purves, Resurrection of Ministry, 19, 34–35, 86–87.

J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 113.

Robinson, 114.

Christopher Rowland, “Interpreting the Resurrection,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 76–77. He also has a section titled “Resurrection: Heart of Early Christian and Jewish Hope” (70–72).

Robert F. Scuka, “Resurrection: Critical Reflections on a Doctrine in Search of a Meaning,” Modern Theology 6, no. 1 (October 1989): 77.

Peter Selby, Look for the Living: The Corporate Nature of Resurrection Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1.

Sheehan, First Coming, 113–14.

Marguerite Shuster, “The Preaching of the Resurrection of Christ in Augustine, Luther, Barth, and Thielicke,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 308.

Robert H. Smith, Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus according to the Four Evangelists (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), 199.

Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317.

Staudinger, 319.

Adrian Thatcher, “Resurrection and Rationality,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 175.

Helmut Thielicke, “How Can I Be Sure of the Risen Christ?,” Christianity Today 27 (1983): 15.

Robert C. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus, 1: Theological Orientations,” Heythrop Journal 16, no. 1 (1975): 23.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 3.

Wedderburn, 111.

Wedderburn, 113. See 117.

Wilckens, Resurrection, 131.

Wilson, Jesus, 239.

N. T. Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” Sewanee Theological Review 41, no. 2 (1998): 117. See also 112, 119. Similarly, Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 133. See also 126.

Wright, Surprised by Hope, 257. See also 41, 51, 68.

Wright, 41. See also xiv, 51, 68.

Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 400. See also 463.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 453.

Wright, Who Was Jesus?, 34.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 476.

Wright, 450, 477.

Wright, 270. See also 319.

Wright, 380–81.

Wright, 551–52.

Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 128.

Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15.

Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149.

Caird and Hurst, New Testament Theology, 267.

Tim Callahan, Secret Origins of the Bible (Altadena, CA: Millennium, 2002), 369.

Carrier, “Spiritual Body of Christ,” 120.

Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 265.

Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 167.

Davis, Risen Indeed, 195. See also 196.

Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels, 47.

Dunn, 50. See also 47–50.

Durrwell, Resurrection, 308–9; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 226–28.

Craig A. Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54, no. 1 (1993): 23.

Funk, Honest to Jesus, 35.

Harris, “Resurrection and Immortality,” 147.

Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 201–2.

Kent, Psychological Origins, 62.

Kent, 96.

Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 134, 135.

Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 413.

Shuster, “Preaching of the Resurrection,” 308.

Sunand Sumithra, review of Jesus’s Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, by Hans J. Bayer, Evangelical Review of Theology 11 (1987): 275.

Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 117.

Wenham, Paul, 366.

N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 131. See also 46, 49, 150.

Wright, 145.

Wright, 50.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 274–75, 309, 317, 380–81.

Wright, 453, referring to Acts 17:18.

Wright, “Early Traditions,” 126; Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 106, 126.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 277–78, 309, 317.

Collins, “Empty Tomb,” 119–20.

Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 198.

Houlden, 200–201.

Houlden, 201–2. Regarding salvation in particular, see also Houlden, “History, Story and Belief,” 62.

Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 202–5. See his comments on John in Houlden, “History, Story and Belief,” 64.

Houlden, “History, Story and Belief,” 65.

Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 203–4.

Houlden, 205.

Houlden, 200.

Houlden, 202.

Houlden, 203.

Houlden, 204.

Houlden, 205.

O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 50.

Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000), 56.

↑ Back to top