The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

THE FACT OF THE EMPTY TOMB

In this chapter I want to consider with you the historical evidence in support of the empty tomb. That evidence may be considered under ten main headings.

1. The historical reliability of the account of Jesus’ burial supports the empty tomb. If it can be shown that the story of Jesus’ burial in the tomb is basically reliable, then the fact that the tomb was later found empty is also close at hand. For if the burial account is reliable, then the site of Jesus’ grave was well known. But in that case, the tomb must have been empty when the disciples began to preach the resurrection, for several reasons. In the first place, the disciples themselves could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus when faced with a tomb containing His corpse. In the second place, no one would have believed them, even if they had claimed that He was risen, since it would have been stupid (in fact, impossible) for anyone to believe a man had been raised from the dead when His body was still in the grave. And in the third place, the disciples’ opponents would have exposed the whole affair as a sham by displaying the body of Jesus, perhaps even parading it through the streets of Jerusalem, thus bringing the Christian heresy to a sudden and grisly end.

If the burial account is historically credible, the fact of the empty tomb is nearly proved. Those who deny the empty tomb, such as the German theologian Hans Grass, realize this and thus are forced to argue at length against the burial account as well. Unfortunately for them, however, the burial account is widely recognized to be one of the most historically reliable narratives concerning Jesus’ suffering and death, and their arguments have therefore something of an air of desperation about them. The evidence for the historical reliability of the burial story may be summarized in ten statements.

a) Paul’s testimony provides early evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ burial. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes an early Christian saying that summarizes the content of the earliest Christian preaching:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,

and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.2

After quoting this saying, Paul continues the list of witnesses: “Then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also” (1 Corinthians 15:6-8).

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians about A.D. 55, but the saying he quotes goes back even further. Since he says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that all the apostles preach what is here summarized, it is likely that the saying stems from the earliest days of the Christian fellowship (church would be an inappropriate word) in Jerusalem. The apostles included Peter and the other disciples and perhaps even Jesus’ own brothers (see 1 Corinthians 9:5). Thus, this saying summarizes the preaching of the original disciples themselves.

This conclusion is confirmed by comparing the disciples’ sermons recorded in the book of Acts with the summary quoted by Paul: the summary is like an outline on which the sermons are built. Since the material in the sermons is quite old, the summary quoted by Paul must be very old as well.

In fact, from information supplied elsewhere by Paul, we have a good idea of just how old this saying is. Jesus was crucified about A.D. 30. In A.D. 33 Paul became a Christian when he saw an appearance of Jesus on the way to Damascus in Syria. In Galatians 1:18 Paul mentions that three years after his conversion (thus, A.D. 36) he went to Jerusalem and visited Cephas (that is, Peter) and James for two weeks. If Paul had not already received this saying from Christians in Damascus (which I think is probable, as he spent three years there), then he must have received it during this visit to Jerusalem. For Paul spent two weeks with Peter and spoke with James, both of whom claimed to have seen Jesus alive from the dead; therefore, in the words of the great Cambridge New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd, “We may presume that they did not spend all their time talking about the weather.”3 The facts about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection must have been the center of their discussion.

As a matter of fact, the very word Paul uses to describe this visit is a term used by Greek writers to designate fact-finding missions to, well-known cities and sites of interest for the purpose of obtaining first-hand information about them. This suggests that Paul went to Jerusalem specifically in order to gain information about his faith from first-hand witnesses. If he had not already heard the saying in Damascus, Paul probably received it from Peter and James during this visit. It is interesting that the two individuals mentioned by Paul in his list of witnesses to the resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-8) are Peter and James.

The upshot of all this is that the Christian saying quoted by Paul must have been in circulation prior to his visit in A.D. 36 and thus must have been formulated within the first five years after Jesus’ death.

Now in this saying, the second line is that “he was buried.” Some theologians wish to say that this does not refer to the burial of Jesus in the tomb, but merely underlines the fact of his death, as if to say, “He was dead-and-buried.” The evidence, however, stands against such an interpretation. Notice the structure of the saying. It consists of four lines each beginning with “and that.” The repetition of those words is grammatically unnecessary and indeed most English translations smooth out the saying by omitting them. But why did the drafters of the saying repeat that grammatically unnecessary phrase before each line? The most likely answer is that they wanted to emphasize the equal weight of each line and order them in a series. In other words, reference to the burial is not meant merely to underline the death, but stands as a separate and independent event in the chain of events concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection.

This conclusion is confirmed by the chronological succession of one event after another: the events follow each other in chronological order, and the appearances are joined by “then . . . then . . . then . . . last of all” (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Each event is distinct, and they are arranged chronologically. This makes it probable that the burial referred to here is a particular event.

These considerations suggest that the second line of this old saying refers to the burial of Jesus. But was that burial the same event as that described in the gospels? I think the decisive answer to that question comes by comparing the saying with the sermons in Acts, especially Acts 13:28-31, and with the resurrection narratives in the gospels. Notice that the order of events is identical and that the second line of the summary corresponds with the account of the burial in the tomb.

1 Cor. 15:3-5

Acts 13:28-31

Mark 15:37-16:8

Christ died

Though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed.

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

He was buried

They took him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.

And Joseph bought a linen sheet, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen sheet, and laid Him in a tomb.

He was raised

But God raised Him from the dead.

“He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.”

He appeared

And for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people.

“But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him.’”

This remarkable correlation shows convincingly that the burial mentioned in the summary statement quoted by Paul refers to the event that is described in the gospels as Jesus’ burial in the tomb.

If such is the case, then it is virtually impossible to deny the historicity of Jesus’ burial in the tomb. In the first place, given the age and origin of the Christian saying, there was simply no time for legend to arise. The saying records what was common knowledge concerning Jesus’ burial, among all residents of Jerusalem at that time. Second, the women who witnessed the burial (Mark 15:47) were members of the early Christian fellowship in which the saying was drafted. Thus, if the women’s observing the burial in the tomb proves to be historical, then their testimony guarantees the accuracy of the saying. (I shall examine the evidence for the women’s role later.) Third, Paul’s own quotation of the saying confirms its accuracy. When Paul quoted those old sayings, he knew the broader context that the sayings summarized. (Look, for example, at his detailed knowledge of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper as Paul records them in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.) That alone makes it probable that he knew the burial story summarized by the second line of the saying. This conclusion is confirmed by his two-week visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 36, for he would certainly have learned by then what happened to Jesus after He had been crucified. Thus, in quoting the saying that refers to the burial of Jesus in the tomb, Paul sets his stamp of approval on its accuracy. Hence, the information furnished by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 provides early and reliable evidence that Jesus was buried in the tomb as the gospels report.

b) The burial account was part of the source material used by Mark in his description of Jesus’ sufferings and death and is therefore very early. Reading through the gospels, one notices that they seem to be made up of many somewhat disconnected, self-sufficient stories about Jesus. But the part about Jesus’ sufferings, crucifixion, death, and burial, is related in a smooth, continuous narrative. That suggests that the narrative is all of one piece and already existed before the gospel writers sat down to write their gospels. The story of Jesus’ sufferings and death was thus part of the source material they used in writing their gospels. Mark’s gospel is generally held by biblical scholars to be the earliest of the four gospels. Although its exact date is disputed, it is dated by most scholars around A.D. 70. That means that the story of Jesus’ sufferings and death is even older than that, since it was one of Mark’s sources. Because the story describes the final days of Jesus’ life in Jerusalem, it is likely that the account goes back to the early days of the Christian fellowship there. That makes it a very valuable historical source, since its age and place of origin make it improbable that legend could have yet arisen so as to obliterate the facts.

It is now universally acknowledged that the burial account was part of that story, which was used as source material by Mark. There is no break at all between Mark’s description of Jesus’ death (Mark 15:33-41) and his description of Jesus’ burial (Mark 15:42-47). It is a continuous narrative, and there is no reason to think that Mark’s source ended abruptly with Jesus’ death without telling of His burial. That means that the burial account is very old and therefore probably historically reliable. The story of the burial is as reliable as the story of the crucifixion itself, since they were really part of the same story.

Moreover, since the burial account is part of the story of Jesus’ sufferings and death, and since that story is quite old, we can be sure Paul knew the story. He was a contemporary of the story and was in close contact with his Christian friends and fellow-workers in the fellowship in Jerusalem. This confirms the fact that the burial referred to in the Christian saying that Paul quotes is identical to the burial of Jesus in the tomb, as described in the gospel story. The age and origin of the Christian saying on the one hand and the age and origin of the story of Jesus’ sufferings and death on the other hand together insure the historical reliability of the account of Jesus’ burial. And we also have the testimony of the apostle Paul to vouch for the account’s accuracy.

c) The story itself is simple and lacks signs of significant legendary development. Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to give Mark’s account of the burial:

And when evening had already come because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, a man who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. And Joseph bought a linen sheet, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen sheet, and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on to see where He was laid. [Mark 15:42-47]

The account is simple and straightforward and does not appear to be colored by legendary influences. Even the radical skeptic Rudolf Bultmann wrote of this narrative, “This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vv. 44, 45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark.”4 The highly respected commentator on Mark, Vincent Taylor, says that Bultmann’s judgment is “a notable understatement.” Taylor asserts, “The narrative belongs to the best tradition.”5 That means that the burial account is basically a factual report of what took place.

If that were not enough, we have additional confirmation of the main points of Mark’s account by comparing it with John’s account (John 19:38-42). For although Luke and Matthew may have read and used Mark’s account of the burial in writing their own accounts, John’s account seems to be independent of the other three. John’s story coincides with the main features of Mark’s story: that late on the day of preparation, Joseph of Arimathea asked for and received permission from Pilate to take the body of Jesus, that he did so, wrapping the body in linen, and that he laid the body in a tomb. This historical core does not show legendary traces and seems to be a straightforward, factual report.

d) The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is probably historical. Arimathea is likely to be the town Ramathaion-zophim, just north of Jerusalem. Joseph is said to be a member of the Council, that is, the Sanhedrin, which was a sort of Jewish Supreme Court that tried cases dealing with Jewish law. The Great Sanhedrin, which tried important life-and-death cases, consisted of seventy-one prominent and influential men. Even the most skeptical scholars acknowledge that Joseph was probably the genuine, historical individual who buried Jesus, since it is unlikely that early Christian believers would invent an individual, give him a name and nearby town of origin, and place that fictional character on the historical council of the Sanhedrin, whose members were well known.

In addition, some of the gospels’ descriptions of Joseph receive confirmation through incidental details. For example, Matthew says that Joseph was “a rich man” (Matthew 27:57). That fact is confirmed by the type and location of the tomb in which he buried Jesus, as we shall see in a moment. To afford the kind of tomb described in the gospels, Joseph must have been wealthy, just as Matthew says. It is also probable that Joseph was at least some sort of sympathizer of Jesus. Although both Matthew and John state that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57; John 19:38; John adds, “a secret one, for fear of the Jews”), that description is often said to be a legendary development of Mark’s more simple expression that Joseph was “waiting for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43). Now Mark’s expression could mean that Joseph was merely a pious Jew who was waiting for the Messiah. On the other hand, the coming of the kingdom of God are the very words Mark uses to describe Jesus’ gospel (Mark 1:14-15), and it is not evident that Mark thought a person could really be looking for the coming of the kingdom of God without being a believer in Jesus. Thus, his expression could mean the same thing stated more clearly by Matthew and John.

More important, however, Joseph’s actions as described by Mark do seem to show that Joseph had a special care for Jesus. Mark says he went in bravely (or dared to go) to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. The authorities did not ordinarily give over the corpse of a victim executed for a major crime, so it took courage for Joseph to ask for Jesus’ body. According to Mark, Joseph apparently gave Jesus a proper burial. There is no indication of hurry in Mark’s burial account; Joseph buys a shroud, wraps the body in it, lays it in the tomb, and rolls a stone across the door. As Joseph rolls the stone over the door to the tomb, there is a sense of completeness and finality—there is no hint of a hasty or unfinished burial. Now all that is very remarkable, for the Jewish practice of burying executed criminals was simply to throw the bodies into shallow, dirt graves in a plot reserved for that purpose. Outside the city were two sites for the burial of criminals, one for those stoned or burned and one for the decapitated or hanged.6 There the bodies could be disposed of in dirt graves. Instead of getting rid of Jesus’ corpse in that way, Joseph wrapped and laid the body in a tomb, which, we shall see, was of the most expensive variety and probably his own. These are not the actions of a cold delegate of the Sanhedrin who had been assigned to dispose of the bodies.

That Joseph was giving special care to Jesus’ body is also evident from the fact that he apparently did nothing to dispose of the bodies of the two thieves crucified with Jesus (Mark 15:27, 32). It seems Joseph was content to leave their burial to the Romans. But he took it upon himself to care specifically for Jesus’ body. That he dared to go to Pilate and ask specifically for Jesus’ body strongly suggests that Joseph did indeed have sympathies with Jesus.

Finally it is important to remember that Matthew and John state independently that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. They did not both come upon this idea out of the blue; they had sources of information, and these sources may well be correct. John says elsewhere that many of the authorities believed in Jesus but were afraid to confess the fact openly (John 12:42-43), and he describes Joseph in the same terms. Joseph’s actions as described by Mark indicate that Joseph did indeed have deep feelings for Jesus and that he was therefore at least a secret sympathizer of the man, if not a secret disciple.

e) Jesus’ burial in a tomb is probably historical. Archaeological discoveries have revealed three different types of rock tombs used in Jesus’ time.7 (1) Kōkīm tombs, in which tunnels about six feet deep were bored into the walls of the tomb, three in each wall, into which the bodies were inserted headfirst; (2) acrosolia tombs, which had semicircular niches in the walls about two and one-half feet above the floor and two to three feet deep containing either a shelf or trough for the body; and (3) bench tombs, in which a bench went around the inner walls of the tomb and served as a resting place for the body. The tombs were sealed with a stone slab to keep out animals. In a very expensive tomb, a round, disc-shaped stone could be rolled down a slanted groove and across the door of the tomb. Although it would be easy to close the tomb, it would require several men to roll the stone back up the groove to open it. Only a few tombs with such disc-shaped stones have been discovered in Palestine, but they all date from Jesus’ day.

When one compiles the incidental details concerning Jesus’ tomb from the gospels, it becomes evident that either an acrosolia or bench tomb is in mind, with a roll-stone for the door.8 This is very interesting because such tombs were scarce in Jesus’ day and were reserved for persons of high rank, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Furthermore, near the church that stands at the traditional site for Jesus’ grave, acrosolia tombs from Jesus’ time have been found.

In addition, John states that the tomb was located in a garden (John 19:41). The word means plantation, or orchard, and such a site could contain rock tombs. In fact one of the gates in the North Wall of Jerusalem was called the Garden Gate, and the tombs of the Jewish high priests John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus were in that area.9 So it could have been a prestigious burial place.

Two more details deserve to be mentioned. First, according to Matthew, Luke, and John, the tomb was new and unused (Matthew 27:60; Luke 23:53; John 19:41). This is very likely, since the body of a condemned criminal could not be placed in an occupied tomb without defiling the bodies of the family members reposing there. Therefore, Joseph would have to find an unoccupied tomb. Second, Matthew says the tomb was Joseph’s own tomb (Matthew 27:60). This also is very probable, since Joseph would not be at liberty to lay the body of a criminal in just anybody’s rock tomb. All the gospels give the impression that Joseph had a specific tomb in mind, and that is best explained by the fact that the tomb in which he laid Jesus was his own property.

That all these details dovetail cannot be simply coincidental. But neither can it be intentional, for the details are entirely incidental and offhand. The tomb used for Jesus’ burial is consistently described as an acrosolia or bench tomb. Archaeology confirms that such tombs were used in Jesus’ day but only by wealthy or prominent persons. The tomb is described as having a roll-stone for a door. Again archaeology demonstrates the use of such tombs in Jesus’ day, but only by the rich. John says the tomb was situated in some sort of garden, a fact shown to be consistent with the location of the tombs of notables. At the same time, the different gospel writers mention that Joseph was a prominent Jewish leader, that he was wealthy, and that he owned the tomb in which he laid Jesus. In other words, he is exactly the sort of man who would own a tomb such as that described in the gospels. The gospels also say the tomb was unused, which is plausible in light of Jewish beliefs about defilement. Joseph is said to be a secret disciple, and that makes sense of his placing Jesus’ corpse in his own tomb. It is the interweaving of all those separate and incidental details that makes the historical credibility of Joseph’s burial of Jesus in his tomb so impressive.

f) Jesus was probably buried late on the day of preparation. The day of preparation was Friday, the day before the Jewish Sabbath, on which preparations for the Sabbath were made. According to one Jewish peculiarity of reckoning time, a day began at sundown and ended the next day at sundown. Thus, Luke could record the time of Jesus’ entombment this way: “It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin” (Luke 23:54). That indicates that Joseph completed Jesus’ burial at sundown Friday evening. According to John, that year the annual Jewish feast of Passover fell on Saturday (John 19:14). That meant that the weekly Sabbath and Passover coincided that year, so that Saturday was doubly holy (or as John says, “that Sabbath was a high day” [John 19:31]). The fact that in Mark 15:46 Joseph is still able to buy the linen shroud from the dealers shows that the Passover had not yet begun; Mark and John thus agree that Jesus was crucified and buried on the eve of the Passover.

John adds an interesting detail missing in Mark. He records that because of the impending Sabbath-Passover, the Jews asked Pilate to have the legs of those crucified broken. For the same reason Joseph placed the body of Jesus in the tomb in the garden (John 19:31, 42). Why is John so concerned about the fact that the Sabbath was about to begin? According to the Old Testament law a man executed by hanging could not be allowed to remain on the tree overnight (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) because he was accursed by God and would therefore defile the land.10 The Jews applied that principle to crucifixion as well.11 Thus they could not allow Jesus or the thieves to remain on the crosses overnight. So they asked the Romans to break their legs. By having the victims’ legs broken, the Jews could insure that they would not remain on the crosses overnight.

That, however, created a new problem. Although Jewish law permitted burial after nightfall,12 it did not permit burial on a Sabbath. Since the Sabbath-Passover began at sunset, the Jews had to get rid of the bodies before nightfall. It would have been most convenient to dump the bodies in the criminals’ common graveyard. But Joseph chose to give Jesus a proper burial, which was possible apparently because the tomb he owned was near. Thus, according to all the gospels, Joseph finished the burial of Jesus just as evening came.

It is sometimes objected that the time was insufficient for Joseph to request the body, take it down from the cross, buy the shroud, wrap the body, and lay it in the tomb before sunset. Since Jesus died about three o’clock in the afternoon, that meant Joseph had three hours in which to work. Although there was no time to waste, it is not at all obvious that this amount of time was insufficient for the job. After all, when the gospels say Joseph took down Jesus’ body and carried it away, that does not mean he himself climbed the ladder and pulled out the nails. He in fact would probably not have touched the corpse, since then he would have been defiled and could not eat the Passover (Numbers 19:11). As a man of authority, he no doubt had servants to help him. It is noteworthy that Mark 16:6 refers to a plurality of persons: “Here is the place where they laid him.” Servants probably were the ones who actually bought the linen shroud. The burial itself need not have been very elaborate: the hands and feet had to be tied, perhaps the jaw bound, then dry spices, probably fragrant resin and powdered sandalwood to offset the stench of decay, were packed around the body, which was then wrapped in the sheet. According to John, the tomb in which the body was laid was nearby, and all the gospels agree that when Joseph finished, the Sabbath was about to begin. Hence, the pace of events of the burial is quite realistic and bears the marks of authenticity.

The fact that Jesus was buried late on the day of preparation, as all the gospels state, is therefore historically plausible in light of Jewish regulations concerning the handling of executed criminals and the burial procedures described.

g) The observation of the burial by the women is historically probable. According to the gospels, women followers of Jesus witnessed the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb of Jesus:

Crucifixion

(Mark 15:40)

Burial

(Mark 15:47)

Empty Tomb

(Mark 16:1)

And there were also some women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome.

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on to see where He was laid.

Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, at they might come and anoint Him.

It is probable that all three lists of names were part of the source material used by Mark. Mark could not have built the first list out of the other two, since then the phrase, “the Less” (“the younger”) remains unexplained. The second and third lists presuppose both each other and the first list, since Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses is identified by one son in the second list and by the other in the third list. It is unlikely that the second and third lists were built from the first, however, because then Salome’s absence from the second list would remain unexplained. According to Josef Blinzler in his important study of this problem, all three lists are old and unchanged from Mark’s source material.13

A little reflection shows how plausible this is. If the women were at the crucifixion, it is unlikely that they would not have remained to see the burial. But then the tomb must have been empty, since the grave site was known. On the other hand, if they were at the burial, they must have been at the crucifixion, since they would not show up suddenly for the entombment. And again, the knowledge of the grave site insures the empty tomb. Finally, if they were at the empty tomb, then they must have been at the burial in order to know the tomb’s location. And if they were at the burial they were probably at the crucifixion. Hence, any of the three roles of the women presupposes the other two.

If this is the case, then the historical probability is that the women did witness these events, for it is difficult to see how persons who were well known in the early Christian fellowship could be named as witnesses to events that everyone knew they did not see. After all, people like Mary Magdalene and the other Mary with her two sons were real people or they were not. If they were, then how could they be falsely associated with events they never witnessed in an account that came out of the Christian fellowship of which they themselves were members? If on the other hand they were fictitious characters, then how could they have been invented as witnesses when everyone would know they never existed? The most likely solution is that we have here reliable lists of witnesses to the events in question.

Apart from all this, however, the fact that women witnessed these events is made very probable when one considers the low credibility given to women in Jewish society. Their testimony was regarded so poorly that women were not even considered qualified to serve as legal witnesses.14 Their low rung on the Jewish social ladder is more than evident in such texts as these: “Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women.”15 “Happy is he whose children are male, and alas for him whose children are female.”16 When one considers these facts, it becomes very remarkable that women should be named as the witnesses to the important events of Jesus’ death, burial, and empty tomb. If one were going to invent witnesses to these events, then why not use the male disciples? The testimony of women was not only worthless, but actually embarrassing.

Some scholars have suggested that the male disciples fled to Galilee when Jesus was arrested and so could not be named as witnesses. But von Campenhausen and others have rightly dismissed that theory as a fiction of the critics.17 It is ridiculous to think that the disciples, fleeing from the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested, would return to where they were staying, grab their things, and keep on going all the way back to Galilee. According to all the gospels, the disciples remained in Jerusalem over the weekend, but lay low for fear of the Jews. When the women found the empty tomb, they were told to go inform the disciples, who were hiding out in Jerusalem. Thus, if the gospel writers wanted to invent witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb, they could easily have used a few of the male disciples. Instead, we have legally unqualified women playing that role. Why? The most probable answer has to be because, like it or not, they were the witnesses to those events, and the gospel writers honestly record the fact.

h) No other burial story exists. Hans Grass has admitted that the historicity of the burial story cannot be denied unless an earlier burial story can be discovered and the present story can be shown to contain improbabilities.18 Grass therefore tries to point out three improbabilities: (1) There was insufficient time for the burial in the tomb, (2) the linen shroud could not have been purchased on a holiday, and (3) usually criminals are buried in a common grave. Those objections have already been answered: (1) three hours would be sufficient time for a simple burial, especially since the tomb was near, (2) Grass assumes the Passover was on Friday, but if it was on Saturday, as John clearly states, then there is no prohibition against buying goods on Friday, the day of preparation, and (3) Joseph’s being a secret sympathizer of Jesus would account for his special care of Jesus’ body. Grass himself seems a bit embarrassed by the weakness of his objections. He acknowledges that Mark’s account is not impossible and that if it is true then the site of Jesus’ tomb would have been known to both the Jews and the Christians.

But Grass claims to have discovered traces of other burial stories of Jesus. Acts 13:28-29 contains, he thinks, a remnant of a burial of Jesus by the Jews: “Though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. And when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.” This, however, is reading too much into the text: it is a remark made in a sermon and is not intended to be treated like a police report. Remember that Luke was the author of Acts, and in his gospel he had fully described Joseph of Arimathea’s burial of Jesus in the tomb. Moreover, the New Testament scholar Ulrich Wilckens in his detailed study of the sermons in Acts points out that Luke has a tendency to blame the Jews for what happened to Jesus, and that comes out here.19 In any case, this verse provides no escape for Grass because it still speaks of Jesus’ burial in the tomb, so that the end result is the same: Jesus’ grave site is known.

Grass also tries to read another burial story, this time by the Romans, into John 19:31: “Because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), [the Jews] asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.” Grass is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, for John makes it quite clear that after the soldiers broke the thieves’ legs, Joseph of Arimathea came and requested Jesus’ body. It is entirely possible that the Romans did bury the thieves’ bodies, but John knows of no other story of Jesus’ burial than the burial by Joseph.

Thus no other burial story exists. If the story of Joseph’s burial of Jesus in the tomb is legendary, then it is very strange indeed that we nowhere find other conflicting stories, not even in the Jewish attacks on Christianity. That no remnant of the true story or even a conflicting false one should remain is very strange unless the gospel account is in fact the true story. If one denies this, then one is reduced to denying the historicity of one of the most straightforward and unadorned narratives about Jesus and giving credence to imaginary alternative stories that do not exist.

i) The graves of Jewish holy men were always carefully remembered and honored. During Jesus’ day, the Jews had an extraordinary interest in preserving the tombs of Jewish martyrs, prophets, and other saints and honoring them as shrines. Therefore, it is unlikely that the burial place of Jesus would be allowed to go unnoticed and be lost. When Jesus was crucified and buried, the disciples had no idea that He would rise from the dead and leave the tomb empty. Therefore, they would probably have been concerned to learn exactly where Jesus had been entombed, so that his grave might become a holy place to them. Perhaps that is even why the women remained behind to watch the burial—so that Jesus’ resting place might be remembered. Indeed, Luke writes that the women “followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. And they returned and prepared spices and perfumes” that they might go and anoint him (Luke 23:55-56). One gets the impression that the women were intent on noting the location of the tomb so that they could visit it later. Thus, given the Jewish interest in preserving the tombs of holy men, it is likely that the site of Jesus’ grave would also have been remembered.

j) The Shroud of Turin confirms Jesus’ burial. The Shroud of Turin purports to be the burial shroud in which Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus’ corpse and laid it in his tomb. If the Shroud is genuine, then this would be dramatic evidence that the burial story is true. According to the gospels, the grave cloths of Jesus were found lying in the empty tomb on Sunday morning (Luke 24:12; John 20:4-9), and if the Shroud is genuine they were presumably kept by the disciples and handed down through the church.

One’s initial reaction to the Shroud is skepticism, since the medieval Catholic church swarmed with such relics of Jesus’ life, for example, nails or pieces of wood, from the cross, hairs from Mary’s head, bones of the saints, and so on. That makes it quite likely at face value that the Shroud is just another medieval forgery. A careful assessment of the evidence, especially concerning the tests recently concluded by a team of forty American scientists, however, render the forgery hypothesis extremely unlikely. Let us review just some of the evidence.20

(1) The Shroud has marks of being authentic. Pollen samples taken from the Shroud reveal pollen from seven types of plants that grow in Palestine, suggesting that the Shroud was once in that area. Textile analysis of the cloth also points to the Holy Land and to a very old age. The cloth is linen, normally used in Palestine for graveclothes, with traces of cotton of a Middle Eastern variety. The thread is handspun, rather than spun on a wheel, which indicates an old age. Also the thread may have been bleached before weaving, which was also an ancient practice. The weave itself is of a pattern not unknown in the ancient world, though not as common as a simpler pattern. The most recent tests, including X-ray and ultraviolet radiation experiments, have shown that the blood on the Shroud is real blood. The wounds on the body are extremely realistic. The flow of blood from the wound on the side goes around to the small of the back, appearing on the back image of the Shroud, something a forger would probably have overlooked. The angle of the blood flow from the wrist wound is also proper for crucifixion. Ultraviolet fluorescence photographs reveal auras around the side wound and the blood on the wrists and one foot, which may be a serum which is squeezed out of clotting blood. The same photographs reveal that the body has fine diagonal scratch marks along with the scourge wounds, especially on the legs. Some observers claim that computer-enhanced photographs even reveal coins that date from the first century on the eyelids of the figure. Thus, the Shroud has many traits of authenticity.

(2) A forger would probably not have produced such a shroud. Although the Shroud is harmonious with the gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial, a person reading John’s gospel would probably have gotten a different impression. He would probably have thought Jesus’ body was wrapped like a mummy. But there is no indication that this was the burial custom of the Jews, and closer analysis of John’s description of Jesus’ burial and comparison with John’s description of Lazarus’ burial (John 11:44) makes it plausible to suppose that the body was usually bound at the hands and feet, its jaw bound, and the whole wrapped in a linen cloth. But a medieval forger would probably not have known that. Nor would he have known to put the nail wound in the wrist rather than in the hand. All medieval paintings show the wounds in the hands, but this position of the nail could not support the weight of the body, as was discovered by a French surgeon in 1931. The word in the gospels for “hand” includes the wrist and forearm as well, and victims were crucified by their wrists, a fact no medieval forger could know.

(3) There are no known means of producing the image on the Shroud. The first photographs of the Shroud in 1898 revealed it to be a negative photographic image with lights and darks reversed. How could a medieval artist hundreds of years before photography have produced such a negative image? In 1973 it was discovered that the image lies only on the topmost fibrils of the threads and there is no trace of pigment. The most recent investigations confirm this, but found that the blood stains had penetrated the cloth, indicating that the blood had absorbed into the cloth while the man’s image only colors its surface. No painting could have produced such an image. That conclusion is reinforced by the evidence concerning a fire that damaged the Shroud in 1532. The heat of the fire and the water used to extinguish it would have discolored the image nearest the burn area. But there is no trace of such an effect: the color of the image is constant right up to the burn marks.

The painting hypothesis was decisively discredited as a result of perhaps the most amazing find of all concerning the Shroud. Using a VP-8 Image Analyzer, an instrument designed to study the relief of the surface of the moon and Mars, scientists discovered to their astonishment that the image contains perfectly three-dimensional data, such that the original body that produced the image can actually be molded. No painting or ordinary photograph yields such three-dimensional data. It has been suggested that the image may have been produced by a forger’s scorching the cloth, perhaps laying it over a heated statue. But the problem with this hypothesis is that such a scorch would be deeper where the most contact was made, for example, the nose. But in fact this does not occur; each fibril is an identical shade, and certain areas are darker only because there are more colored fibrils there. Hence, there is just no known mechanism by which a medieval forger could have produced this image. According to one member of the team of American scientists—all of whom, by the way, were skeptical before they began their research—who was interviewed on the television program “20/20,” “Very conservatively, very conservatively, the odds of the shroud being a forgery are about one in ten million.”

If the Shroud is not a fake, then the next question is naturally: is the man on the Shroud Jesus? There seems to be little reason to doubt that it is. Why would the burial cloth of any common criminal executed by crucifixion be preserved? Moreover, the puncture wounds on the upper part of the victim’s head seem to have been made by the crown of thorns that Jesus was forced to wear. Since that crown was in mockery of His claim to be King of the Jews, the presence of these wounds on the Shroud is like Jesus’ signature, since no other criminal would wear such a crown. If the Shroud is not a forgery, then it is probably Jesus’ image on the cloth.

How the image came to be is, not important here, for I am not saying it was produced by the resurrection. I am merely pointing out that the authenticity of the Shroud would confirm the burial story of Jesus—that He was indeed wrapped in the linen cloth and laid in the tomb, which we have seen to have been Joseph’s, just as the gospels say He was.

If the account of Jesus’ burial is historically reliable, then the tomb of Jesus must have been known to Jew and Christian alike. And if the site of the tomb was known, then the tomb must have been found empty, otherwise belief in the resurrection would have been impossible. Therefore the historical reliability of the burial account, which is accepted by far and away the most scholars, is strong evidence for the empty tomb.

2. Paul’s testimony guarantees the fact of the empty tomb. We saw that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes an old Christian saying:

That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,

and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

We have seen that the second line of this saying refers to the burial of Jesus in the tomb. When Paul then says “He was raised,” this therefore necessarily implies that the tomb was left empty.

That truth is evident from the very word used for the resurrection (egēgertai). Two verbs for “resurrect” are used in the New Testament: egeirein and anistanai. The main meaning of egeirein is “to awaken” from sleep. In the Bible, sleep is used as a euphemism for death. Thus, the picture here is of a dead person reawakening to life. The word can also mean “to draw out of,” as out of a hole. Both verbs also mean “to raise upright” or “to erect.” Thus, the words themselves refer to the body in the grave, which is raised up to new life. The very words imply resurrection of the body. It is the dead man in the tomb who wakes up and is raised to life. Therefore, after a resurrection, the grave would have to be empty.

Even today, if someone claimed that a man who died and was buried rose from the dead and appeared to his friends, only a theologian would think to ask, “But was his body still in the grave?” How much more is this true of Jews of Jesus’ day, who were much more physical in their understanding of the resurrection! The Jews of that time believed that at the end of the world, God would raise the bones of the people from the tombs and clothe them again with flesh and give them new life. Therefore, they were very careful to preserve the bones of their dead, collecting them in jars. When the Jews looked forward to the resurrection at the end of history, they were looking forward to a physical resurrection. The idea that there can be a resurrection while the body still lies amoldering in the grave is a subtlety of modern theology. E. E. Ellis comments, “It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, ‘grave-emptying’ resurrection. To them an anastasis (resurrection) without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle.”21 Therefore, when Paul says that Jesus was buried and then was raised, he automatically assumes that an empty tomb was left behind.

That conclusion is driven home by Paul’s teaching on the transformation that occurs in a person’s body when he is raised from the dead. Paul taught that just as Jesus was raised from the dead, so we will also be raised from the dead “at His coming” (1 Corinthians 15:20-24). Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the Christian hope is not that our souls will live forever, but rather that our bodies will be raised up to eternal life. But in order for that to be possible, the present, mortal body must be transformed. According to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), there are four essential differences between the present body and the resurrection body:

Present Body

Resurrection Body

mortal

immortal

dishonorable

glorious

weak

powerful

dominated by the natural self

dominated by God’ spirit

Paul says that the present body will be transformed into the resurrection body: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). According to Paul, it is the present body or the remains of it that will be transformed and raised as a glorious new body. Thus, after the resurrection all the graves and cemeteries would be empty. Since what will happen to us is simply a repetition of a broader scale of what happened to Jesus, Paul undoubtedly believed that Jesus’ tomb was empty. Few facts can be more certain than that Paul accepted the empty tomb of Jesus.

But now the question forces itself upon us: how could Paul have so confidently believed in the empty tomb of Jesus, if in fact the tomb were not empty? Remember, Paul was in Jerusalem six years after the crucifixion. By that time at least, the tomb must have been empty. But we can go further. During his two-week visit, Paul saw Peter and James as well as other Christians in Jerusalem. Those persons must also have believed that Jesus’ tomb was empty from the start, otherwise belief in His resurrection would have been impossible, as I have explained. And even if it were possible, if the tomb were not empty, Paul’s teaching would never have developed in the direction it did. Instead of teaching the resurrection of the body in the grave, Paul would have had to invent some theory trying to rationalize how a resurrection was possible though the body still remained in the tomb. But Paul never faced such a problem. That means the tomb of Jesus must have been empty right from the start. If the tomb was not empty, then one cannot explain how the earliest Christians could believe that it was or why Paul’s teaching took the direction that it did.

Paul gives two other indications that the tomb of Jesus was found empty. First, the third line in the Christian saying when he quotes, “he was raised,” probably is a summary statement of the story of the discovery of the empty tomb. We saw earlier that when we compare the Christian saying with the sermons in Acts and with the gospel accounts of the resurrection that the four statements of the saying amount to an outline of the sermons and gospel stories. What corresponds to the third line of the saying, “He was raised”? It is the story of the discovery of the empty tomb. The line of the saying “he was raised” mirrors the angel’s words, “He has risen.” That makes it very probable that the third line of the saying corresponds to the story of the empty tomb. From that fact two conclusions follow. (1) The story of the empty tomb must be reliable, for it is summarized in this early Christian saying, going back to within the first five years after the crucifixion. There was neither time for legend to arise nor opportunity, since the witnesses who knew the facts were still about. (2) Paul also knew the story of the empty tomb and thus also vouchsafed for its accuracy, since he referred unhesitatingly to it.

A second indication of Jesus’ empty tomb is the phrase “on the third day.” The third line of the saying runs in full: “and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” Since no one actually saw Jesus rise from the grave (His tomb was found empty Sunday morning, and He then appeared to His disciples), how did the early Christians know that He rose on the third day? Why not on the seventh day or after a month? The most obvious answer is that they found His tomb empty on the third day after His crucifixion, so naturally the resurrection came to be dated on that day.

It has been objected that the gospel stories of the discovery of the empty tomb do not speak of “the third day,” but of “the first day of the week.” But according to the Jewish manner of reckoning days, the first day of the week was the third day after the crucifixion. The Jews counted a part of a day as being a whole day. Thus, Jesus was in the tomb late Friday afternoon (one day), all day Saturday (one day), and predawn Sunday (one day); hence, the tomb was found empty on the third day. In fact, when we remember that the Jewish day began at sundown, then, as crazy as it may seem to us, if Jesus had been buried at five o’clock on Friday evening, and had risen at seven o’clock on Saturday evening, the Jew could quite properly say that he was raised on the third day.

But why did the early Christian saying use “on the third day” instead of “on the first day of the week”? Here we must look into the Old Testament. In the Old Testament we find that God sometimes acted on the third day to resolve a crisis or deliver His people or perform a mighty act (Genesis 22:4; Exodus 19:11, 16; 1 Samuel 30:1-2; 2 Kings 20:5, 8; Esther 5:1; Hosea 6:2). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the phrase “on the third day” is translated by a rather awkward expression. The Christian saying uses exactly the same awkward expression. This suggests that the saying is using the language of the Old Testament to emphasize that the resurrection was also an act of God’s deliverance and might. That suggestion gains in plausibility from the phrase following “on the third day” in the saying “he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

Therefore, it seems that the early Christians, having found Jesus’ tomb empty on the first day of the week, dated the resurrection itself on that day. Since the first day of the week was according to Jewish reckoning also the third day after Jesus’ death, then, in order to emphasize God’s greatness in raising Jesus, they picked up the Old Testament expression for “the third day.” Therefore, in stating that Jesus was raised on the third day, the Christian saying provides still more early evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus.

Thus, Paul’s testimony guarantees the fact of the empty tomb. Paul believed in the empty tomb of Jesus, as is evident from the expression “He was raised” right after “He was buried,” from the words for resurrection themselves, from the Jewish physical understanding of the resurrection, and from Paul’s teaching about the transformation of the present body. But Paul could not have believed in the empty tomb if it had not in fact been found empty. If the tomb were not empty, the earliest disciples could not have believed in the resurrection nor would Paul’s teaching about the physical resurrection have developed as it did. Specific indications that both Paul and the early saying refer to the empty tomb of Jesus are the correspondence between the third line of the saying and the gospel account of the empty tomb and the expression “on the third day,” which refers in Old Testament language to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb on the first day of the week. The fact of the empty tomb must therefore be historical, since there was no time for legend to arise, since the witnesses were on hand to prevent it from arising, and since Paul himself vouches for its accuracy.

3. The account of the empty tomb was part of the source material used by Mark in his description of Jesus’ sufferings and death and is therefore very old. Consider Mark’s account of the empty tomb:

And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. And very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, “He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. [Mark 16:1-8]

We have already seen that in describing the last days of Jesus’ life, Mark employed a special source. The question is, where did this source end? With the burial? With the discovery of the empty tomb? With the various appearances of Jesus after His death? In comparing the four gospels, we find that they are in remarkable agreement concerning the events of Jesus’ sufferings, death, burial, and empty tomb. But when it comes to the appearances of Jesus, the situation abruptly changes. Once again we find somewhat disconnected, self-sufficient stories like those that preceded the one long, continuous story of Jesus’ sufferings and death. After giving the account of the empty tomb, some gospels narrate certain appearances, whereas others pass over them in silence. The renowned German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias notes that this structural difference can only be explained in reference to the events themselves: there was no continuous, smooth, running account of the appearances of Jesus because the appearances themselves were unexpected, sporadic, and to different people at different locations and occasions.22 Instead there were independent stories by the different witnesses about the appearance(s) they had seen. Thus, the most natural answer to the question would be that Mark’s source ended with the discovery of the empty tomb and that the gospel writers then added the various appearance stories.

That conclusion is confirmed by the verbal and grammatical similarities between the burial account and the account of the empty tomb.23 These indicate that both accounts belong to the same original source.

In addition, the account of the empty tomb is bound up with the account of the burial. Joseph’s laying the body in the tomb anticipates the angel’s words “He is not here; behold the place where they laid Him.” The mention of the roll-stone anticipates the women’s question, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” The phrase in the empty tomb account “when the Sabbath was over” presupposes the burial account’s phrase “the day before the Sabbath” as the time of Jesus’ burial. In the empty tomb account, the antecedent for “Him” (Mark 16:1) is found in the burial account, namely “Jesus” (Mark 15:43). The women’s visit to the tomb presupposes their being at the burial, so that they know its location. We could go on, but I think the point is clear enough: the burial account and the empty tomb account are not two separate stories, but really one continuous story.

The most convincing argument for the inclusion of the empty tomb account in the source used by Mark is that it is unthinkable that the story of Jesus as told by the early Christians could end in death and defeat with no mention of the empty tomb or resurrection. Since the resurrection was the very heartbeat of the early Christians’ faith, the story of Jesus would be incomplete without victory at its end. Therefore, the empty tomb account must have been part of that story. So there are very strong grounds for holding that the empty tomb account was part of Mark’s source.

We have seen that since this source was used by Mark, and Mark was the earliest gospel to be written, the source itself must be very old. Rudolf Pesch, in his massive commentary on Mark’s gospel, argues that the geographical references, personal names, and so forth point to Jerusalem as the place of origin of Mark’s source.24 As to its age, Pesch contends that Paul’s account of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 presupposes the account of this event in Mark’s source. Since Paul’s own account is quite old, the account in Mark’s source must be still older and stem from the very first years of the fellowship in Jerusalem. Pesch finds confirmation of that conclusion in the fact that Mark’s source never mentions the high priest by name (Mark 14:53, 54, 60, 61, 63). It is like our referring to “the President” or “the governor,” meaning the man who now holds the office. According to Pesch, this means that Caiaphas was still the high priest when Mark’s source was being passed around. Since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37, this implies that the latest date for the origin of Mark’s source was A.D. 37, or only seven years after Jesus’ death.

If this is so, then any attempt to reduce the empty tomb account to an unhistorical legend is doomed to failure. For given the age (even if not as old as Pesch argues) and the place of origin of Mark’s source, legend could not have accrued to produce a false story that people who knew better would believe. Therefore, the account must be historical.

4. The expression “the first day of the week” instead of “on the third day” proves that the empty tomb account is extremely old. We have seen that the early Christians began to refer to the time of Jesus’ resurrection as “on the third day,” probably because the Old Testament uses this phrase to describe God’s mighty acts. That phrase apparently became very popular and important for the early preachers of the gospel. But here is a very curious thing: in the empty tomb story, the phrase “on the third day” is not used. Rather we find “on the first day of the week.” That is extremely significant, for as E. L. Bode explains, if the empty tomb story were a legendary account that arose after a long period of time, then it would certainly have used the prominent, accepted, and old phrase “on the third day.”25 The nearly inescapable conclusion is that the account of the discovery of the empty tomb must have originated even before the early Christians began to use the expression “on the third day.” The highly esteemed British commentator Raymond Brown observes, “The basic time indication of the finding of the tomb was fixed in Christian memory before the possible symbolism in the three-day reckoning had yet been perceived.”26 Since we have seen that the phrase “on the third day” is itself very old, being part of a Christian saying that goes back to within the first five years after Jesus’ death, then the empty tomb story must be even older, incredibly near to the events it describes.

That conclusion receives further support from the fact that the phrase “on the first day of the week” is awkward Greek for a normal Aramaic expression, suggesting that the phrase is a Greek rendering of the language spoken by Jesus and the early disciples themselves. This again points to the very early origin of the account of the empty tomb’s discovery.

So once again we are led to the conclusion that the empty tomb account is extremely old. Its proximity to the original events themselves make it impossible to regard the account as legendary. It is highly probable that Jesus’ tomb was indeed found empty “on the first day of the week.”

5. The story itself is simple and lacks signs of significant legendary development. Even the radical critic Bultmann admits, “Mark’s presentation is extremely reserved, insofar as the resurrection and the appearance of the risen Lord are not recounted.”27 It is both amusing and instructive to compare the accounts in the apocryphal gospels written in the second century, for example, the so-called Gospel of Peter:

Now in the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the sepulchre. The stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulchre started of itself to roll and gave way to the side, and the sepulchre was opened, and both the young men entered in. When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders—for they also were there to assist at the watch. And whilst they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, “Thou hast preached to them that sleep,” and from the cross there was heard the answer, “Yea.” [Gospel of Peter 8:35-42]

In another forgery, The Ascension of Isaiah 3:16, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. Those are true legends: they are colored by theological and other developments. The absence of such factors indicates once more that the account of the discovery of the empty tomb is a factual reporting of what occurred.

6. The discovery of the empty tomb by women is highly probable. Given the low status of women in Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, it is very likely that their discovery of the empty tomb is not a later legendary development, but the truth. Otherwise men would have been used to discover the empty tomb. We have seen that all the gospels agree that the disciples remained in Jerusalem over the weekend and therefore could have been made to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women, whose witness counted for nothing, are said to have discovered the empty tomb makes it very credible historically that such was the case.

Two other considerations support that conclusion. First, the denial of Jesus by Peter shows the disciples were in Jerusalem. All the gospels record the well-known story of how Peter, after Jesus’ arrest, denied his Lord three times. The story shows that the disciples did not flee from the city after Jesus’ arrest. Moreover, we know from other information in the New Testament that Peter became a leader of the Christian fellowship in Jerusalem. It is unlikely that early Christians would have invented out of the blue a story of their leader’s apostasy and denial of Jesus, if that had not happened. The fact that so shameful a story would be preserved in all four gospels suggests that it is true.

Second, it is equally unlikely that the early believers would have made up the story of the disciples’ hiding in cowardice, while women boldly observed the crucifixion and burial and visited the tomb. The early believers would have no motive in humiliating its leaders by making them into cowards and women into heroes. Again it appears probable that the disciples’ lying low for fear of the Jews was really what took place. But if that is so, then once again it is shown that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the weekend.

Those two considerations make it likely that the disciples did not flee the city, but remained in Jerusalem. A later legend would have had no difficulty in making some of them discover the empty tomb. That they do not, but instead women do, makes it highly probable that women did indeed discover the empty tomb.

And once again, the names of those women preclude the story’s being a legend, since persons who would be known in the early Jerusalem fellowship could not be associated with a false account.

7. The investigation of the empty tomb by Peter and John is historically probable. According to both Luke and John, after the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, some of the disciples investigated:

And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. [But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at that which had happened] . . .

“Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said.” [Luke 24:11-12, 24]

And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who had first come to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes. [John 20:2-10]

We have here two independent accounts of an investigation of the tomb by some disciples, which took place after the gospel of Mark ends. Luke names only Peter, but later mentions a plurality: “some of those.” John identifies Peter’s companion as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This unnamed disciple, usually called the beloved disciple, appears only in John’s gospel. He reclined on Jesus’ chest at the Last Supper, he was at the cross with Jesus’ mother, he may have been with Peter when he denied Jesus three times, he accompanied Peter and Mary back to the tomb, and he was among seven disciples to whom Jesus appeared by the Sea of Galilee. Most intriguing, at the very close of John’s gospel, this beloved disciple is disclosed to be an eyewitness to and the writer of the things recorded in the gospel: “This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true” (John 21:24). The “we” here, who vouch for the beloved disciple’s accuracy, may have been a group of his pupils or colleagues. At face value the statement says that the beloved disciple is the author of the gospel and saw personally what is recorded in it. At the very least, it must mean that he is the personal source and authority behind the gospel and that his memory helps to fill out the sources of historical information that the author had. If this is true, then we are in possession of eyewitness testimony to the empty tomb of Jesus.

But what is to be made of this claim? Although some critics have asserted that the beloved disciple is just a symbolic figure, their attempts to reduce him to a mere symbol are quite comical. For no agreement can be reached by theologians as to what in the world he is supposed to symbolize. If the gospel’s author wanted the beloved disciple to symbolize something, then he surely would have made the meaning of the symbol clearer; otherwise the whole thing is pointless. In any case, these critics assume that if a figure is symbolical, then he cannot also be historical, which is simply false. A historical person or event could serve as a symbol of a wider significance. Besides, the gospel’s author no doubt regarded the beloved disciple as a historical person. For Peter was certainly a historical individual, and it would be very strange to have him accompanied to the tomb by a purely symbolic figure. In all the situations in which he appears, the beloved disciple is presented as an ordinary, historical person.

If then the beloved disciple is not presented as a mere symbol, but as a real person, was he in fact a historical individual? This is difficult to deny. For John 21:20-24 proves that the beloved disciple was a real historical person who was one of the original disciples of Jesus. It records:

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” This saying therefore went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” [John 21:20-23]

This passage shows that the beloved disciple was well known in early Christian circles, and it was widely held that Jesus would return before this man died. So he must have been a real person, who was one of Jesus’ disciples. As Brown remarks, the whole early Christian church was not holding its breath to see if a symbol or fictional character would die before Jesus returned.28

If this is so, then it becomes difficult to deny the historicity of the disciples’ investigation of the tomb. For the beloved disciple is said to have been a witness of that event. The only way to deny this is to assert either that he lied to his pupils or colleagues about his being there or that they all conspired together to lie in writing him back into the gospel, although they knew he really was not there. Neither of those alternatives is plausible, for they collapse back into the old view that the disciples were liars and cheats, a view that simply cannot be sustained.

Who, then, was this man called the beloved disciple? Since he was present at the Last Supper, he must have been one of the inner circle of the twelve disciples. Since he was one of the witnesses of Jesus’ appearance at the Sea of Galilee, he must have been one of the seven disciples present at that event: “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas (called Didymus), and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples” (John 21:2). Since the beloved disciple is unnamed, he must have been either one of the two sons of Zebedee or one of the two anonymous disciples. We have noted already the close association of the beloved disciple with Peter. When we read the other gospels, we find that Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, form a trio that were closely bound to Jesus and to each other. That close association suggests that the beloved disciple was either James or John. But James was martyred for his faith very early on, so that he could not be the beloved disciple, who, according to rumor, was not to die before Christ’s return. So the beloved disciple must have been John the son of Zebedee.

Weighty confirmation of that fact is that neither James nor John is mentioned even once in the gospel of John until the list of the seven disciples in the last chapter. It is inconceivable that so prominent a disciple as John, who plays an important role in the other gospels, could fail to be mentioned unless it was because he was in fact the beloved disciple. Further confirmation comes from the fact that, although other persons in the gospel of John are carefully identified, John the Baptist is referred to only as “John.” That is probably because the gospel’s author either knew or was John the beloved disciple and thus was in no danger of confusing him with John the Baptist. According to the respected British commentator C. K. Barrett, we may conclude with assurance that “the author of the gospel, whoever he may have been, described as the disciple whom Jesus loved, John, the son of Zebedee, and one of the Twelve.”29

That conclusion is of tremendous significance. For think of it! That means that we have in our hands accounts of events either written by or based directly upon the testimony of a close companion of the historical Jesus and an eyewitness of such facts as His crucifixion, empty tomb, and appearances. That is evidence of the greatest historical value. For as one critic has put it, grant that even one gospel writer was an eyewitness of the events concerning the resurrection, and their truth cannot be denied. In John we have such a witness. Therefore, the fact of the disciples’ investigation of the empty tomb stands on solid historical ground.

8. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty. It would have been impossible for a Jew to believe in a resurrection if the man’s body were still in the grave. The idea that Jesus rose from the dead in a different body while His corpse remained in the tomb is a purely modern notion. As Bode emphasizes, Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the grave and one in the new life.30 It was the body in the grave that was raised.

Therefore, the disciples could never have preached the resurrection, nor would anyone have believed them, if Jesus’ corpse were still in the tomb. And even if the disciples did not go to check out the tomb, the Jews could have been guilty of no such oversight. Even if the burial story were totally false, and Jesus were buried in the criminals’ graveyard, it would not have been difficult for the Jewish authorities to locate a freshly dug grave, even after several weeks, and, if necessary, exhume the body. When therefore the disciples began to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, and people believed them, and the Jewish authorities stood helplessly by, the tomb must have been empty. The fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on belief in Jesus’ resurrection, could arise and flourish in the face of its enemies in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus had only recently been publicly executed and buried, is powerful evidence for the fact of the empty tomb.

9. The earliest Jewish propaganda against the Christian believers presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew’s gospel, we find the story of how the Jews set a guard around the tomb of Jesus and how the guards fled:

Now while they were on their way, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. [Matthew 28:11-15]

Now I want to draw your attention to the incidental remark made at the end by Matthew: “And this story was widely spread among the Jews.” This short, parenthetical comment by Matthew reveals that he was trying to answer the allegations made against the Christian believers by the early Jewish propaganda. What were the Jews saying about the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen? That the disciples were crazy? That Jesus still lay in the tomb? That His body was in some unknown grave? No, they said, the disciples came and stole His body. Think about that. His disciples came and stole His body. The Jews did not point to His tomb or even say it was unknown; rather they entangled themselves in a hopeless debate trying to explain away the empty tomb. The early Jewish propaganda against which Matthew writes thus itself presupposes and bears witness to the fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty. The evidence is all the more powerful because it comes from the enemies of the Christian “heresy” themselves. Whether Matthew’s story about the guard and the bribe is historical is thus for us quite beside the point. The important thing is that Matthew unintentionally tells us by relating this story, which he felt compelled to refute, exactly what the early Jews were saying against the Christians. They were trying to explain why Jesus’ body was no longer in the tomb. Thus the early Jewish propaganda provides impressive evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty.

10. The fact that Jesus’ tomb was not venerated as a shrine indicates that the tomb was empty. I noted earlier that in Judaism the tomb of a prophet or holy man was preserved and venerated as a shrine. But it is important to understand why that was so. It was because the remains of the prophet lay in the tomb and thus imparted to the site its religious value. Of course, if the body were not there, then the grave would lose its significance as a shrine. Now when we examine the evidence of early Christianity, we find, in the words of British New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn, “absolutely no trace” of any veneration of Jesus’ burial place.31 It was not looked upon as a shrine or remembered as a holy place. How is one to explain that peculiar fact in light of the disciples’ reverence for Jesus as the Holy One of God? From all that has been said so far, the answer is clear: the fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty made it devoid of any religious significance, for Jesus’ body was not in the tomb. In the words of the angel, “He is not here, for He has risen!” Thus, the fact that Jesus’ tomb was not venerated adds yet another piece of confirmatory evidence indicating that the tomb was empty.

Taken together, these ten considerations constitute a powerful case for the fact that Jesus’ tomb was actually found empty on Sunday morning by a small group of His women followers. As a simple historical fact, that seems to be amply attested. As D. H. Van Daalen has pointed out, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions (like the assumption that miracles are impossible).32 But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts. And it is interesting that more and more New Testament scholars seem to be realizing this. According to Jacob Kremer, a German scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, “By far, most exegetes . . . hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements over the empty tomb,” and he lists twenty-eight prominent scholars in support:33 Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Léon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Mánek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, K. Schubert, Schwank, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vögtle, Wilckens. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he neglected to mention: Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Moule, Perry, J. A. T. Robinson, and Schnackenburg. The prominent German New Testament commentator Rudolf Schnackenburg agrees that “most exegetes accept the historicity of the empty tomb, so that this question is not the decisive point in the discussion about the resurrection.”34