Week 7 · 17 min

Week 7: The Empty Tomb

The missing body

See it

Slide decks that belong with this page.

Slide deck · 15 slidesThe resurrection evidence

Week 7: The Empty Tomb – The Missing Body

Main Teaching

Having firmly established that Jesus died by crucifixion—a fact accepted as historical certainty by virtually all scholars—we now proceed to the next crucial piece of the puzzle in our Minimal Facts Approach. The resurrection claim at the heart of Christianity is not merely that Jesus's spirit survived death or that his influence lived on in some metaphorical sense; it is the bold assertion that his physical body was raised from the dead, transformed into a glorified state. Therefore, a necessary precondition for any serious consideration of the resurrection is the existence of an empty tomb. Without an empty grave, the bodily resurrection narrative collapses into mere spiritualism or legend. This week, we will examine the strong historical case for our second Minimal Fact: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty by a group of his women followers. This fact, while not enjoying the near-unanimous scholarly consensus of the crucifixion (which stands at nearly 100%), is still affirmed by a significant majority—around 75%—of critical scholars who have published on the subject, spanning Christian, Jewish, agnostic, and atheist perspectives. This level of agreement is remarkable for any event in ancient history, particularly one with miraculous implications. Scholars like Gary Habermas, who has surveyed over 3,400 academic articles on the resurrection, notes that this majority holds even among those who ultimately reject supernatural explanations. The acceptance stems from rigorous historical methodology, not faith presuppositions. To build a powerful cumulative case for the empty tomb, we can use a simple yet memorable acronym: J.E.T.S. Each letter represents a key line of evidence that, when combined, forms an airtight argument. This approach draws from the work of apologists like William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright, who emphasize how these facts interlock to demand an explanation.

As we'll see, naturalistic alternatives crumble under scrutiny, leaving the resurrection as the most plausible inference.

J – Jerusalem Proclamation The disciples' proclamation of the resurrection began in the city of Jerusalem itself, just a few short weeks after the crucifixion. This is a crucial and often underappreciated point in historical apologetics. If you were fabricating a story about a man rising from the dead, the absolute last place you would choose to launch your message is in the very city where he was publicly executed, buried, and where thousands of witnesses could easily debunk your claim. Jerusalem was not a remote village or distant province; it was the epicenter of Jewish religious life, buzzing with pilgrims, Roman officials, and the Sanhedrin—the Jewish council that had orchestrated Jesus's trial. The Acts of the Apostles records Peter boldly declaring in his Pentecost sermon, mere days after the events, "This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32), addressing a crowd that included many who had called for the crucifixion. This early preaching in Jerusalem is not disputed; even skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman acknowledge that Christianity originated there shortly after Jesus's death. The rapid growth of the church—from a handful of frightened followers to over 3,000 converts in one day (Acts 2:41)—occurred in this hostile environment.

Now, consider the implications. If the tomb were not empty, the disciples' enemies—the Roman authorities and Jewish leaders—had every motive, means, and opportunity to quash the nascent movement. Motive: Christianity posed a direct threat to their power, accusing them of executing the Messiah. Means: They controlled the city, with soldiers and spies at their disposal. Opportunity: The tomb's location was public knowledge, as Joseph of Arimathea was a prominent Sanhedrin member. All they needed to do was march to the tomb, exhume the body, and parade it through the streets on a cart or bier, perhaps during a festival when crowds were largest. This single, dramatic act would have instantly falsified the resurrection claim, exposing the disciples as frauds or deluded fools. The silence from opponents on this front is deafening; no ancient source claims the body was still in the tomb. Instead, as we'll discuss next, they concocted alternative explanations that implicitly conceded the emptiness. The fact that Christianity not only survived but flourished in Jerusalem—converting even priests (Acts 6:7)— speaks volumes. As historian Michael Grant, a non-Christian, observed, "If the disciples had not found the tomb empty, their message would have been refuted on the spot. " This Jerusalem factor aligns with the criterion of "multiple attestation, " appearing in Acts, Paul's letters (where he mentions being in Jerusalem soon after his conversion), and the Gospels. It underscores that the empty tomb wasn't a later legend developed in distant Galilee or Antioch but part of the primitive kerygma (proclamation) from day one.

E – Enemy Attestation The earliest counter-argument from the enemies of Christianity provides a hostile, back-handed admission that the tomb was, in fact, empty. Rather than denying the emptiness, which would have been the simplest and most effective rebuttal, their response implicitly confirmed it. As recorded in Matthew 28:11-15, the chief priests, upon hearing from the guards about the empty tomb, bribed them to spread the story: "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep. '" This "stolen body" hypothesis is corroborated by later sources, such as Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (c. 150 AD), where he reports Jewish opponents still circulating the claim over a century later, and Tertullian in De Spectaculis (c. 200 AD), who mocks the Jewish assertion. Even the Toledot Yeshu, a medieval Jewish polemic, echoes this theft narrative, showing its persistence in anti-Christian tradition.

Think about the profound implications of this charge. By inventing and promoting the theft story, Jesus's opponents were conceding the central fact in dispute: the tomb was empty. If the body were still there, why fabricate an elaborate cover-up involving bribery and lies? They could have simply opened the tomb for public inspection. The debate in the first century, as evidenced by these sources, was not whether the tomb was empty, but why it was empty. This "enemy attestation" is a gold standard in historiography because it comes from adversarial witnesses who had no incentive to bolster Christian claims. Skeptics like Gerd Lüdemann, an atheist scholar, admit that this early Jewish polemic "presupposes the empty tomb. " It fits the criterion of "dissimilarity" or "against the grain, " as early Christians wouldn't invent a counter-argument that made their opponents look proactive. Moreover, the story's inherent weaknesses—guards admitting to sleeping (a capital offense in Roman military law) and disciples pulling off a heist—highlight its desperation, further pointing to an inexplicable emptiness they couldn't deny.

This attestation bridges Christian and non-Christian sources, providing independent confirmation that strengthens the Minimal Fact.

T – Testimony of Women All four Gospel accounts are unanimous on one key detail: the first people to discover and witness the empty tomb were women, specifically Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and others (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 20:1). This unanimity across independent traditions (Mark as source for Matthew and Luke, John separate) underscores its primitiveness. In the patriarchal culture of first-century Judaism and the wider Greco-Roman world, a woman's testimony was considered so unreliable that it was not even admissible in most court cases. The Jewish historian Josephus summarized the prevailing misogynistic view: "Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex" (Antiquities 4.8.15). Rabbinic literature, like the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 1:8), dismissed women as witnesses alongside slaves and children, deeming them prone to exaggeration or unreliability. Roman law similarly marginalized women, as seen in Livy's histories where female evidence is scorned.

If you were inventing a resurrection story in that cultural milieu and wanted it to be believed and persuasive, you would never make women your primary witnesses. Instead, you would fabricate respected male figures—like Peter, John, or even Joseph of Arimathea—as the discoverers to lend credibility. The inclusion of women in this pivotal role is an embarrassing and counter-productive detail from a public relations standpoint, violating the criterion of what ancient authors would typically invent to bolster their case. The only plausible reason it is preserved in all four accounts, despite the potential to undermine the narrative's acceptance, is that the authors were constrained by the unalterable historical facts. They reported what actually happened, prioritizing truth over cultural expediency. This aligns with the broader pattern of "undesigned coincidences" and embarrassing details in the Gospels, such as the disciples' cowardice or Peter's denial. Jewish New Testament scholar Geza Vermes, who rejected the resurrection as supernatural, nevertheless called the women's testimony "the strongest argument for the authenticity of the empty tomb account, " as it defies legendary development. Even feminist critics like Elaine Pagels acknowledge this as evidence of early Christian egalitarianism, but historically, it points to veracity. The women's role also explains why the tradition survived: Mary Magdalene, in particular, is named across sources, suggesting she was a key eyewitness whose account couldn't be ignored.

S – Simple Story The earliest accounts of the empty tomb, particularly in the Gospel of Mark (which most scholars date to around 65-70 AD and believe is the earliest Gospel), are remarkably simple, brief, and devoid of the kind of legendary embellishments, theological reflections, or dramatic flourishes that tend to accumulate over time in fabricated or mythologized stories. Mark's narrative (16:1-8) is stark: the women go to anoint the body, find the stone rolled away, encounter a young man (angel) who announces the resurrection, and flee in terror, telling no one initially. It ends abruptly in the oldest manuscripts, without postresurrection appearances or triumphant resolutions. This lack of polish contrasts sharply with later apocryphal gospels, like the Gospel of Peter (2nd century), which add sensational details such as a talking cross or giants emerging from the tomb. The simplicity suggests a primitive tradition close to the events, not a developed legend.

Scholars apply the "criterion of simplicity" or "lack of legendary development" here: early accounts are terse and factual, focusing on the discovery without heavy Christological interpretation. Luke and Matthew expand slightly but retain the core. This brevity aligns with oral tradition's memorability and resists the tendency to "gild the lily. " As Habermas notes, if invented later, the story would include male witnesses, divine fireworks, or anti-Jewish polemics. Instead, it's understated, pointing to its historical core. Combined with archaeological evidence of 1st-century rock-cut tombs matching the descriptions (e.g., rolling stones, low benches), this simplicity bolsters authenticity.

Part 2: The Implied Testimony of Paul

While the Apostle Paul does not explicitly mention the empty tomb in his letters—the earliest Christian documents, dated to the 50s AD—his testimony strongly implies it. In the ancient creed he quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which scholars date to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion, Paul states that Christ "died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. " This formulaic summary, passed on as received tradition, is pivotal. For a first-century Jew like Paul, steeped in Pharisaic beliefs about resurrection (as in Daniel 12:2 or the Maccabean martyrs), "resurrection" was inherently bodily. It meant the reanimation and transformation of the physical corpse, not a disembodied spirit or Platonic soul. The sequence "buried... raised"

presupposes the grave's emptiness; a raised but buried body is nonsensical. Paul's later elaboration in 1 Corinthians 15:35-44, discussing the "spiritual body" as a glorified physical one, reinforces this. Skeptics like Lüdemann concede that Paul's language assumes an empty tomb, as resurrection without it would be alien to Jewish eschatology. This implied testimony bridges the creedal tradition to the Gospel narratives, showing continuity in the earliest strata of Christian belief.

Part 3: Refuting the Alternative Explanations

The evidence strongly indicates that the tomb was empty, creating a historical enigma that demands resolution. This fact alone does not prove the resurrection—it could theoretically have natural causes— but it is a necessary piece of the cumulative case. Naturalistic explanations, proposed by skeptics from Celsus in the 2nd century to modern scholars like John Dominic Crossan, attempt to account for the emptiness without invoking the supernatural. However, the two most common theories—the disciples stole the body and the wrong tomb hypothesis—are easily refuted by historical, psychological, and logical analysis. A third, less common idea—that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb at all but in a common grave—contradicts the burial evidence we'll explore in the supplemental study. These refutations highlight why the resurrection emerges as the best inference.

1. The Disciples Stole the Body This is the ancient theory promoted by the Jewish authorities, as attested in Matthew and later sources, but it fails spectacularly because it cannot account for the disciples' subsequent radical transformation.

These men, who fled in fear during the arrest (Mark 14:50), hid behind locked doors post-crucifixion (John 20:19), and were initially skeptical of resurrection reports (Luke 24:11), suddenly became bold proclaimers, facing imprisonment (Acts 4), beatings (Acts 5:40), and martyrdom. Tradition holds Peter was crucified upside down, James beheaded, and others scattered but unyielding. Historical records, like Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD) and Polycarp (c. 155 AD), confirm early Christian persecutions. People will die for what they believe to be true (e.g., suicide bombers), but they will not endure torture and death for what they know to be a deliberate lie. This theory requires believing that all disciples (and later Paul) conspired to steal, hide, and lie about the body, maintaining the deception through lifelong suffering—a psychologically incredible scenario. Studies in group psychology, like those on cults, show conspiracies crack under pressure; here, none did. Furthermore, as detailed in the worksheet, the Roman guard and seal make theft a physical impossibility. The theory also ignores the women's early discovery—why risk exposure? It's a desperate hypothesis that explains away evidence rather than engaging it.

2. The Wrong Tomb Theory This modern suggestion, popularized by Kirsopp Lake in the early 20th century, posits that the women and disciples, in their grief and disorientation, simply went to the wrong tomb, mistaking an empty one for Jesus's and sparking the resurrection legend. This is highly implausible for several interlocking reasons, rooted in historical context and logic:

• If they had gone to the wrong tomb, the Jewish and Roman authorities—highly motivated to discredit the growing sect—would have quickly gone to the correct tomb, produced the body, and exposed the whole affair as a tragic mistake. Their silence on this is telling; instead, they accused theft, conceding emptiness.

• Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb's owner, was a member of the Sanhedrin—a well-known public figure in Jerusalem's elite circles. The location of his family tomb, a rock-cut chamber typical of wealthy 1stcentury Jews (confirmed by archaeology at sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), would not have been a secret. He could have easily corrected any error, perhaps even joining the debunking to protect his reputation.

• It asks us to believe that everyone involved—the women who followed from the cross to observe the burial (Mark 15:47), Peter and John who ran to verify (John 20:3-8), the Jewish leaders who requested the guard (Matthew 27:62-66), the Roman authorities who sealed it—all collectively forgot or confused the location of this highly controversial figure's grave just days after a public execution during Passover, when Jerusalem swelled with witnesses. Grief doesn't erase recent memory, especially for such a pivotal event.

• Archaeologically, tombs were marked and familial; confusion among known parties is unlikely. This theory also fails to explain the appearances or transformations, reducing to ad hoc speculation.

The evidence for the empty tomb is robust, multifaceted, and resistant to dismissal. It poses a challenge to naturalism: if not resurrection, what caused it? As we continue, the post-resurrection appearances and disciples' transformations will complete the picture, pointing irresistibly to the Christian explanation.

Extra Notes & Resources for Deeper Study

This week's exploration of the empty tomb draws on a wealth of historical scholarship, offering opportunities for further engagement.

Key Thinkers to Know:

• Gary Habermas: Distinguished Research Professor at Liberty University, leading expert on the resurrection, and developer of the Minimal Facts Approach.

• Michael Licona: New Testament scholar at Houston Christian University, co-author with Habermas on resurrection evidence.

• William Lane Craig: Philosopher and theologian known for debating and defending the empty tomb's historicity.

• Geza Vermes (1924-2013): Jewish scholar who, despite skepticism of the resurrection, affirmed the women's testimony as key evidence for the empty tomb's authenticity.

Online Resources

• GaryHabermas.com: Articles, lectures, and debates on the empty tomb.

• RisenJesus.com: Michael Licona's site with videos and resources.

• ReasonableFaith.org: William Lane Craig's materials defending the historicity.

Discussion Questions

1. Of the four points in the "J.E.T.S. " argument, which one do you find the most persuasive, and why?

2. The Gospels' inclusion of women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb was counter-cultural. In our group, let's discuss why this detail, once seen as a weakness, is now considered by historians to be a powerful sign of the story's authenticity.

3. Why is the "enemy attestation" (the fact that the Jewish leaders claimed the body was stolen) such a strong argument for the empty tomb?

4. If you were a disciple who knew you had stolen the body, would you be willing to be tortured and killed for that lie? What does the disciples' martyrdom tell us?

5. How does the empty tomb, by itself, challenge a purely naturalistic worldview? What possibilities does it open up?

Further Study Worksheet: "The Roman Guard"

The theory that the disciples stole the body of Jesus must contend with a significant obstacle mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew: the Roman guard.

According to Matthew 27:62-66, the chief priests and Pharisees, remembering that Jesus had predicted his resurrection, went to Pontius Pilate and requested that the tomb be secured. Pilate granted their request, saying, "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can. " The text says, "So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard. "

Let's break down what this involved:

• The Guard: A Roman guard unit typically consisted of four to sixteen highly trained, professional soldiers. These were not local police; they were a disciplined fighting force.

• The Penalty for Failure: For a Roman soldier, falling asleep on duty or deserting one's post was a capital offense. The entire unit could be executed if their watch was compromised. These men were highly motivated to do their job properly.

• The Seal: The tomb was secured with a large stone, likely weighing between one and two tons. A rope was then stretched across the stone and affixed to the tomb wall at both ends with wax or clay, which was then stamped with an official Roman seal. Breaking this seal was a direct offense against the authority of the Roman Empire, punishable by death.

Now, consider the disciples' situation. They were a small group of fishermen and tax collectors, defeated, terrified, and demoralized. The "stolen body" theory requires us to believe that this frightened group somehow formulated a plan, snuck up on a highly trained and motivated Roman guard in the middle of the night, overpowered them or found them all asleep (an incredible dereliction of duty), broke the Roman seal, silently rolled away a massive stone, entered the tomb, unwrapped the body, and carried it away, all without waking anyone or leaving any evidence.

The scenario is beyond implausible. The presence of the Roman guard and seal makes the theory that the disciples stole the body—the only ancient explanation for the empty tomb besides the resurrection— historically untenable.

Supplemental Study for Week 7

The historical foundation of the empty tomb story is the burial of Jesus itself. If we don't know where Jesus was buried, then a claim about an empty tomb is meaningless. The Gospels are unanimous that Jesus was buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. Remarkably, this specific detail is considered a strong historical fact by a wide range of scholars, including many skeptics.

Why is the Burial Story So Credible?

Several lines of evidence support the historicity of Jesus's burial by Joseph of Arimathea:

1. It's Part of the Earliest Tradition: The burial of Jesus is mentioned in the ancient creed Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15, which dates to within a few years of the crucifixion. This shows the burial was a core part of the story from the very beginning, not a later invention.

2. The Criterion of Embarrassment: The Gospels identify Joseph of Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin—the very council of Jewish leaders that had condemned Jesus to death. It is highly unlikely that the early Christians would invent a story where one of their enemies does the right and honorable thing for Jesus while his own disciples are nowhere to be found. This detail is embarrassing to the disciples and unexpectedly positive toward the Sanhedrin, making it unlikely to be a fabrication.

3. Lack of Competing Stories: There are no competing burial traditions from the first century. If the story of Joseph burying Jesus was a later invention, we would expect to find other, earlier stories circulating about what happened to Jesus's body (e.g., that he was thrown in a common grave for criminals). The fact that only one story exists—the burial by Joseph—suggests it is the original, historical account.

The Implications for the Empty Tomb:

If it is a historical fact that Jesus was buried in the private tomb of a well-known member of the Sanhedrin, this has massive implications for the empty tomb claim. The location was known, verifiable, and secure, making alternative explanations like "wrong tomb" or unburied body untenable. It sets the stage for the resurrection as the only viable solution to the historical problem.