The Resurrection Series: The Empty Tomb

[todaysdate]

By Corbin Croy

There is little point in setting this argument up for success. There are some merits for the empty tomb, which are independent of the women witnesses, but when one considered the overall evidence against the empty tomb story it becomes a futile endeavor. I say this not to discourage or frustrate those who might believe in the historicity of these biblical narratives. I fall to my previous analysis which shows how important the women witnesses are to the empty tomb narrative. Thus, if I am wrong about the women witnesses then I can be wrong about the empty tomb itself, as well. Since I have excluded the women witnesses as being viable for historical information, I have to proceed to examine the empty tomb in virtue of their absence.

So what we really have at this point is the Joseph of Arimethea contingent, and the Roman guard. Since the Gospels name the man who buried Jesus it can be argued that any reader of these books could have looked this guy up and asked him about the empty tomb. So inserting his name gives the story historical merit. Also, the narrative says how a Roman guard was placed on the tomb to ensure that nothing happened to it. So for the tomb to be empty means that something extraordinary would have had to of happened.

The Roman guard story is almost certainly made up. If the controlling government feared that Jesus’ body (the body of an executed criminal) would have been stolen to incite a public uprising, then the last thing this government would have done is hand over the body of this person. It would have been 1,000 times more efficient to cremate the body or simply through it into a pit like all the other executed criminals were thrown into. It may be true, however, I do concede that it could be, but the claim itself seems so manufactured and made up, like the excuses one hears when they don’t bring their homework to class or are late for a job interview. The reality is that 99.9 times out of 100 when something sounds made up that is because it is made up. The Roman guard simple does not make logical sense. Perhaps, I am unaware of supporting evidence for this claim, but if historical evidence can be produced which showed how Roman guards were often put on watch over tombs to protect them from being stolen then I could reconsider what to me seems like a tall story.

Now, I do not want to accuse the biblical writers of being deceptive, or of trying to misrepresent the truth of God. These stories could accurately represent in memory the tension between Rome and the church, and then they are projected unto the Gospel narrative. Just as the church is the Body of Christ, if thus body was being “locked down” by Rome at the time, then such a story could show believers how not even Rome could contain the power of Jesus in the church. So there can still be rich and powerful truth in such a narrative even if it is not exactly one hundred percent historically accurate.

What about Joseph of Arimethea? Probably made up, too. Joseph in the OT was a man who was buried in Egypt, but had his bones taken to Israel to be buried with his forefathers. Thus, the name itself evokes a deep concern for burial practice. Also, the stage is set for this Joseph figure in Isaiah 53 where it speaks of the suffering servant who will be given a place of burial with wicked men, but a rich man will take the body. So the inclusion of a similar figure in the Gospels is highly convenient when the suffering servant motif is greatly taken advantage of. We have too many literary allusions to think that this is a genuinely historical account.

The biggest problem to the empty tomb narrative when it is evaluated independently of the women witnesses is the late writing of this story in the pages of history. We mentioned earlier how the first records of Jesus’ resurrection do not make specific mention of women witnesses or of empty tombs. These are later additions to the overall resurrection narrative by the Gospels. So the earlier records found mostly from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 1 and Philippians 1 are more reliable then any Gospel account. The Pauline epistles are autobiographical, as well, and in many cases the have literary motifs which connect them to being early creedal forms. This means that it can be identified that Paul is writing from earlier sources, and these earliest sources contain no mention of an empty tomb. For posterity I will go over the biblical material more in depth after an analysis of the arguments is completed.

This means that for all intents and purposes the empty tomb narrative has no historical mention until after the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, why is that important? Well, let’s take a pause for a moment and consider a similar situation. Let’s say that you are an insurance agent and one of your clients has just had a fire in their house and it burnt down. They had pretty extensive coverage so they will likely be reimbursed for everything that they lost. However, when you arrive on the scene the family claims that they just so happened to have purchased a twenty thousand dollar painting from a private party and it got burned in the fire. The private party cannot be reached, but the family does have a photo of the painting in the house days before it burned.

Now, I hope you understand the importance of how different it is between the family making the painting claim after the fire and not before. The difference is enormous! The fact that the empty tomb claim is not made until after Jerusalem is destroyed significantly lowers its chances of even being remotely historical. After the destruction of Jerusalem just about any claim could be made concerning geographical or estate matters without any chance for inspection or research, because any lack of evidence which would be the case could simply be explained by the devastating invasion and destruction of Jerusalem. So while apologists may claim that anyone could go and see the Empty Tomb. The reality is that we have no shred of evidence that this ever happened. There is not a single testimony given which claims that a person did this, and the fact that no record of it is even mentioned until all traces of its occurrence has been destroyed makes the claim itself highly suspicious.

The lack of early testimony, the grandeur of the Roman guard claim, the literary dependency of the Joseph of Arimethea character, and the convenient timing in which the empty tomb narrative developed all lead one to reasonably conclude that this is not history, but if it is not then why construct such a narrative? What could be the reason that would non-deceptively and faithfully represent the truth of God for the biblical writers? For while it is possible to assert that the Empty Tomb narrative is not historical, it is more difficult to assert the non-historicity of the Empty Tomb and the divine inspiration of the Gospels at the same time. Or at the very least, that is what we are led to believe today.

I showed briefly how the Roman guard could be used to faithfully represent Christ’s living presence in the church as it struggled with Rome. The Joseph of Arimethea character could also be faithfully added to the narrative to fulfill the expectations of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. And I furthermore showed previously how all this could be played into the moralistic reproach of the male-female roles that were oppressive during the time of the biblical writing as well, which could play and instrumental role in honoring or reading of the resurrection drama.

But why even include it? Well, the first empty tomb narrative is the book of Mark, and it most likely happened that after Mark all the other Gospel writers felt the need to include it in their stories as well. So to really consider this question a look at Mark’s account is of primary concern. When we look at Mark though we see how different it is then all the others. In Mark there is no resurrected Jesus. There are no angels. And there is no Great Commission, or even a joyous ending. The book of Mark ends with the women witnesses running and hiding in fear. At the end of the book (which is verse 8) we are left wondering how the word ever got out that Jesus rose from the dead.

Mark’s ending, I believe, is bittersweet for a reason. It is an entirely crafted literary construction designed for one specific reason; to participate in a liturgical ceremony of baptism and conversion into the Christian faith. The man in the tomb is wearing white robes. White robes were often used in baptismal ceremonies. Christ’s death and resurrection were the ultimate symbols for baptism. His death and resurrection took place during the Jewish Passover, which is also the symbolic event that began the baptism tradition. The book of Mark begins with Jesus being baptized.

So I think Mark included the empty tomb narrative as a symbolic device to use in a baptismal ceremony, and from there it became Gospel canon, in a sense. This would faithfully preserve the intentions of the Biblical writers and adequately convey the message the Christ is risen from the dead.