Historical Fact 5: Empty Tomb Discovered

“So comprehensive and pervasive is the resurrection of Jesus that, historically speaking, the onus is on the skeptic to overturn it.”[1]

– Historian Paul W. Barnett

This article is the fifth in a series of 5 facts that nearly every historian accepts as true, including atheist and non-Christian ones! (the fifth fact holds a strong majority position among scholars but is not unanimous like the others). These facts are:

(1) Jesus died by crucifixion

(2) Jesus’ followers believed he rose and appeared to them

(3) Sudden Change in Church persecutor Paul

(4) Sudden Change in skeptic James

(5) Empty tomb discovered

You may have heard of these labeled as the minimal facts argument which Gary Habermas champions. While attending Liberty University where Habermas taught, I had the privilege of hearing him give an extensive lecture series on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. I would like to share some of these facts while incorporating the insight of several other world-renowned historians who also accept these historical facts as true.

In my fourth article, I’ve established that:

  • James became an influential and authoritative figure in the early church.
  • James was a devout Jew before his conversion who was very skeptical toward the idea that Jesus was the Messiah.
  • James sincerely believed he encountered the risen Jesus; therefore, friends, enemies (Paul) and skeptics believed he was resurrected.
  • The majority of critical scholars agree that James believed he experienced what he thought was the resurrected Jesus.

 

So, did the disciples, Paul, and James die in vain? Was Jesus’ body simply decomposing in a tomb somewhere? Did it even make it off the cross to be buried? In this article, I will cover historical fact 5: Empty tomb discovered.

Arguments for the Empty Tomb

Although fact 5 is not supported unanimously among scholars, just under 75% of critical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) believe the tomb was empty; therefore, as historian Michael Licona says, this narrative is “granted by a significant majority of scholars.”[2]

It Was Not Legendary

Some skeptics have claimed that the empty tomb story had developed over time and is nothing more than a late legend. They think the original story was that Jesus had a spiritual resurrection and ascension as critics have interpreted them to be one in the same, and it was only until later that a bodily resurrection concept emerged.

Many skeptics have also tried to interpret the long-discredited idea that Jesus’ life should be interpreted through a Greco-Roman Hellenistic lens in which many of its nuances were derived from dying-and-rising god mystery religions.[3] Renowned theologian Gerald O’Collins remarks that this outdated theory “runs against the present tide of main-line scholarship,” and “the first Christians must be interpreted primarily against a Jewish and not a Hellenistic background.”[4]

Other critical scholars have said that Jesus probably wasn’t even given a burial since Roman practice denied crucified criminals that right. Historian Richard Horsley explains,

“Often the victims were never buried but simply left on the crosses as carrion for wild beasts and birds of prey.”[5]

This is your average skeptic’s go-to claim, and because of it, some have thought that although Jesus’ body was destroyed, maybe he had a spiritual resurrection. On the contrary, there is evidence suggesting the opposite for other crucified victims which includes Jesus. The Jews had always believed in a bodily resurrection at the end of time and not some spiritual or mystical experience. Scholars Paul Rhodes Eddy and Greg Boyd state,

“When Jews thought of resurrection, they thought of a bodily resurrection in history, not a mystical vision.”[6]

This idea was absurd in the ancient world and mocked by critics (Celsus, True Doctrine, 178 AD; Porphyry, Against the Christians, 270 AD).[7] Scholar Jeremiah Johnston adds,

“In the thinking of pagan Romans the Christian message of resurrection was mysterious, if not unfathomable.”[8]

Additionally, Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in very early, independent sources; so, it is highly implausible to think that it developed over time. Theologian William Lane Craig points out that this burial and empty tomb tradition is found in the source material of Mark’s passion story which most likely dates within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.[9] How could a legend develop in 7 years? It couldn’t.

Ancient History Confirms Burial for Crucified Victims

Ancient Writings

Skeptics have often asserted that because Jesus was executed as a criminal by Roman authorities, he was therefore denied any kind of burial. However, there are several ancient writings and archaeological evidence showing that crucified individuals were permitted to be buried.[10] Jewish Roman historian Josephus tells us that

“The Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 4.5.2).

Moreover, the historical evidence has shown that during Jesus’ lifetime, Rome made an effort to live peaceably with the Jewish community by respecting their laws and customs to a certain extent, and this would include their burial rites.

Here is the real issue we need to look at: the nature of Jesus’ crimes. If Jesus was tried for treason, then he most likely would have been denied any kind of burial and would be left on the cross for the animals and birds. Historian Raymond Brown explains that a Roman prefect would not have been likely to give Jesus’ body to a disciple, if at all, since Jesus was accused of treason in which Rome would prohibit a proper burial; however, Brown reminds us that “according to Mark, Pilate suspects that Jesus is being charged for motives other than those professed.”[11]

Recall, the Jews weren’t able to kill Jesus for blasphemy themselves because they lacked the authority to do so. Only Roman governors from 6–66 CE could execute someone,[12] and hence this is why the Jewish authorities brought Jesus before Pilate to pressure him into doing their dirty work. Pilate obviously detected this, and Jesus was perceived by him to be a non-treasonous person, permitting his body to be buried by a member of the Sanhedrin.

Afterall, this was the same Jewish Council that brought Jesus to Pilate in the first place, so surely, Pilate would have respected the burial rites of the Sanhedrin in this particular scenario in order prevent their land from being defiled (Deut. 21:23), especially during Passover which was a monumental event for the Jews. Distinguished historian Craig Evans explains,

“Had Pilate and other Roman governors of Israel in the 6–66 CE period of time regularly crucified people (whether Jewish or Gentile) and left their bodies hanging on the cross unburied, thus defiling the land, there would have been riots, if not uprisings.”[13]

Evans goes on to emphasize that according to the Jewish law, when the Sanhedrin condemned someone to death, they would have that criminal buried, just not in a place of honor such as a family burial which was part of the punishment.[14] In doing this, they would still uphold their sacred laws to ensure the purity of the sanctuary, temple boundaries, Jerusalem and their land in which people were killed for not complying with these regulations (Paul in Acts 21 almost died because of this).

Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological evidence proves that crucified victims were buried. In 1968 the remains of a crucified Jew were discovered in an ossuary[15] (bone burial box) dating back to the late 20s CE which is the time of Pilate’s administration.[16] This victim’s heel bone had a large nail through it with a piece of wood still affixed to the end of nail.

Had this nail not gotten stuck in the precise location of the wood where a knot was, the nail would have been removed; hence, there could be several other skeletal remains of buried crucified victims that we aren’t aware of due to the removal of the nail (ropes were also used to bind the wrists and feet to the cross, therefore, their crucifixion would be unrecognizable). Archaeologist and scholar in early Judaism, Jodi Magness points out,

“The means by which victims were affixed to crosses usually leave no discernible traces in physical remains or archaeological record.”[17]

Location of the Tomb: Joseph of Arimathea

Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin which was the Jewish Council responsible for the burial of executed Jews. Because Jesus received an honorable burial, a wealthy member of Jewish society would be needed to provide such a tomb, and Joseph would surely fit this description. Some critics have claimed Joseph was a fictional character designed to give more credibility to the story and that Jesus was really just dumped into an unmarked common grave.

However, 1 Cor. 15:4 uses the term “buried” in a way that heavily implies that it was not an unceremonious process.[18] Scholar Robert Gundry points out that because the tomb was “hewn out of rock,” this “adds to the dignity of Jesus’ burial—especially because this description is best understood, not of a cave hollowed out of rock, but of a freestanding monolith carved out of rock inside and out.”[19] When the women arrived they’re described as “looking up” (Mark 16:4) where this rock-hewn tomb (not ground-dug ditch) was located; hence, they didn’t have to look down into a common grave of criminals.

Furthermore, Joseph’s role is attested in all four gospels, and biblical scholar Craig Keener explains,

“John and Mark independently attest Joseph’s historical role: given early Christian experiences with, and feelings toward, the Sanhedrin, the invention of a Sanhedrist acting piously toward Jesus (Mark 15:43) is not likely.”[20]

Renowned historian Dale Allison believes the burial by Joseph to be historical, adding that it is

“Highly likely that a certain Joseph of Arimathea, probably acting on behalf of the Sanhedrin, which typically tried to observe Deut 21:22-23, sought and obtained permission from the Roman authorities to make arrangements for Jesus’ hurried and dishonorable burial.”[21]

Magness says that it is not necessary to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in his family tomb to be “legendary or apologetic,” and states,

“I believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence.”[22]

Acts 13:29 is another source that attests to Jesus being buried by Jews and not the Romans.[23] Additionally, the late embellished Gospel of Peter is said to have used its own early source that is independent from the Gospels and Acts.

So now the burial tradition has gained two more sources only strengthening its already sturdy tradition. Based on the Gospel burial narratives being in line with Jewish practice as seen in ancient rabbinic writings and other nonbiblical historical sources, Evans confirms:

“There is nothing irregular about the Gospels’ report that a member of the Sanhedrin requested permission to take down the body of Jesus and give it proper burial, in keeping with Jewish burial practices as they related to the executed. It is entirely in keeping with all that we know from the literature and from archaeology.”[24]

Historians Hurtado and Keith agree, explaining that even if burying crucified criminals were the exception rather than the norm,

“There is no requirement to view Joseph as a literary construction merely on the grounds of burial practice, and it seems quite possible that Jewish concerns for piety and purity trumped Roman particularities.”[25]

Therefore, it is completely reasonable for us to conclude that Jesus received a burial, whether honorable or dishonorable,[26] by a member of the Sanhedrin in order to uphold their sacred Jewish customs. Bottom line: Jesus was buried and was not left on the cross or thrown into a mass common grave/ditch.

Location of the Story’s Origin: Jerusalem

Literally, Jerusalem would be the last place in the world for Christianity to successfully develop. Jesus publicly received the worst and shameful form of execution there, and this would certainly intimidate anyone else from thinking about carrying on his mission, else they end up like their failed leader. Historian E. P. Sanders says that Jesus’ disciples, “reasonably thinking that they would be next, hid.”[27]

Everybody knew Jesus died and that his messianic teachings and miracles were either fraudulent and aided by demonic forces, or that he was just misinterpreted and mischaracterized by his followers. The Jews knew that anyone who died on a tree was cursed by God (Deut. 21:23) and therefore couldn’t be the Messiah.

Enemy Attestation

If you are a military leader and your troops say you are a great leader, then we have reason to believe this is true despite the biased view of the troops since they are speaking of their own commander who is on their side. However, if an enemy nation who hates you, yet declares that you are a great leader, then we have stronger reason to believe this is true since there is no bias involved.

Similarly, the empty tomb contains enemy attestation in which Jesus’ enemies, the chief priests, claim the only reason that the tomb is empty is because Jesus’ disciples stole his body (Matt. 28:11-15). Therefore, the enemy is admitting that the tomb is empty and that the body was missing.[28]

If the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities wanted to squelch the Jesus movement at its earliest stage, all they would need to do is show that Jesus’ body was still decomposing in the tomb. Historians Habermas and Licona add that

“It would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb.”[29]

The reason they couldn’t produce the body is because it wasn’t there. We’ve already established that crucified victims could be buried, and regardless of the burial taking place in Joseph’s personal tomb or a dishonorable tomb for criminals, Jesus’ body could have been retrieved regardless of the condition, and it would have been enough to prevent a massive movement from ever starting.

Think about it: would you be willing to risk your life for a new movement from yet another defeated messiah whose dead body was just publicly displayed?

This would certainly be enough to dissuade people from joining a failed mission by another messianic pretender. As the renowned Jewish scholar Geza Vermes points out,

“Jewish tradition knew nothing of a dying and rising Messiah.”[30]

The mission was now over and the fearful disciples who already abandoned their leader knew that. Allison remarks,

“Without proclamation of the resurrection, probably only a few would have summoned the inner resources to reckon Jesus anything other than a false prophet, and so his cause might eventually have been lost to oblivion.”[31]

Early Creed

The early creed contained in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 that Paul received from the earliest disciples also mentions Jesus’ burial and that he was raised implying an empty tomb.[32] Scholar C. E. B. Cranfield remarks,

“The emptiness of the tomb is almost certainly implied by the mention of burial between ‘died’ and ‘hath been raised’ in 1 Cor 15:4.”[33]

This source gets us back even further sometime around 1-3 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.[34] Not surprisingly, some skeptics have been super skeptical, claiming that this tradition doesn’t suggest an empty tomb because it’s not specifically worded that way!

Eminent historian N. T. Wright explains how unreasonable it is to expect such verbiage and says,

“When Paul speaks of resurrection in the next phrase it is to be assumed, as anyone telling or hearing a story of someone being raised from the dead would assume in either the pagan or the Jewish world, that this referred to the body being raised to new life, leaving an empty tomb behind it.”[35]

We also need to remember that creeds were precise, compact statements of faith that purposefully reduced needless explanations. Why add in “and that Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb was empty”? There was no need to because a raised body obviously meant an empty tomb. Moreover, recall that Paul was a Pharisee and this sect believed in a physical bodily resurrection.[36]

Women as First Witnesses

Something else that we need to pay close attention to is the fact that women were the ones that first discovered the empty tomb and saw the risen Jesus. This is remarkable because a woman’s testimony in first-century Palestine was not taken very seriously.

Therefore, this meets the criterion of embarrassment that historians employ in order to better establish the likelihood that something happened in the past. It would have been embarrassing that women, rather than men, were the ones to discover the empty tomb.

Scholar Craig Blomberg explains that this narrative is “too embarrassing for the credibility of the resurrection story in its original milieu to have been created. It is far more likely to be historical;” and that because the women wouldn’t have been perceived as a threat, they could follow the soldiers to the burial site where they would return the next morning with the burial spices that Rome denied him (Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 24:55-56; John 19:25-27).[37]

It’s not uncommon for skeptics to try and hand-waive this important fact away and minimize its significance, but the efforts will always remain futile based on the oddity to include the women as the first witnesses in this story. Wright highlights this by saying:

“Even if we suppose that Mark made up most of his material, and did so some time in the late 60s at the earliest, it will not do to have him, or anyone else at that stage, making up a would-be apologetic legend about an empty tomb and having women be the ones who find it. The point has been repeated over and over in scholarship, but its full impact has not always been felt: women were simply not acceptable as legal witnesses.”[38]

But as Allison points out, the empty tomb narrative in Mark 16:1-8 is thought to be extremely early and a pre-Markan source tradition meaning it wasn’t made up by Mark; and says that “the reduction of the empty tomb to Markan creativity, whatever the redactional motive postulated, is not a compelling point of view.”[39] Allison believes the empty tomb to be more historical than legendary.[40]

In fact, Mark’s source tradition is so early that it predates the creed that Paul received (1 Cor. 15:3-5). In that creed, “on the third day” is used in referring to Jesus’ resurrection, whereas Mark uses “on the first day of the week.” If the empty tomb narrative were a late development, then the third-day motif would have been used for all the accounts given by the evangelists.[41]

As expected, the responses of the critics were heard loud and clear regarding the first witnesses being women. Celsus, the late second-century critic of Christianity is a great example. He reports that a “hysterical woman” and “deluded women wanted to impress others.”[42] Having known the implications for women being the first witnesses, the disciples demonstrate that they rather tell the truth than fabricate a convincing story.

The later embellished Gospel of Peter would attempt to compensate for this embarrassing detail by declaring that the first witnesses were not women, but rather a Roman centurion, his soldiers and Jewish leaders.[43]

It. Was. Empty.

So, after evaluating the historical evidence, we can be confident, as the majority of scholars are and for good reason, that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s family tomb, women first discovered that it was empty, the enemies of Jesus acknowledged this, and the body was not produced to prevent the Jesus movement from starting.

Moreover, this was not a spiritual resurrection, otherwise the body would have remained in the tomb, and first-century Jews understood the resurrection to be a physical bodily event. This occurred in Jerusalem which would have been the last place for this movement to successfully develop.

The empty tomb by itself doesn’t prove the resurrection happened, but an empty tomb is necessary for a resurrection. When you take this fact in addition to all of the others that have been explained throughout this article series, the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is extremely good and very convincing.

Remember, just because some skeptics remain unpersuaded, does not mean the evidence is unpersuasive or untrue. Countless individuals have come to accept Christ based on the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, while countless others have been strengthened in their faith by it.

The apostle Paul said it best: And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14, ESV). Christians may know that Christianity is true, but in order to show others that Christianity is true, oftentimes we need to interact with the incredible evidence at our disposal.

I’ll conclude with Larry Hurtado’s statement, “Whatever is thought today of the accounts of the empty tomb and the first appearances of the risen Christ to his followers, one thing can be stated with full confidence. Shortly after Jesus’ execution, at least some of his followers became convinced that he had been delivered by God from the hold of death.”[44] Thanks for reading. Be bold and share this!

 

Blessings,

Andrew Drinkard

 

[1] Paul W. Barnett, “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable,” ed, Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder. In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2013), 250.

[2] See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 461-462. In his footnotes, Licona describes correspondence he had with Habermas on April 1, 2008 in which Habermas updated his research showing that “slightly lower than 75 percent” of critical scholarship holds the empty tomb position.

[3] See Craig L. Blomberg, Resurrection: Faith or Fact?: A Scholars’ Debate Between a Skeptic and a Christian (2019), 126-133; Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (2007), 145. 66-91.

[4] Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Editors, The Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University, 1997), 18.

[5] Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2013), 60. See Bock and Simpson, Jesus According to Scripture, (2002), 419.

[6] Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 145.

[7] See T. D. Barnes, “Porphyry ‘Against the Christians’: Date and the Attribution of Fragments.” The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, 24, no. 2 (1973): 433-434. Accessed February 25, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23962127.

[8] Jeremiah J. Johnston, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016), 145.

[9] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed (Wheaton: Crossway Publishing, 2008), 362.

[10] See Michael F. Bird et al., Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman, 74-79 in which Craig Evans provides several examples in which the burial of crucified individuals is attested in the ancient writings of Philo of Alexandria, Septimius Vegetus, Pliny the Younger, an inscription from Ephesus contained in Livy 5.13.8, the Roman law Digesta, Josephus’ granted request for removal of his crucified friend, and Governor Albinus’ releasing of non-murdering prisoners.

[11] Raymond E. Brown, “The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47),” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50, no. 2 (1988): 236.

[12] See Evans, How God Became Jesus (2014), 82-83. Evans goes on to emphasize that the evidence shows that the Sanhedrin could condemn someone to death but could not carry out capital punishment, unless there was a serious infraction within the temple precincts themselves.

[13] Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill and Chris Tilling, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman (Grand Rapids: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2014), 78.

[14] Bird et al., How God Became Jesus, 80-81.

[15] Approximately 900 limestone burial boxes have been discovered in and around Jerusalem. The remains of Caiaphas, the high priest of the Sanhedrin who sentenced Jesus to death, were discovered in 1990; see Eddy and Boyd (2007), 295. A fuller treatment can be found in Jodi Magness, “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 121-154.

[16] See Bird et al. (2014), 83-85 for more details.

[17] Jodi Magness, “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 145.

[18] See Allison, Resurrecting Jesus (2005), 353-354.

[19] Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing, 2010), 218.

[20] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: 2 Volumes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 1158. Some scholars believe Joseph was a disciple of Jesus while others believe he was merely a pious Jew and that “waiting for God’s kingdom” (Mark 15:43), along with the fact that Joseph is included with the Sanhedrin who unanimously sentenced Jesus to death demonstrated this. Because of this, they don’t think it’s enough to establish him as a secret disciple or follower of Jesus. However, the evidence does seem to suggest that Joseph was a follower and doesn’t have to be a direct disciple of Jesus to be a disciple. The language Mark uses for “all” (Mk 14:64) could be generalized or hyperbolic to show the majority voted to kill Jesus, but according to Luke 23:51, it’s possible that Joseph was not in attendance at the initial sentencing of Jesus or was present but abstained to vote; see a list of scholars George Shea has put together in arguing for Joseph being a disciple of Jesus according to Mark’s gospel. George W. Shea, “Faith & Reason,” The Journal of Christendom College, Spring 1991, Vol. XVII, No. 1. https://media.christendom.edu/1991/04/on-the-burial-of-jesus-in-mark-1542-47/.

[21] Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: Bloomsbury Academic & Professional, 2005), 320; 362-363.

[22] Magness, “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James,” 148.

[23] See Craig, Reasonable Faith (2008), 362-363. Craig points out that a comparison can be made between the four-line formula of the early creed (1 Cor. 15:3-5) “with the Gospel narratives on the one hand and the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles on the other (Acts 13:28-31; Mark 15:37-16:7).” He concludes that we have “evidence from two of the earliest, independent sources in the New Testament for the burial of Jesus in the tomb.” The Acts source wouldn’t entirely be a Lukan creation but rather a preservation of former apostolic preaching (364).

[24] Bird et al., How God Became Jesus, 89.

[25] Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado, Jesus among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 157-158.

[26] Although some scholars believe that there would not have been enough time for Jesus to receive an honorable burial which constitutes ceremonial washing, anointing of spices, and getting his body to the location of Joseph’s family tomb due to sundown rapidly approaching and remaining in accordance with Deut. 21:23 (and the Sabbath being the next day in which they couldn’t “work,” i.e., bury him); nevertheless, there are other scholars who believe Jesus could have received an honorable burial which is implied by the fine linen cloth/shroud they wrapped Jesus with (Mark 15:46), and the type of tomb Jesus was laid in (v. 46) described as having a rolling stone indicative of a family tomb. Moreover, some scholars have argued that anointing and washing wasn’t required in all circumstances to receive an honorable burial (times of war, etc.) although washing was probably available due to springs within the garden where the tomb was located; see Shea, Journal of Christendom College (1991). Regardless, even if Jesus was buried dishonorably, this kind of shame would only reflect the same shame that was given to him upon the cross. It isn’t hard to envision a dishonorable burial after a dishonorable execution.

[27] E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin Books Ltd.), 301. Kindle.

[28] See Howard Clarke, Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 244; Craig, Reasonable Faith (2008), 367-370; Habermas and Licona (2004), 71; Wright (2003), 637-639.

[29] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 70.

[30] Geza Vermes, Jesus in the Jewish World (London: Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, 2010), 234.

[31] Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: Bloomsbury Academic & Professional, 2005), 214.

[32] This creed is accepted among scholars as stretching from v3b-8 with v6 as an addition by Paul to persuade others by the massive eyewitness account of the risen Jesus. Many scholars do accept 6a, but ultimately, as Dale Allison points out, we do not know if or what Paul modified in v6-7; see Resurrecting Jesus, 233-234. For an in-depth treatment, see Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (2009), 230-241. O’Connor believes Paul slightly altered the traditional phrase of v7 and moved it as a transitional piece in order to emphasize the legitimacy of his authoritative apostolic position (2009), 236.

[33] C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Historical Jesus in Recent Research, ed. James D. G. Dunn and McKnight, Scot McKnight (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 385.

[34] See articles 2-4 in which I provide numerous quotations from critical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) who confirm this fact. It is unanimously accepted that this creed dates to within 2-3 years of the crucifixion, while some believe it to be even sooner.

[35] N. T. Wright, Resurrection Son of God V3: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 321.

[36] Although this is common biblical knowledge, Robert Gundry has emphasized more on this point in “The Essential Physicality of Jesus’ Resurrection according to the New Testament,” which Dale Allison referenced in Resurrecting Jesus, 315. In this case, I did not access Gundry’s book nor read his direct comments pertaining to this, but simply defaulted to Allison’s reference on it.

[37] Carl Stecher and Craig L. Blomberg, Resurrection: Faith or Fact?: A Scholars’ Debate Between a Skeptic and a Christian (Chicago: Pitchstone Publishing, 2019), 138.

[38] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 607.

[39] Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: Bloomsbury Academic & Professional, 2005), 301.

[40] Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 344-347. Also, Gerald O’Collins provides a list of scholars, including atheist Gerd Lüdemann, who believe Mark drew on a source (or sources) when composing Mark 16:1-8; see Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Editors, The Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University, 1997), 16-17. Although numerous reputable scholars accept this fact, there are some, such as Raymond Brown, despite agreeing that there are such sources, advises against putting too much weight into pre-Markan sources, saying it’s “purely hypothetical;” see Raymond E. Brown, Marion Soards, and John Collins, An Introduction to the New Testament: The Abridged Edition. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 56. Nevertheless, with all of the scholars that Brown says that do agree with this theory, its plausibility should be taken note of.

[41] See Craig, Reasonable Faith (2008), 366 in which he expounds on this and references E. L. Bode who points out that later development of an empty tomb narrative would employ the third-day motif tradition.

[42] Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians (Cary: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

[43] Jeremiah J. Johnston, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016), 147.

[44] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2015), 122.

Related Articles