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.