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
EXPLAINING THE EMPTY TOMB
Since the fact of the empty tomb is well established historically, the next question can only be, How is it to be explained? Although the disciples did not at first understand why the tomb was empty (Mary thought the body had been stolen; John 20:2), we know today that most alternative explanations for the empty tomb are more unbelievable than the resurrection itself (for example, the disciples’ stealing the body, Jesus’ not being dead, the women’s visiting the wrong tomb, and so forth). In other words, it takes more faith to believe in those theories than it does to believe that Jesus really rose from the dead.
To deny that Jesus rose from the dead as the early Christians proclaimed, it is necessary to say that some unknown party robbed the tomb prior to the women’s visit. That is, of course, an appeal to ignorance, and there is no positive proof for this assertion. It also assumes that the story about the Jews’ posting a guard at the tomb is not true, which would have to be proved. More important, however, there are good reasons for rejecting the theory: (1) There was no motive for stealing the body. Tomb robbers would have no reason to break into the tomb, since nothing valuable was buried with the corpse. Moreover, robbers are after the goods interred with the body, not the body itself. Why then would they carry off the dead man’s body, and what would they do with it? It is conceivable that enemies of Jesus might desecrate the tomb, but again, it would be pointless for them to haul off the corpse and hide it. (2) Apparently no one other than Joseph and his companions and the women even knew where Jesus was buried. Joseph probably surprised the Jews and everyone else by placing the body in the tomb instead of dumping it in the criminals’ graveyard. So no one else would know where the body was in order to steal it. (3) The time was insufficient for such a conspiracy. Since the burial was Friday evening and the women found the tomb empty at dawn on Sunday, the would-be thieves would have to hatch their plot, steal the body, and dispose of it sometime between Friday night and Sunday morning. But given the tumultuous confusion in Jerusalem during Jesus’ trial and execution—and at Passover time no less—it strains credulity to believe that a group of men would get together and conceive of and execute a plot to steal the body. It sounds more like a Hollywood movie. (4) The fact that the graveclothes were found in the tomb precludes theft of the body. Remember that when the disciples investigated the tomb they found the graveclothes lying in the tomb. These clothes probably included the linen sheet, cloths used to tie the hands and feet, and a band to keep the jaw closed. The fact that these clothes were still in the tomb is proved by the testimony of John (the beloved disciple) as well as by the source used by Luke in his account of the disciples’ investigation. Moreover, the presence of the graveclothes in the tomb cannot be said to be a legend aimed at proving the resurrection, since the graveclothes did not cause the disciples to believe in the resurrection: Peter “went home, wondering at what had happened” (Luke 24:12, RSV).* Only the beloved disciple believed (John 20:8), and he apparently did not tell anyone what he thought. Moreover, if the Shroud of Turin, which purports to be the sheet in which Jesus was buried, is genuine, then we have amazing confirmation of this aspect of the story of the disciples’ investigation. Obviously the sheet could only have been preserved if it had been left behind in the tomb. If the Shroud is authentic, we have direct evidence that the graveclothes were found in the tomb. The fact that the graveclothes were found in the tomb would show that the tomb had not been emptied by robbery, for no would-be robber would unwrap and untie a corpse and carry off the body, naked, and limbs dangling. Therefore, the small detail about the graveclothes shows that the empty tomb cannot be explained by robbery. (5) Conspiracies of this sort almost always come to light either by disclosure or discovery or at least by rumor. Can you imagine how surprised and no doubt amused the thieves would have been when the disciples began to proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead? It is doubtful that they could have kept their secret long. The Jews would have been more than happy for any such information. But we find no trace whatsoever of any such conspiracy, not even in the Jewish propaganda, which suggests that no such conspiracy ever existed. (6) Most important, however, the theory seeks to explain only part of the evidence. In the investigation of history, the historian always seeks the most simple, all-inclusive explanation of the facts available. But this theory only tries to account for the fact of the empty tomb; it says nothing at all about the appearances of Jesus or the origin of the Christian faith. Other additional theories will have to be developed in order to explain those phenomena. The resurrection of Jesus is a simpler, all-embracing explanation of the facts and is therefore to be preferred as the most plausible historical explanation.