Reading Time: 7 minutes

Introduction

This is a fact that is accepted by nearly all scholars and an impressive majority of sceptical scholars. Gary Habermas discovered in a large survey that roughly 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb as a historical fact (our other four facts have a 90-99% acceptance rate). 

Prominent critical scholars who accept the empty tomb include: Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwank, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, and Wilckens. These are listed by New Testament critic, Jacob Kremer, whose own name can be added elical: Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Moule, Perry, Robinson, and Schnackenburg. These forty-five prominent scholars believe that there was an empty tomb, for whatever reason. 

In another smaller recent study by Gary Habermas he identified more than one hundred scholars who accept one or more arguments in favor of the empty tomb versus thirty-five who accept one or more arguments against it. This is about a 3:1 ratio. Gary Habermas has counted a total of twenty-three arguments for an empty tomb posited by a number of critical scholars from 1975–2002. I have presented a handful of arguments for the empty tomb from various sources as well as Gary Habermas here.

5A. Burial

1. The historical reliability of the burial account supports the empty tomb

If the burial account is reliable, then the site of Jesus’ grave was well known in Jerusalem. The grave must have been empty when the disciples began preaching his resurrection. 
First, the disciples never would have believed in a resurrection faced with a tomb containing Jesus’ corpse. Second, no one would have believed the disciples if Jesus’ body had still been in the grave. Third, the disciples’ opponents could have shut down the entire operation by simply pointing to Jesus’ body lying in the tomb. Burial account + empty tomb both combine here (see more in The Son Rises by William Lane Craig).

a) Paul’s preserving an early creed provides remarkably early evidence for the burial account. 

As previously mentioned, most scholars date the creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 very early. The second line of the creed states “he was buried.” Then raised, we know creeds were made to be easily memorised. This, along with the chronological succession of the events, suggests that the burial was a separate event, not a “5 minutes later”. The saying in Acts 13:28-31 describes the exact same order of events, as well as in Mark. This correlation suggests that the burial mentioned in the summary statement quoted by Paul is the same as described in the gospels.

Dale C. Allison, who himself self is sceptical of physical resurrections points out ‘etaphE’ means bury in the early creed of 1 Cor 15:3-7 and would rarely be used to describe the dumping of a criminals in a trench to be eaten by dogs.
NT Wright states concerning people claiming the creed doesn’t state an empty tomb:

The Facts the empty tomb itself, so prominent in the gospel accounts, does not appear to be specifically mentioned in this passage, is not significant; the mention hereof “buried and raised” no more needs to be amplified in that way than one would need to amplify the statement, “I walked down the street” with the qualification. “On my feet.

N.T. Wright, New Testament Scholar

b) The burial account was part of the source material used by Mark and is therefore very early.

Mark’s gospel is considered the earliest gospel by virtually all scholars. It’s exact date is disputed but it’s commonly dated as late as possible by critics to around 70AD. (agnostic scholar James Crossley dates it as early as 40AD due to features about the destruction of the temple and what Emperor Gaius was saying in the 40s). This means that any source material Mark used had to have been dated earlier, probably back to the early days of Christian fellowship. For this reason, Mark is a very valuable historical source. 

The passion narrative in Mark (deity, death and resurrection of Jesus) doesn’t break between Jesus’ death (Mark 15:33-41) and the description of Jesus’ burial (Mark 15:42-47).  This suggests to scholars that Mark’s source didn’t abruptly end with Jesus’ death. The continuous narrative implies that the burial account is very old and reliable. And if the burial account is very old, stretching back to the early days of Christian fellowship, it is likely that Paul knew the story.

As well as this, the account of Mark lacks signs of legendary embellishment. Rudolf Bultmann, a radical sceptical scholar, wrote of the Markan narrative, 

This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vv. 44,45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark. 

Rudolf Bultman, New Testament Scholar

Vincent Taylor, a respected commentator on Mark notes that Bultmann’s judgement is “a notable understatement.” Taylor asserts, “The narrative belongs to the best tradition.” Historical core of the passion narrative in the gospels does not show legendary traces and is to be seen as a factual report.

c) The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea is likely historical.

Many sceptical scholars admit that Joseph of Arimathea was probably the genuine, historical individual who buried Jesus, since it is unlikely that early Christian believers would invent an individual, give him a name and nearby town of origin, and place that fictional character on the historical council of the Sanhedrin, whose members were well known.  There was a strong resentment against the Jewish leadership in the Christian community, since in their eyes, the Jews basically murdered Jesus. 

It is unlikely that Christians would invent such a person that instead honours Jesus by giving him a proper burial. It’s just an unusual invention, you wouldn’t do it. Here are nine reasons Joseph of Arimathea is authentic.

1. It was risky for a man to ask for the body of a convicted criminal. Thus, only a courageous ally would do so. This boldness by Joseph is mentioned in Mark 15:43. (Mark 15:43 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.)
2. Haste surrounds the burial of Jesus. This must be done in order to follow God’s Law with the coming Sabbath and Passover. This haste perfectly fits Jesus being buried in Joseph’s tomb. 
3. Similarly, this hasty burial fits the portrayal of Joseph as sympathetic to Jesus. As Schnabel, author of the last days of Jesus says, “Unless one assumes that Joseph was a pious Jew who buried Jesus merely in order to prevent the land from being defiled on Passover and to fulfill the demands of Jewish piety in a concern to provide a proper burial for the dead, there is no good reason to infer that Jesus’ tomb ‘was probably a well-used crypt reserved for the burial of criminals.’” On top of this, the point above about it being risky to ask for the body of a condemned criminal conjoins to make a proper burial even more likely.
   
   
4. If crucifixion victims would normally be taken down and buried when Rome was not at war with the Jewish nation (as Historical Scholar Craig Evans argues), then others would have buried Jesus’ body. Thus, Joseph asking to bury the body pushes against Jesus being buried in a common place for criminals. 
5. The traditional site of the tomb was discovered when Constantine demolished Hadrian’s Temple of Venus. As the fill was removed, the tomb was discovered. As Schnabel says, “The fact that the area that lay well inside the city walls at the time of Constantine, bearing no resemblance to the original area, was remembered as the site of Jesus’ tomb is a strong argument for its authenticity.” 
6. Anointing was part of the burial process, however, this is never mentioned in the gospels. The gospels do, however, mention that the women followers intended to anoint Jesus’ body on Sunday morning. Thus, this fact fits perfectly with the surrounding facts. (Jesus was not there, it had been a few days and they couldn’t anoint the body if it wasn’t there) 
7. Joseph was part of the lay aristocracy. During this time, the lay aristocracy buried their deceased family members in tombs cut into rock. This fits perfectly with Joseph’s tomb. 
8. The gospels stress that the women watched and were intent on seeing how Jesus’ body was taken care of and where it was laid. The way this is mentioned in the gospels highlights the eyewitness aspect of these events. 
9. The resurrection motif occurs in various forms of Roman fictional literature from the time of emperor Nero in the middle of the first century. Sometimes this is simply an apparent death. A character named Protesilaus, however, is given a resurrected body, walks among the people, and teaches them. Glen Bowersock, a classical historian, says “the Gospel stories of Jesus’ resurrection provided the impetus for the emergence of Roman fiction in which the resurrection motif was prominent, concluding that ‘the stories of Jesus inspired the polytheists to create a wholly new genre that we might call romantic scripture.” 
10. The gospels clearly imply a physical tomb (called a acrosolia or bench tomb with a roll the stone doorway) Such tombs were rare in Jesus’ day and were reserved for persons of high rank, such as members of the Sanhedrin. Matthew, Luke, and John note that the tomb was never used prior. This was very likely since the body of a condemned criminal could not be placed in a preoccupied tomb, Joseph would have to find an unoccupied tomb. Matthew says that the tomb was Joseph’s. Joseph wouldn’t be at liberty to lay the body of a criminal in just any tomb. These types of incidental and offhand details, which are also archaeologically consistent, bear the mark of authenticity.

This provides strong evidence for bodily resurrection of Jesus early on in the Jesus movement. As Eckhard Schnabel, whose work discusses in greater detail facts regarding Joseph of Arimathea says, “There is no good reason to doubt that Joseph buried Jesus’ body in his new family tomb that was nearby the location of Jesus’ crucifixion in a garden.”

d) Too poor, criteria of embarrassment

A final reason would be the burial account also meets the criteria of embarrassment, since the disciples had to admit they could not afford their own tomb to bury Jesus, but had to use a member of the court who had just executed him.

Sources on ‘Burial’

• http://capturingchristianity.com/9-reasons-why-joseph-of-arimathea-was-a-real-historical-figure/ – Brett Lunn
• Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte [Stuttgart, Germany: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977], 49–50
• Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, 374
• Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: The earliest Christian tradition and its Interpreters, p353
• N.T Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, p321
• Book – Jesus in Jerusalem: The Last Days Hardcover – Eckhard Schnabel
• Jesus in Jerusalem: the Last Days, 40-42.
• Jesus in Jerusalem: the Last Days, 135-137; 342-345; 41; 41-42; 135; 343; 343-344; 344-345; 392; 42