The Empty Tomb: Arguments and Critiques

Historical Empty Tomb (Maximalist)

Abstract

The maximalist view holds that the burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the women's discovery of the empty tomb are historically secure, early, and — with the appearance tradition — best explained by bodily resurrection. Contemporary statements come from Gary Habermas (empty tomb strongly evidenced though formally outside his "minimal facts") and N. T. Wright (empty tomb plus appearances as jointly necessary and sufficient); neither is in corpus, and both are presented in outline only, as in The Resurrection of Jesus — Historicity. The corpus anchor is J. Gresham Machen, who ties the empty tomb to the tradition behind 1 Cor 15:3-8 (bib) and to the physicalism of Luke-Acts.

Formal statement

1. Jesus was buried in an identifiable rock-hewn tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, "an honourable counsellor" who "craved the body of Jesus" (Mark 15:43 (bib)); the women "beheld where he was laid" (Mark 15:47 (bib)).
2. The burial is embedded in the pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:4 (bib)), so the burial–vacated-grave sequence belongs to the earliest datable stratum.
3. Women found the tomb open and the body absent (Mark 16:1-6 (bib)); women as discoverers is an embarrassment-criterion datum no legend-maker had motive to invent.
4. The resurrection was proclaimed in Jerusalem, where an occupied tomb could have been exhibited; it never was.
5. The earliest anti-Christian polemic — the theft story "commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Matt 28:13-15 (bib)) — concedes the vacancy and disputes only its cause.
6. Theft, removal, and swoon each fail independently; the best explanation of (1)–(5) is that Jesus was bodily raised.

Key evidence / textual basis

Machen states the dialectical situation: on the naturalistic reconstruction, "desperate efforts are made to show that the reference by Paul to the burial of Jesus does not by any means confirm the accounts given in the Gospels of events connected with the empty tomb. Sometimes, indeed, in recent criticism, the fact of the empty tomb is accepted, and then explained in some naturalistic way" (Machen 1921, "Introduction," p.35). The point of departure is 1 Cor 15:4 (bib): if "he was buried" stands between "died" and "rose again" in a formula Paul "received," the sequence is no late embellishment. Machen dates its transmission to Paul's fifteen days with Peter (Gal 1:18 (bib)): "The vast majority of modern investigators, of all shades of opinion, find in these verses a summary of the Jerusalem tradition which Paul received from Peter during the fifteen days" (Machen 1921, "The Triumph of Gentile Freedom," pp.76-77). See The Pre-Pauline Creed in 1 Cor 15:3-8.

Against a "spiritual" resurrection compatible with an occupied tomb, Machen appeals to Luke-Acts: its author "is firmly convinced that the contact of the risen Jesus with His disciples... involved the absence of the body of Jesus from the tomb" and "physical proofs of the most definite kind" (Machen 1921, "Introduction," p.36). Against the hallucination hypothesis: "there are limitations to what is possible in experiences of that sort, especially where numbers of persons are affected and at different times" (Machen 1921, "Introduction," p.35).

The narratives supply the concrete details: the hasty pre-Sabbath burial (Mark 15:42-46 (bib)); the great stone (Mark 16:3-4 (bib)); "he is risen; he is not here" (Mark 16:6 (bib)); the grave-clothes and "the napkin... wrapped together in a place by itself" (John 20:5-7 (bib)) — read as anti-theft; and the sealed, guarded tomb of Matt 27:62-66 (bib).

{{UNSOURCED: Habermas's survey-of-scholarship claims on the empty tomb and Wright's argument in The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003) that neither tomb-emptiness nor appearances alone would have generated resurrection belief. Neither work is in corpus.}}

Leading proponents

• J. Gresham Machen — The Origin of Paul's Religion (1921); in corpus.
• Gary Habermas — contemporary minimal-facts architect; not in corpus.
• N. T. Wright — The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003); not in corpus.

Strongest counter-arguments

Strauss's objections are textual before they are metaphysical. First, the divergences: the accounts differ on who went to the tomb, when, what they saw, and what followed — Luke's "many women," Mark's three, Matthew's two, John's Magdalene alone; Mark's "at the rising of the sun" against John's "while it was yet dark"; one angel sitting, two standing, or none (Strauss §137). The burial fares no better: the spice-purchase timeline of Mark 16:1 (bib) contradicts Luke 23:56 (bib), and John's hundred-pound embalming leaves the women's Sunday errand without purpose (Strauss §135).

Second, the guard story of Matt 27:62-66 (bib) is, Strauss argues, incredible as history: the Sanhedrists could not have known of a resurrection prediction opaque even to the disciples; no other evangelist or apostolic speech mentions the watch; the women's worry about the stone (Mark 16:3 (bib)) is "a clear proof that they knew nothing of the guards"; and the Sanhedrin's conduct — believing the soldiers' miracle report and bribing them — "is evidently spoken entirely on the Christian presupposition of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus" (Strauss §136).

Third, the tradition-critical objection: if the first appearances occurred in Galilee — as Mark 16:7 (bib) and Matt 28:16 (bib) point — resurrection faith formed far from the grave, and the tomb story could be back-formation. Schweitzer reports W. Brandt's version: this "'resurrection' has nothing to do with the empty grave, which, like the whole narrative of the Jerusalem appearances, only came into the tradition later" (Schweitzer 1906, "Outcome of Brandt's Work"). Harnack adds the Pauline silence: "Did the apostle know of the message about the empty grave?... I think it probable; but we cannot be quite certain about it" (Harnack 1900, p.161).

Responses

To the divergences: variation in secondary detail with agreement in core (women, dawn, first day, open tomb, absent body) is the signature of independent testimony, not collusion; Strauss's harmonize-or-mythologize dilemma is a false dichotomy. To the guard story: many maximalists concede that Matt 28:11-15 (bib) is apologetic in shape while insisting on what its critics must grant — the polemic it answers accused the disciples of theft, and a theft accusation presupposes an empty tomb. To the Galilee thesis: the creed's "buried... rose again the third day" (1 Cor 15:4 (bib)) leaves no interval for late development, and Paul's fifteen days with Peter (Machen 1921, pp.76-77) place the whole sequence within a very few years of the events.

Assessment

Assessment: Strong — the burial and the women's discovery are conceded as unanimous canonical testimony even by Strauss, and the early creed plus the theft-polemic give the view purchase outside confessional circles. Its vulnerability is localized: the guard pericope is widely surrendered as apologetic legend, and the inference from vacancy to resurrection (rather than removal) requires the appearance evidence treated in The Resurrection of Jesus — Historicity.

Mythical-Legendary Development

Abstract

On this view the empty-tomb narratives are products, not causes, of resurrection faith. David Friedrich Strauss (1835) argued that the faith arose from visionary experiences in Galilee, generated by messianic reflection on scripture after the crucifixion shattered the disciples' hopes; tomb stories, angels, and guard accreted as legend consolidated. Ernest Renan (1863) offered a sentimental variant: an actually-vacated grave (cause unknown — possibly removal from a merely temporary interment) plus Mary Magdalene's "strong imagination" produced the cry "He is risen!" Both are in corpus as full primary text.

Formal statement

1. The crucifixion annihilated the disciples' hopes; they expected no resurrection (the predictions of Matt 16:21 (bib) and parallels are vaticinia ex eventu, since the disciples' Easter-morning conduct shows no memory of them — Strauss §113).
2. The disciples returned to Galilee, where reflection on Isa 53 (bib) and Ps 16:10 (bib) resolved the contradiction between messiahship and death.
3. This exalted frame issued in visions of the same order as Paul's Damascus Christophany, which Paul himself places in one series with the earlier appearances (1 Cor 15:5-8 (bib)) (Strauss §140).
4. Resurrection faith therefore crystallized where "no body lay in the grave to contradict bold suppositions" (Strauss §140); by the time it reached Jerusalem, exhibition of the body could no longer refute it.
5. The tomb narratives, with angels, earthquake, and guard, are subsequent embellishment; their contradictions (§§135–137) betray legendary formation.
6. Therefore the empty tomb is a datum of the history of tradition, not of history.

Key evidence / textual basis

Strauss's positive reconstruction is explicit. Once a dying Messiah was integrated into scriptural expectation, visions followed — "in individuals, especially women, these impressions were heightened, in a purely subjective manner, into actual vision" — and the empty grave became a theological necessity rather than an observed fact: "if the crucified Messiah had truly entered into the highest form of blessed existence, he ought not to have left his body in the grave" (Strauss §140). The Galilee location is load-bearing: "here also, where no body lay in the grave to contradict bold suppositions, might gradually be formed the idea of the resurrection of Jesus... it was no longer possible by the sight of the body of Jesus either to convict themselves, or to be convicted by others" (Strauss §140). Even "the third day" needs no tomb-event: "the sacred number three would be the first to suggest itself." Embellishment follows: "The chief ornaments which stood at command for this purpose, were angels: hence these must open the grave of Jesus... and deliver to the women... the tidings of what had happened" (Strauss §140). Strauss also disposes of the rival naturalism on his own flank: the swoon theory founders on Josephus's report (Vita 75) that of three crucified acquaintances taken down alive with medical care, two died; his dilemma — "either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not really rise again" — resolves for real death and no revivification (Strauss §140).

Renan keeps an empty tomb but empties it naturally. His burial emphasizes provisionality: "A temporary interment was determined upon... the stone was rolled to the door, as it was intended to return in order to give him a more complete burial" (Renan 1863, ch. XXVI). Then Sunday: "The stone was displaced from the opening, and the body was no longer in the place where they had laid it... Had his body been taken away, or did enthusiasm, always credulous, create afterward the group of narratives...? In the absence of opposing documents this can never be ascertained." Renan's own emphasis falls on "the strong imagination of Mary Magdalen": "Divine power of love! Sacred moments in which the passion of one possessed gave to the world a resuscitated God!" (Renan 1863, ch. XXVI). He notes that in the earliest text-form of Mark and in John 20:1-18 (bib) "Mary Magdalen is also the only original witness of the resurrection" (Renan 1863, ch. XXVI, note).

Schweitzer preserves the rationalist option this school displaced: Paulus's swoon reconstruction — "The cool grave and the aromatic unguents continued the process of resuscitation," the earthquake conveniently "rolling away the stone from the mouth of the grave" (Schweitzer 1906, ch. V "Fully Developed Rationalism — Paulus"). Strauss's mythical interpretation demonstrated that such half-measures fail — the narratives being "either to be accepted as a whole — miracles and all — or else regarded as myths" (Machen 1921, "Introduction," p.34, summarizing Strauss).

Leading proponents

• David Friedrich Strauss — Das Leben Jesu (1835; ET 1846), §§135–140; in corpus.
• Ernest Renan — La Vie de Jésus (1863), ch. XXVI; in corpus (re-ingested 2026-07-04; the ingestion defect noted in The Resurrection of Jesus — Historicity is repaired).
• W. Brandt — empty grave as late tradition; in corpus only via Schweitzer 1906, "Outcome of Brandt's Work".

Strongest counter-arguments

First, the chronological squeeze: Strauss needs a "time of quiet preparation in Galilee" of indeterminate length and must dismiss the Pentecost dating of Acts 2 (bib) as resting "purely on dogmatical grounds" (Strauss §140) — but the creed, received by Paul within a very few years (Machen 1921, pp.76-77), does not allow the generations legendary development elsewhere requires. Second, Machen's psychological objection: grouped, repeated, varied experiences — to individuals, the Twelve, five hundred at once (1 Cor 15:6 (bib)) — exceed "what is possible in experiences of that sort" (Machen 1921, p.35). Third, the theft-polemic: the counter-story of Matt 28:15 (bib) contests the cause of the vacancy, not its existence; had the tomb story been late invention, the natural reply was "the tomb was never empty," not "the disciples stole him." Fourth, against Renan: Magdalene's "strong imagination" explains at most one visionary — not Peter, the Twelve, James, or Paul — and Renan defers the question to a future volume rather than answering it (Renan 1863, ch. XXVI).

Responses

To the squeeze: the creed attests belief in burial and third-day resurrection, not the tomb narratives, whose earliest form (Mark 16:1-8 (bib)) ends with the women saying "nothing to any man" — read by this school as the narrator's device to explain why the story was not previously known. To the psychology: Strauss made Paul's Christophany the paradigm — "for aught the Apostle knew, those earlier appearances were of the same nature with the one experienced by himself" — and collective enthusiasm "is wont to appear elsewhere in religious societies peculiarly oppressed and persecuted" (Strauss §140). To the theft-polemic: it is attested only inside Matthew's own apologetic frame, decades on, when checking a grave was no longer possible.

Assessment

Assessment: Live — Strauss's machinery (Galilee visions, back-formed tomb narratives, angelic embellishment) remains the skeleton of most contemporary skeptical treatments, and his critique of the guard story is accepted well beyond skeptical circles. Its cost is the surcharge of hypotheses needed to neutralize the early creed and the hostile concession of vacancy; Renan's variant, resting Christian origins on a single grieving visionary, is judged the weaker on all sides.

Moderate Easter-Faith View

Abstract

Adolf von Harnack drew in his 1900 Berlin lectures the distinction that has defined the moderate position since: between the Easter message — the empty grave and the appearances — and the Easter faith — the conviction that the crucified one lives with God and death is vanquished. The message is historically uncertain and religiously dispensable; the faith is neither. Harnack neither affirms the empty tomb with Machen nor dissolves it with Strauss: he quarantines it.

Formal statement

1. "The New Testament itself distinguishes between the Easter message of the empty grave and the appearances of Jesus on the one side, and the Easter faith on the other" (Harnack 1900, p.160).
2. The reports of the message are unstable: they grew "more and more complete, and more and more confident," and no clear account of the appearances can be constructed from Paul and the evangelists (Harnack 1900, pp.160-162).
3. A faith so based rests on "a foundation unstable and always exposed to fresh doubts" (Harnack 1900, p.162); therefore Easter faith must not be based on the Easter message.
4. The New Testament teaches this itself: "The story of Thomas is told for the exclusive purpose of impressing upon us that we must hold the Easter faith even without the Easter message: 'Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed'" (John 20:29 (bib)) (Harnack 1900, p.160).
5. Therefore the Christian holds that "the crucified one gained a victory over death... that he who is the firstborn among many brethren still lives," while leaving "whatever may have happened at the grave" in historical suspense (Harnack 1900, pp.161-162).

Key evidence / textual basis

Harnack's opening move is a deflationary conditional: "If the resurrection meant nothing but that a deceased body of flesh and blood came to life again, we should make short work of this tradition" (Harnack 1900, p.160). What saves it is the New Testament's own emphasis: Paul "based his Easter faith upon the certainty that 'the second Adam' was from heaven, and upon his experience, on the way to Damascus"; and "what he and the disciples regarded as all-important was not the state in which the grave was found but Christ's appearances" (Harnack 1900, p.161). On the tomb Harnack is a careful agnostic, and his positive claim deliberately paradoxical: "Whatever may have happened at the grave and in the matter of the appearances, one thing is certain: This grave was the birthplace of the indestructible belief that death is vanquished, that there is a life eternal" (Harnack 1900, p.162). Against history-of-religions reductions: "It is useless to cite Plato; it is useless to point to the Persian religion... but the certainty of the resurrection and of a life eternal which is bound up with the grave in Joseph's garden has not perished" (Harnack 1900, p.162).

Leading proponents

• Adolf von Harnack — Das Wesen des Christentums (1900); in corpus.
• Rudolf Bultmann — radicalized the position a generation later; not in corpus.

Strongest counter-arguments

From the maximalist side, Machen targets exactly this construction: having himself established Luke-Acts as the work of Paul's companion, Harnack must swallow that this companion "emphasizes the plain, physical character of the contact between the disciples and their risen Lord," so that "the testimony of Acts to the supernatural origin of Christianity, far from being removed by literary criticism, is strongly supported by it" (Machen 1921, "Introduction," pp.35-36). From the skeptical side, Strauss's dilemma cuts against the halfway house too: the disciples' category was bodily — "if the crucified Messiah had truly entered into the highest form of blessed existence, he ought not to have left his body in the grave" (Strauss §140); a faith independent of what happened at the grave is, on Strauss's terms, myth self-consciously retained. A Wright-style objection presses the point philologically: in Second-Temple usage "resurrection" meant something that leaves graves empty, so an empty-tomb-optional resurrection is a modern re-definition. {{UNSOURCED: Wright's lexical argument in The Resurrection of the Son of God; not in corpus.}}

Responses

Harnack's reply is embedded in the lectures: demanding a stable historical foundation mistakes the kind of certainty religion can have, and the Thomas pericope (John 20:24-29 (bib)) shows the evangelist himself relativizing sight in favor of faith. To the re-definition charge, the Harnackian answers that Paul's "The Lord is a Spirit" (2 Cor 3:17 (bib)) "carries with it the certainty of his resurrection" (Harnack 1900, pp.160-161) — a spiritual construal already inside the canon.

Assessment

Assessment: Live — the message/faith distinction remains the default of much mainline Protestant theology and the honest resting place for historians persuaded that the reports are uncertain but that reductive explanations fail. It is squeezed from both sides: Machen's objection that it detaches the faith from its stated ground (1 Cor 15:14 (bib)) and Strauss's that it is myth in a dress coat have never been simultaneously answered.