The Non-Existent Tomb

• The earliest testimonies (in the epistles of Paul and the sermons in Acts) all speak of a risen Jesus with no connection to the empty tomb.
• The balance of evidence showed that earliest community of believers did not know where the tomb was.
• The modern locations (note the plural) of the empty tomb have no historical basis.
• We can sketch out a probable path of the development of the myth of the empty tomb.

The considerations above all show that the story of the empty tomb was a secondary development in the early Christian apologetics for the resurrection of Jesus. It was closely connected to the story of the burial of Jesus, which historicity is also doubtful.

The Earliest Testimonies

I Corinthians 15:3-8 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

I Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Acts 2:22-24,31-32 [Peter's Sermon] Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know - this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it...[David] foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Back to the top

The Location of the Tomb was Already Unknown to the Earliest Communities

It seems very likely that none of Jesus' disciples were witnesses to the events following his arrest. [a] This is firmly supported by the fact that it is in these episodes that the evangelists had to rely on Old Testament passages to reconstruct the events as they thought it might have happened during the crucifixion. Guignebert's conclusion is accurate:

The truth is that we do not know and in all probability the disciples knew no better where the body of Jesus had been laid after it was removed from the cross, probably by the executioners. It is more likely to have been cast in the pit for the executed than laid in a new tomb. [4]

There is a strong probability that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was developed to cover the apostles� pain at the memory of Jesus� having no one to claim his body and of his death as a common criminal. His body was probably dumped unceremoniously into a common grave, the location of which has never been known-then or now. This fragment in Paul�s sermon in Acts thus rings with startling accuracy...the empty tomb tradition does not appear to be part of the primitive kerygma. [5]

The world of sacred tombs was a real element of the environment in which the earliest communities lived. It is inconceivable that, living in this world, it could have allowed the tomb of Jesus to be forgotten. That is all the more the case since for it the one who had lain in the tomb was more than one of those just men, martyrs and prophet.[6]

it is impossible to be sure who, if anyone, actually saw an empty tomb [7]

(The early Christians) did not venerate it precisely because it was empty. Tombs as such were not venerated. It was the tombs containing remains of the deceased that was venerated.[8]

Back to the top

The Two Tombs of Jesus

Protestant pilgrims favour the tomb discovered at the �Gordon Calvary�-so named after the nineteenth century British general Charles Gordon who discovered the site. On the site, situated north of the sixteenth century Turkish built wall of the city, sat a small hill. The hill has two caves, which viewed from a distance, looked like a skull. However, there is not a shred of evidence in favour of this site as the actual burial site of Jesus. In fact, the tomb claimed to be the actual tomb in which Jesus was laid, have been shown conclusively by experts to be of a later origin. [8]

The other location, at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was "discovered" by Bishop Marcarius of Jerusalem during the time of Constantine in AD326 as a result of "divine revelation". Of course with such an inspiration there was no reason for the discoverer to justify the choice of location. [b] In short, no weight can be given to this site allocated by tradition. It certainly was not known before the fourth century. [9]

Back to the top

The Development of the Legend

• The Jews who had a hand in the crucifixion of Jesus, took charge of disposing of his body.
• The disciples were no longer around as they fled during his arrest. The earliest traditions seems to connect Jesus' appearances in Galilee. This means that the disciples must have fled back to their home towns upon Jesus' arrest.
• It should also be kept in mind that Palestinian Jews, as Jesus' original followers were, had no conception of the continuance of the life of the soul without the revival of the body, which was a Greek concept. The disciples of Jesus would have regarded the appearances of Jesus as proof that the tomb was empty. [10] In other words they did not need to even see the tomb, to insist it was empty.
• The myth developed with the story of Joseph of Arimathea being the one who buried him and with the women witnessing the empty tomb.

Notes

References

Back to the top