The Independent Reports of an Empty Tomb

An Excerpt from "On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision,"   author -William Lane Craig

The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is independently reported in very early sources.  Mark’s passion source probably didn't end with Jesus’ burial but with the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb.  For the burial story and the empty tomb story are really one story, forming a smooth, continuous narrative.  They’re linked by grammatical and linguistic ties.  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the early Christians would have circulated a story of Jesus’ passion ending in His burial.  The passion story is incomplete without victory at the end.  Hence, Mark’s source probably included and may have ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

We've seen that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Paul quotes from an extremely early tradition that refers to Christ’s burial and resurrection.  Although the empty tomb is not explicitly mentioned, a comparison of the four-line formula with the gospel narratives on the one hand and the sermons in Acts on the other reveals that the third line is, in fact, a summary of the empty tomb story.

Moreover, two further features of Paul’s tradition imply the empty tomb.  First, the expression “he was buried,” followed by the expression “he was raised” implies the empty tomb.  The idea that a man could be buried and then be raised from the dead and yet his body still remain in the grave is a peculiarly modern notion!  For first-century Jews there would  have been no question but that the tomb of Jesus would have been empty. Therefore, when the tradition states the Christ “was buried and he was raised,” it automatically implies that an empty tomb was left behind.  Given the early date and origin of the tradition, its drafters could not have believed such a thing were the tomb not empty.

Second, the expression “on the third day” implies the empty tomb.  Very briefly summarized, since no one actually saw Jesus rise from the dead, why did the early disciples proclaim the He had been raised “on the third”?  Why not the seventh day?  The most likely answer is that it was on the third day that the women discovered the tomb of Jesus empty; and so naturally, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day.

We have, then, extraordinarily early, independent evidence for the fact of Jesus’ empty tomb.  The discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb cannot be written off as a later, legendary development.

But there's more!  For once again there are good reasons to discern independent sources for the empty tomb in the other gospels and Acts.  Matthew is clearly working with an independent source, for he includes the story of the guard at the tomb, which is unique to his gospel.   Moreover, his comment about how the rumor that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body "is still told among Jews to this day" (Matt. 28:15) shows that Matthew is responding to prior tradition.  Luke also had an independent source, for he tells the  story, not found in Mark, of two disciples visiting the tomb to verify the women's report that the tomb was vacant.  The story can't be regarded as Luke's creation, since the incident is independently reported in John.  And, again, given John's independence of the other three gospels, we have yet another independent report of the empty tomb.  Finally, in the sermons in the book of Acts, we again have indirect references to the empty tomb.  For example, Peter draws the sharp contrast, David "died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day," but "this Jesus God raised up" (Acts 2:29 compare 13:36-37)

Historians think they've hit historical pay dirt when they have two independent accounts of the same event.  But in the case of the empty tomb we have no less than six, and some of these are among the earliest materials to be found in the New Testament.
(pages 225-227)