The empty tomb
The final piece of evidence for the resurrection we’ll examine is the empty tomb. I previously mentioned that while the empty tomb is not quite as widely accepted as the first four minimal facts, it is still accepted as historically verifiable by a majority (75%) of critical scholars.
Possibly the strongest supporting argument for the empty tomb is the fact that no corpse—what would have been the single most damaging piece of evidence against the resurrection—was ever produced. Proving the resurrection to be a hoax by presenting the dead body of Jesus would have delivered a death blow (no pun intended) to Christianity. It would have discredited Jesus’ own prediction of being raised on the third day, proving him to be a false prophet and a liar. Christianity would never have gained any traction. The church would not exist today.
Conspiracy theory
We know from the account in Matthew 27:62-66 that the chief priests and Pharisees knew Jesus had predicted his own resurrection. They feared the disciples would steal the body and deceive people into falling for the ruse. This was the reason Pilate ordered guards be posted at the tomb. After the tomb was discovered empty, the guards were bribed to say the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:11-15). Accusing the disciples—or anyone else—of stealing the body is an implicit admission that the tomb was, in fact, empty. This accusation by the Jews is the earliest conspiracy theory we know of that was concocted to disprove the resurrection. The charges are corroborated in the historical writings of Justin Martyr and the early church father, Tertullian. These historical writings are based on interactions with Jewish debaters of their day, not simply a reference to Matthew’s gospel account.
The local enemies of Jesus among the Jewish leaders and Roman government could have debunked every account of those who claimed to have seen appearances of the resurrected Jesus in one fell swoop. All they needed to do was produce a corpse. Even a partially decomposed and unrecognizable corpse would have been enough to cause a huge rift in the growth of the church. It would have become incumbent upon the disciples to prove the human remains were not those of Jesus. Interestingly, there are no known written accounts in any Jewish or Roman history that describe a corpse being exhumed and displayed. None.
Oops! Wrong address?
Another opposing theory that surfaced centuries later is that the disciples and the women went to the wrong tomb and mistakenly believed Jesus had disappeared. This theory fails to explain the reported appearances of Jesus or the conversions of Paul and James. There are no sources that support this theory, and there are other reasons this theory is unlikely. The crucifixion took place in Jerusalem, in a very public setting, with both Jews and Christians in attendance. The body of Jesus was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a well-known public figure who was a member of the Sanhedrin—the group responsible for orchestrating Jesus’s execution. Members of the Sanhedrin surely would have known the location of Joseph’s tomb, and could have investigated the claim themselves. They definitely would have had motivation to do so.
Embarrassing testimony
One of the criteria historians use to determine whether any historical document is reliable, is information that makes the author look bad. Embarrassing details increase a document's credibility because most people would not include them. Another argument in favor of the empty tomb as evidence is the fact that women were reported to have been the first witnesses. This would not be something the gospel authors would have invented to promote their cause. In fact, it could have damaged their credibility. In those days, women were viewed as less valuable than men, and their testimonies were regarded as questionable at best. If the story had been made up, it’s far more probable the writers would have chosen men as the primary witnesses, or just omitted that part of the story. The fact that women are credited for discovering the empty tomb makes the account more believable because the only reason the gospel writers had for including it is that it really happened that way.
Conclusion
When considered cumulatively, the five minimal facts we've examined provide compelling evidence for a historical resurrection. Any opposing theory must account for all five of these facts in order to be considered a legitimate alternative. To date, no such theory exists.
The ‘minimal facts’ aren’t the only evidence for the truth of Christianity, but this evidence has been very helpful in convincing many skeptics that Christianity is a reasonable faith. It is an excellent starting point for demonstrating the trustworthiness of the Bible without discussing a long list of doctrines and practices that divert attention away from the crucially important topic of the resurrection--the event upon which Christianity stands or falls. This evidence is also helpful for solidifying the Christian's faith because it gives more reasons why we believe our faith is true.
I hope these brief discussions of the minimal facts evidence will help you who are Christians celebrate Easter (Resurrection Day) with renewed faith and anticipation of the resurrection to come (1 Corinthians 15:50-55). For you who are skeptics, I invite you to consider these facts that have been accepted by historians who are skeptics and atheists, and investigate other evidence for the truth of Christianity. There is much more evidence to explore!
The five minimal facts discussed in this series are part of a longer list of twelve historical facts you can read about in The Historical Jesus by Gary R. Habermas.
Comments