Was Jesus's body laid in a tomb (after crucifixion)?
-
The question
Jesus existed, and in c. AD 30 Jerusalem he was crucified.1 In being taken down from the cross, was Jesus’s body at least put in a tomb? We are leaving open the question of whether or not Jesus was actually dead, and the question of whether or not this was actually a burial. Competing views suggest Jesus's body was instead thrown in a shallow trench grave—perhaps eaten by dogs, or maybe thrown in a communal pit.
- For example, Acts reports Jesus's by crucifixion (Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39) in Jerusalem (Acts 13:27; cf. 10:39).
-
Historians say “Yes”
- Gary Habermas (NT Scholar at Liberty): “Certainly the majority of scholars think that Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb.” [“The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection” in Trinity Journal 22NS (2001): 179-196.]
- Bart Ehrman ([Opposes Christianity] NT & Religion professor at UNC: “I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb” [Lecture 4: “Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus” in From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity (The Teaching Company, 2003).]
-
The local Christians said “yes” from the getgo
In c. AD 30, The Jerusalem Church's official position was “yes, Jesus's body was placed in a tomb”1
So what? Couldn't it simply be that…
- They accepted this belief without evidence?1
- They were accidentally endorsing a lie that they had fallen for?2
- They lyingly said this (intending to invent empty tomb apologetics)?3
- The church would not likely have accepted a report like this without evidence. [Forthcoming]
- There are three reasons to think the church had not simply fallen for a lie:
• …There are no plausible candidates in general who would form such a lie.
• …There are no plausible candidates who the Jerusalem church would trust that would form such a lie.
• …The Jerusalem church learned the truth in a confidence-inspiring way (eyewitness testimony). - There are three reasons to think this church was not lying for apologetics:
• …The early church did not care much for empty tomb apologetics
• …The early church did not use empty tomb apologetics.
• …The report was successfully circulating in the church. This is relevant because, in c. AD 30 Jerusalem, the success of any “Jesus's body was placed in a tomb” report from the Jerusalem church depended on x's approval.
-
The local Jews said “yes” from the getgo
In AD 30, the public stance of the Jerusalem Jews was that “Yes, Jesus's body is gone from its tomb” (crying “theft!”).
But so what? Couldn't it simply be it be that…
- They accepted this belief without evidence?1
- They were accidentally endorsing a lie that they had fallen for?2
- They lyingly said this (intending to invent empty tomb apologetics)?3
-
Joseph entombed Jesus
Specifically, the Sanhedrin member Joseph of Arimatha placed Jesus's body in a tomb.
[Full case forthcoming]
This is relevant, of coure, because it entails taht Jesus was placed in tomb.
-
Acts 13:29 says so
Acts 13:29 -- [t]hey took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb.
So? Plausibly, the Acts 13:29 report is unjustified? (But)1
- It seems unlikely that the empty tomb report in Acts is unjustified. After all,
• Hans Conzelmann: “...the form here is kerygmatic, not narrative.” [Acts of the Apostles, trans. by Limburg et. al., Ed. by Epp, Matthews (Fortress, 1963, 1987), 105.] That is to say, it was part of the original kernal preaching.
• Gary Habermas: “What may be another early creed (Acts 13:29-31, 36-37) even more clearly indicates that Jesus was buried in a tomb,” [“The Case for Christ's Resurrection” in To Everyone an Answer (IVP, 2004), 189.]
- It seems unlikely that the empty tomb report in Acts is unjustified. After all,