William Lane Craig on the Empty Tomb

A philosopher examines the resurrection

The empty tomb is one of the most enigmatic episodes in Jesus’ story.

After his death, the gospels claim that his body was placed in a tomb later found empty by his disciples. But what is the historical case for this curious event?

One of the most extensive defences of the historicity of the empty tomb has been offered by William Lane Craig, a prolific philosopher of religion.

In his 1985 New Testament Studies article, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus”¹ (available here), Craig advances eight arguments in favour of the empty tomb:

1. Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb.

2. The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity.

3. The use of 'the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition.

4. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and nonapologetic.

5. The discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable.

6. The investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable.

7. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty.

8. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb.

In this piece, I want to take a closer look at Craig’s argument, and consider whether these eight reasons tip the balance in favour of the empty tomb tradition.