Brief Answer:
Former Oxford University church historian William Wand summarizes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”
Detailed Answer:
Jesus’ tomb being found empty just days after the crucifixion is one of the “facts” accepted by the consensus of scholarship.
This post is written because while Gary Habermas has argued that the core “minimal facts” of the resurrection (and the five facts used in my Fact Up, Options Down approach) enjoy near-unanimous support across peer-reviewed scholarship, the empty tomb does not share that same level of consensus[i]. An “impressive majority” accept the empty tomb as fact[ii], but the more pressing issue is not merely the numbers.
If much of that majority consists of Christian scholars—many of whom operate within institutions shaped by confessional commitments and implicit pressures to align with doctrinal expectations—then the case for the empty tomb demands even closer scrutiny. The question is not whether it is widely affirmed, but whether the evidence itself justifies treating it as historical fact.
Sometimes it is useful to give the details of the evidence to see why the scholars are certain about a fact of history, or do not accept it as fact. And the empty tomb is instructive because based on the evidence we have, the question becomes: What reasons do you have to not accept Jesus’ tomb was found empty?
Let’s look at some of the evidence ourselves and see what you think.
1. The empty tomb is attested to in multiple sources.
There are accounts given in the books of Mark, John, Luke, as well as a source likely known and used by the Gospel writers that predates Mark, and early church sermon summaries contained in the book of Acts. While these books are all part of the Bible, each is a separate work, and therefore a separate historical source.
Additionally, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 does not explicitly mention the empty tomb, but it is implicit because resurrection was believed to be bodily, and the creed affirms Jesus was resurrected and provided appearances and interactions to confirm his claims.
Further, those who think because the sources are biased, then they cannot be trusted as accurate, are committing logic mistakes. In fact, such thinking is itself caused by presuppositional bias. Of course, bias has to be taken into account, but not overwhelming the facts involved.
Historians and literary experts, even those who reject God or Christianity, accept these accounts are unavoidably validated historical sources, and with material to be analyzed the same as any other historical source with the same tests for truth.
2. Even hostile sources affirm the empty tomb.
In a courtroom, if the mother of the accused writes a testimony of how peaceful and law-abiding her boy is, that can carry weight, but may be limited due to bias. If an enemy of the accused writes how peaceful and law-abiding the accused is, legal experts know that carries significantly more weight.
Enemy testimony is recognized as strong evidence when corroborating an unwanted claim.
Those critics, who were closer than us to the time and location when the resurrection claims began spreading, and with the most motivation and capability of disproving the empty tomb claim, accept Jesus was gone. Instead of pointing to an occupied tomb, early critics of Jesus accuse the disciples of stealing the body.
When a student tells his teacher the dog ate his homework, we already have the understanding the homework is not in the child’s possession. When the critics’ only recourse is to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, we know those of the time understood—the only evidence needed to end Christianity—was not in the critics’ possession.
The book of Matthew, chapter 28: 11-15, records the narrative the Jewish leadership circulated that the disciples stole Jesus’ body. It is even stated, “This story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.”
Therefore, if anti-Christian Jews were not generally pushing this response during the time Matthew was writing, then his account would have been recognized and debunked instantly by his readers. These readers knew what was circulated or not, and if unaware for some reason, could check with Jewish leaders.
Furthermore, the enemy testimony is also multiply attested. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian respond to this known accusation from the critics, which originated in the first century and persisted throughout the second and third (Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).
3. Principle of Embarrassment.
If someone or a group was concocting a story hoping to deceive others to believe them, then they would not add data that hurts the credibility of their story or themselves.
Yet, not only do all four Gospels state the same fact of women as witnesses to the empty tomb, but also the disciples were in fear and hiding.
This is very significant because biblical writers understood their culture, and the first century in general, women were considered second class citizens. Specifically, the Jewish culture they hoped would accept their claims directly noted the much weaker support female testimony brought. Jewish historian Josephus expressed the low opinion:
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Antiquities, 4.8.15).
If any of the Gospel writers were taking liberties with the facts, they would have at least secured some strength to their accounts by having men be the primary witnesses to the empty tomb. The Bible displays this very effect as when the women went to the disciples to tell them what they saw, the disciples did not believe them.
The fact that the Bible records women being the witnesses is best explained by the accounts not taking liberties with the facts, and provides good reason to accept the tomb was found empty.
In addition, another line of embarrassing testimony ties in here. You would expect, if a group was attempting to invent a story and convince others to accept their claims, they would portray themselves in a good light.
For example, Peter would make sure to record he knew all along Jesus would fulfill his claims, and while the women timidly waited at home, he ran to the tomb each morning to be the first to welcome Jesus. Demonstrating strong faith and courage to begin the ministry. But no, the disciples, the pillars of the church, were hiding in misunderstanding and fear. That is really embarrassing and is extremely unlikely to be recorded, unless the biblical writers were inspired to honesty and those were the facts of the situation.
4. The Jerusalem Factor.
Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem and his post-death appearances and empty tomb were first proclaimed there. This is the very place opponents could check and destroy the claim if not true. And the most dangerous place to make such a claim as Jesus was just killed by those in power.
If you were going to invent and promote a worldview, why not go into areas more favorable and safe, as opposed to the very city that just violently demonstrated its resolve against Jesus’ claims.
What is more, huge numbers of people were in Jerusalem for Passover, and it is extremely unlikely you would have thousands who were living there or visiting for Passover become believers in the very city most dangerous and capable to refute the claim and other claims of appearances (on one occasion there were 500 if counting just the men, and these people were available to check) if not true.
Jesus, the disciples, and the predictions of the Old Testament about Jesus provided a checkable event. Jewish and Roman authorities just had to produce the body and shatter the claims of the resurrection if false. If they had done that, simply produced the body, we would not be here discussing this today, and history would be vastly different. But we are as we are today because they did not produce a body.
This is exactly what was needed and exactly what we do not see. Not only are Jewish, Roman and all other writings absent of such an account, but there is total silence from critics who would have all the evidence they sought readily available to crucify the growth of those accepting Jesus.
Yet only 19 years later, Christianity spread so vigorously it had to be outlawed in Rome.
I have heard some try to displace this evidence by hypothesizing the body would be unrecognizable by the time the resurrection was being proclaimed, so authorities thought producing the corpse would not help. Aside from the fact there is no evidence to support this idea, there are significant problems.
The climate in Jerusalem is arid, dry, and a crucifixion victim’s distinguishing wounds, body dimensions, hair color, and other features would still be identifiable even after fifty days.[iii] Moreover, even an unrecognizable body produced from the known tomb would expose and wither the resurrection claims. People of the time are not stupid, they would know what to expect, and if they knew the body was unrecognizable, the tomb was not empty and the corpse was most likely Jesus.
Further, none of the non-Christian historians, Jewish leaders, or later critics say anything about it. And early church fathers and apologists like Justin Martyr would have had the burden of proof to explain how some fake body was placed in the tomb, but none addressed it because no one was claiming a corpse was there.
The burial site was known, being donated by a well-known public figure. Again, as noted previously, after the women and then others found the tomb empty and proclaimed it, if critics today want to hypothesize they had the wrong tomb, then where is their evidence? And, if they did not know the exact tomb, the opposing Jewish and Roman leadership did, and would end the discussion as these leaders did not like to have their fulfillment of execution questioned.
Yet these followers of Jesus proclaimed the empty tomb right in the face of the opposition.
5. No Evidence to the Contrary.
What evidence is available to contrary? Nothing of import. Jewish opponents claiming the body was stolen I would consider evidence, but having only as much value as there is evidence to support the claim. Which is to say, none.
If you believe the conspiracy claim of the stolen body, then you will be going against the comprehensive case of evidence leading scholars to reject this option long ago.
Some may say there could have been contrary evidence in writing or archeological finds, but most things from ancient times are perishable and time don’t last. Sure. But do you see the problem with that thinking?
- Then why do we have such vast copies of manuscript evidence to establish the multiple sources that affirm the empty tomb?
- The Roman and Jewish authorities had more opportunity to write, and only had to produce the entombed body and the records to cynically disprove the claims and belief in the resurrection.
Instead of contrary evidence against the empty tomb, we have only a contrary hypothesis empty of evidence.
Objections
Objection: The empty tomb does not prove Jesus rose from the dead.
Of course, that is correct. If the empty tomb were all we had, that fact could be explained by a number of possibilities. However, when included together with the comprehensive case of evidence, even just the five basic facts of the Fact Up, Option Down approach, all alternatives are exposed as unreasonable, and the resurrection is the inference to the best explanation.
Objection: Professor Bart Ehrman claimed crucifixion victims were left on the cross and days later dumped in a pit.
While there is evidence this practice had occurred, it does not mean it was done in this case or even in Judea. The Roman governor Pilate and Rome itself allowed Jewish traditions, and especially in this case during Passover bodies would not be left on the cross to defile the land. The eccentric idea held by Ehrman loses its only piece of evidence as Roman legal material directly stated the bodies of the executed may be taken down and given proper burial if request is made (Justinian, Digest, 48.24).
Archeology has even found tombs with execution victims, including a tomb with an ossuary containing a body with a crucifixion nail still stuck through the bones as it had been driven into a knot on the wood of the cross.
So why does Ehrman have this fringe belief, against the evidence?
Objection: Everyone who has ever died—stayed dead. Miracles are not possible.
When someone rejects the one explanation that fits the evidence, we must ask: Why? Often, it’s not evidence, it’s bias. Presuppositional bias occurs when our personally preferred ideas influence how we intake data. This bias influences how we perceive and evaluate new information, potentially causing us to disregard or misinterpret evidence that would otherwise have contradicted our assumptions.
To put it simply, we have a belief we like already, and will sabotage any evidence to the contrary. Presuppositional bias is a bad thing. We all do this at times, but it is dangerous when making impactful decisions.
For those who cannot accept the one possibility supported by the evidence—Jesus is who he claimed to be—Why? Is it because your presuppositional bias against accepting the possibility of anything supernatural or miraculous?
An atheist debater once insisted, “Everyone who has ever died—stayed dead.” I asked how did he know that to be true? In our common experience, sure, but he is assuming the point we are debating (a known error in thinking, circular reasoning). He assumed his claim was true, but without evidence. Hopefully the university audience realized he simply attempted to avoid dealing with all the evidence I presented for the resurrection, and based his belief against the resurrection on presuppositional bias.
He did better by later arguing that because resurrections are not part of our experience, the Christian claim likely did not occur. His objection now sounded good on a shallow level, because resurrections are not part of our normal experience, but what he failed to understand—that is the point of the resurrection.
If anyone could do it, it would not be of evidential value. Jesus offered a checkable, historically verifiable claim unlike any other. A natural impossibility is precisely what makes it evidential validation of Jesus’ supernatural claims.
Jesus made this understanding clear redundantly. For instance, Mark 2:1-12 gives the account of Jesus’ teaching, when a group went to great effort to place a crippled man before Jesus for healing. Jesus saw the man’s faith and said, “Your sins are forgiven.” The religious leaders started grumbling about blasphemy as only God has such authority, so Jesus acknowledged their accusations and asked what is easier to do, to say “your sins are forgiven” or “rise up and walk” to a paralyzed person?
Jesus directly made it clear with the conclusive act: so that you may know I have the authority claimed, he told the paralyzed man to get up, pick up your mat, and go home—and the man did.
If you do not think that miracle occurred either, why? People much closer to the event, even enemies of Jesus provided testimony of their recognition of his miraculous acts. Celsus, Greek philosopher and devoted critic of Christianity in the second century, attempted to come up with an explanation (without evidence to back his claim) for the miraculous acts of Jesus being discussed at the time:
Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god. (Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.28)
Jewish rabbis in the Talmud, which is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism, also offered their explanation for the miraculous acts people were well aware Jesus performed:
It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that “[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him.” But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. (Sanhedrin 43a.)
This enemy testimony is strong substantiation Jesus claimed to be God and was known as a miracle worker.
Science Has Already Confirmed The Greatest Miracle
Maybe you have a bias against the supernatural or miracles because you believe in science? Science provides probably the best reason to believe in miracles. What was the most supernatural act or greatest miracle most unbelievable to you? The resurrection, walking on water, virgin birth, raising Lazarus from the dead? Nope.
The greatest supernatural act, the greatest miracle, we already have scientific verification for: the beginning of all nature, the universe, from nothing natural. This is beyond the natural or supernatural as the cause is beyond nature. And a miracle by definition as it violates natural law. Science and every worldview not standing on a biblical foundation was not comfortable with this greatest supernatural act and miracle, but all the evidence shoved discomfort and bias aside supporting this miracle as explained in chapter 2.2, including even quotes from the scientists involved.
For One capable of creating the universe in such a way, a resurrection is a minor miracle, like asking a master chef to cook up a grilled cheese sandwich.
Objection: What about other examples of apotheosis or resurrection?
There are examples of ancient heroes who are claimed to have experienced apotheosis (being taken to heaven and divinized) or resurrected to supposedly appear to their followers after death, usually to comfort them.
A study of these other examples does the opposite of what critics’ hope, only demonstrating the absolute unique character of Jesus and the biblical claim.
As far as the apotheosis accounts, the sources reporting the data are recorded so long after the supposed events, and present many problematic claims absent supportive evidence.
What makes them even less like Jesus’ resurrection, these narratives have a spirit ascending to heaven or things like stars and comets acting in a way to indicate a person’s glorified soul—all of which are no more than subjective testimonies without historical verification. do not qualify as historical evidence anyway.
Also, apotheosis, even if true, is not really a resurrection anyway. It records belief in the afterlife, but lacks a historical person being raised from the dead, appearing to followers and other groups so convincingly that the followers were willing to suffer and die for their claims, which they knew for fact to be true or not. And all checkable not just to people of that time, but all the way to today.
Non-Christian resurrection claims also have numerous and critical problems. For example, there is a record of post-resurrection appearances of Rabbi Judah. However, the Rabbi died in A.D. 220, the supposed incident was reported in the Gemara in the fifth century. A serious gap of around three hundred years. And, even worse, there is only one witness providing zero supportive evidence. If you have anything comparable to what Jesus provided, what is it and what is the evidence?
Some may argue examples like Rabbi Judah may have more and earlier sources and evidence just not recovered yet. Logic recognizes the weakness of this wishful thinking as a person could always claim future evidence may arrive for any proposition.
Objection: There isn’t enough, I am not certain the empty tomb is a fact.
This statement speaks more about the person making the claim than it does about the evidence.
Because you feel a certain way about the evidence, does nothing to change to truth the evidence supports or what results from your choice to accept, reject or remain agnostic. Feelings about the evidence will differ between people, and our feelings even change within us. But the evidence, truth and corresponding consequences remain unchanged, they are what they are.
When I say my beliefs are supported by rational thinking, the best explanation of the evidence, science, logic, and correct reasoning—I can back that up. Can the person making this objection?
Ask those who make this objection, “Then what do you believe: Jesus’ body remained in the tomb, or was stolen as part of the greatest conspiracy ever, both of which scholarship has invalidated long ago. Or, the tomb was empty, which basically all the evidence, logic and reasoning support?” Follow up with: “Why, provide your evidence, logic and reasons?”
Conclusion
Those who postulated the body was stolen, Jesus never died, the account is just legend, or other proposed explanations have been refuted by scholars’ examination long ago. Leaving us two options: Jesus dead body was in the tomb, or the tomb was empty.
If you had to bet your life on the tomb being empty, or Jesus still in it, what would you bet? And more importantly—Why?
Those who want to deny empty tomb are holding their belief against what is widely recognized as one of most historically credible facts.
This blog covered the main evidence we have to make a decision about Jesus’ empty tomb. This evidence has compelled 75% of scholars and historians, both Christian and non-Christian to write in peer-reviewed literature the empty tomb is a historical fact. The former Oxford University church historian William Wand summarizes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”[iv]
[i] Habermas, G. R. (2024). On the Resurrection: Evidences. Volume One. Brentwood, TN: Baker Academic, 91-92.
[ii] Habermas and Licona write, “Nevertheless, there is strong evidence for it, and it is accepted as a fact of history by an impressive majority of critical scholars.” A brief list of critical New Testament scholars who believe in the empty tomb, according to Habermas and Licona, include, “Blank, Blinzler, Bode, con Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauk, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Cogtle, and Wilckens.” We can also add, “Kremer…Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Mould, Perry, Robinson, and Schnackenburh” according to William Lane Craig. (Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, The Case for the Resurrection, 70, 287 f.n.27).
[iii] Evan Minton, “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection, Part 4: Fact (2) The Empty Tomb,” CrossExamined.org, May 6, 2018. In Evan’s blog he noted the following in his endnotes: Gary Habermas and Michael Licona responded to this objection in their book “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus,” and in the footnotes, they said they got this information from the Medical Examiner’s Office for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Habermas and Licona said “The physician in charge said that even in Virginia, which has a climate warm and damp enough to promote quick decomposition, an unprepared corpse undergoing a normal rate of decomposition should still after fifty days have its hair and an identifying stature. The wounds would ‘definitely’ be identifiable. Thus, a corpse in a much worse state than what would be expected for arid Jerusalem would still be identifiable after fifty days.” Habermas, Gary R.; Licona, Michael R. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (p. 287). Kregel Publications. Kindle Edition.
[iv] William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1972), 93– 94. As cited in Minton.
