Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

How Empty Was the Tomb

Bibliographic Data

ID21447233
AuthorsMark Goodacre (0000-0003-2155-3766, Duke University Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume44
Issue1
Pages134-148
Publication date2021-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal for the Study of the New Testament (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0142-064X • E-ISSN: 1745-5294
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0142064x211023714
OpenAlexW3171129964
LanguageEN
References cited6

Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. The gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials. The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb. Apologetic anxiety leads to the characterization of the tomb as ‘new’ (Matthew and John), ‘in which no one had been laid’ (Luke and John), but it is possible that the appearance of Mark’s young man ‘on the right’ is significant. The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’

Anachronism · Ancient history · Apostles · Art · Elite · Gospel · Literature · Narrative · Politics · Ancient Egypt and Archaeology · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · History

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae