How Empty Was the Tomb
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21447233 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mark Goodacre (0000-0003-2155-3766, Duke University Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 134-148 |
| Publication date | 2021-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0142-064X • E-ISSN: 1745-5294 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0142064x211023714 |
| OpenAlex | W3171129964 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
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 cited | No |
|---|