The Chimeric “Empty Tomb”

Abstract

Alan Segal rejected the claim that the “empty tomb” must be taken as the fulcrum of analysis for Jesus’ Resurrection. He characterized that argument as the project of “a small group of scholars made up entirely of the faithful trying to impose their faith in the form of an academic argument.” 1 Although Segal’s criticism is too broadly articulated to be convincing, it identifies a weakness in recent discussion. The tomb of Jesus, judged by the statements of the texts involved and their developing tendencies, is better described as “emptying” as time went on than as “empty” from the outset. More importantly, reference to the tomb conveyed differing emphases among tradents, and distinctive outlooks on the Resurrection. Awareness of both the exegetical trajectory of the relevant texts and their varying perspectives leads to the suggestion that the “empty tomb” needs to be replaced as the point of departure in discussion.