sign in sign up
<<
Home , Burial of Jesus, Tomb of Jesus

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BODY OF ?

MATTI MYLLYKOSKI

1. The Traditional Christian View and Its Alternatives

The name of and, with it, the account of the must be historical; they cannot be simply discarded. But if the primitive community had any kind of information, based on fact, about the burial of Jesus, the investigations on the subject of the must have begun, certainly, very early. What was actually shown was, in all probability, an , and, unless we are pre• pared to explain everything, with theJews, as a fraud and a subsequent fabrication, it is hard to see why the discovery should not have hap• pened in the way, by the persons and at the time stated by the most ancient tradition. Any other explanation is unverifiable. Anyone who likes to hold that there was a substitution or some kind of mischance can, of course, let his imagination run as he pleases-anything is pos• sible, in that case, and nothing demonstrable. But this has nothing to do with critical investigation. If we test what is capable of being tested, we cannot, in my opinion, shake the story of the empty tomb and its early discovery. There is much that tells in its favour, and nothing definite or significant against it. It is, therefore, probably historical.

This view expressed by Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen1 repre• sents the communis opinio among Biblical scholars. Even considered the story of Jesus' burial in :42~4 7 to be a historically reliable account, although he separated it from the narratives.2 There are no legendary traits at all, merely a statement of a simple burial given to Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council-a man who himself was a sym• phatizer of Jesus, but not his or follower. Both the and the identity of the man who buried him were known as well among his followers as among his executors. Mary of Magdala and some other women were known to have found his tomb empty.

1 H. Freiherr von Campenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and Lectures in Church History (ET; London: Collins, 1968) 76-77. 2 R. Bultmann, 7he History of the ~noptic Tradition (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1972) 274. 44 MATTI MYLLYKOSKI

They were also said to have encountered an ; possibly they had met in person as well. Among the first members of the new community in , this confirmed the reality of the appearances of Jesus to his male disciples and other converts. 3 This basic theory is quite reasonable and it is quite often meant to provide suitable scientific backing for the ,

3 For the defence of the historicity of the burial account, see particularly]. Blinzler, "Die Grablegung J esu in historischer Sich t", in Resurrexit: Actes du symposium interna• tional sur la resurrection de Jesus (Rome 1970) (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria editrice Vaticana, 1974) 56~107; G. Ghiberti, La sepoltura di Gesu: I Vangeli e la Sindone (Roma: Marietti, 1982); R.E. Brown, "The Burial ofJesus (Mark 15:42-47)", CBQ50 (1988) 233-45; B.R. McCane, "'Where No One Had Yet Been Laid': The Shame of Jesus' Burial", in SBL 1993 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 473~84. L. Schenke, Auferstehungsverkiindigung und das leere Grab: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von , 1~8 (SBS 33; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968) 93-103, assumes that the first Christians knew the tomb of Jesus and celebrated his resurrection there. General works on passion and Easter narratives that defend the traditional Christian view: P. Benoit, Passion et resurrection du Seigneur (Paris: Cerf, 1966); T.A. Mohr, Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktwns- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Markinischen und Johanneischen Passionstradition (AThA.'\TT 70; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, !982); H. Hendrickx, 7he Passion Narratives qf the fiynoptic (London: Chapman, 1984); idem, 7he Resurrection Narratives qfthe fiynoptic Gospels (London: Chapman, 1984); R.E. Brown, 7he Death qf the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1994). For commentaries on Mark that argue for historical reliability of the passion and resurrection traditions, see particularly R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTK 21; Freiburg: Herder, 1976~77), and R. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). The knowledge of the tomb of Jesus among the first Christians and the historicity of 's experiences at the tomb are also presupposed e.g. by E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Markus (7th ed.; NTD I; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 199-200, 203-5;]. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols.; 3rd ed.; EKKNT I; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu• kirchener, 1989) 2.336, 345-4 7. Scientifically oriented apologetical works that wish to demonstrate that the tomb of Jesus was empty and that he really was risen from the dead: W.L. Craig, "The Empty Tomb of Jesus", in R.T. France (ed.), Studies qf History and Tradition in the Gospels ( Perspectives 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981 ), 173~200; idem, "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus", NTS 31 (1985) 39-67; idem, Assessing the Evidence for the Historicity qf the Resurrection qf Jesus (Lewinston, NY: Mellen, 1989); H. Hempelmann, Die Auferstehung Jesu-eine historische Tatsache?: Eine engagierte Analyse (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1982); S.T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense qf the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); idem, "Was the Tomb Empty?", in E. Stump & T.P. Flint (eds.), Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosphical 7heology (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993) 77~100. The importance of the empty tomb is evident also in a recent public debate that is now published as a book: P. Cohan & R.K. Tacelli (eds.), Jesus' Resurrection~Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between & Gerd Ludemann (Downers Grove, IL: lnterVarsity, 2000).