Defending a Historical Empty Tomb and Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to James Crossley

Introduction

            The resurrection of Jesus has undoubtedly brought with it many points of contention over the years and objections that need to be answered in a thorough and complete way. James Crossley has composed an article that articulates objections to the empty tomb and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. However, the goal in this discourse is to show that Crossley offers a weak basis for his conclusions and that the known evidence that is had explains better that the resurrection took place (in a bodily form) and that there was an empty tomb as opposed to these events not taking place. This is a rather tall order for a smaller piece like this because of the many questions that need to be answered and what is known (as stated above) explains that the resurrection/ empty tomb actually happened better than the counterclaims. The structure for this discourse will be to present the overall objections with some of the evidence from Crossley. After which an evaluation of these objections and subsequent counter case will be made against the arguments that he presents. This structure is kept simplistic intentionally so that the main focus can be on the objections and the rebuttals provided.

James Crossley’s Objections

            To briefly summarize Crossley’s objections, they are relatively basic in scope, but they are in response to N. T. Wright’s work on the resurrection, but he claims that there is no evidence for the empty tomb and that the resurrection appearances were visionary experiences (i.e. a form of Jesus but not a bodily resurrected form).[1]

            One thing that stands out in Crossley’s article is, “if we are going to take Christianity seriously in its Jewish and pagan contexts then we must expect the Gospel writers to make up stories just as Jews and pagans did.”[2] This remark stands out because what is being suggested is that the authors have made up the story of the resurrection/ empty tomb to further their agenda or purposes. However, this avenue should be pursued because this is a viable question to ask not because it is a question to be answered but rather because it deals with the historicity of some key documents. Since the historicity is in question it needs to be established in some form or another that the documents can be trusted (on this later).

            Crossley also submits that in the big resurrection text provided by Paul there is no evidence for an empty tomb or he gives no evidence that this was, in fact, the case.[3] The specific reference used for this objection (empty tomb) is from 1 Cor 15:4, which does not give specific details regarding the tomb being empty like the proceeding verses regarding the appearances. This is also a point that should be answered since the Bible is being used to make this claim. Another place that is used in defense of the tomb not being empty is found in Mark 16:8, where Crossley says that the women told no one out of fear and suggests these people are unreliable witness (which is culturally true) and that this event (based on Mark) had no credible evidence/ eyewitness support.[4]

            There is the claim (not a new one) that the resurrected body of Jesus was not a physical body but rather some version of a spiritual form or a vision seen by those who claimed it. Crossley suggests that these “odd sightings” could be interpreted as a modified body.[5] In connection with this idea is that the language used to describe these visual events experienced by the apostles and others “could be vulnerable to non-bodily interpretation by some.”[6] It is also suggested that people from all different kinds of culture speak about having personal experiences within their faith community but that these are discredited because they are personal, lone experiences.

            Lastly, for this section, Crossley has, what he labels “further specific arguments” and these will be relatively brief in description. First, Crossley states that “there is surprisingly little embroidery from the biblical tradition in the resurrection narrative.”[7] The intent with this objection is that there is just little explanation or extensive talking about the resurrection event as opposed to other speeches and discourses that are listed in the Gospels or in Paul. Second, there is little mention of a future hope which Crossley suggests is not the case within the early Christian communities and the Easter story. Thirdly, Crossley suggests that Jesus is portrayed in a “strange” way.[8] By this, he seems to think that the writers would have made a connection to Daniel 12:2-3 for a stout recognition of Jesus but he submits that since the authors did not do this it points to a bodily resurrection being unlikely. Lastly, Crossley points to women being the first responders to the empty tomb and suggests that since a women’s testimony “would not have been legally accepted” that the empty tomb must not be so or the bodily resurrection of Jesus must not be so.

Evaluation of Crossley

            For the sake of space, this section will remain relatively brief. The intention is to simply provide a simplistic evaluation of the objections presented so that the main focus can be on the case against his objections. There are several objections and many of the things presented by Crossley are common, but they still should be answered, and the main bulk of the answering will be saved for the last section.

            The first objection that should be looked at is the idea that the Christian writings probably made up the story since the pagans and Jews of the day were good at and was common to make up stories. This objection seems fair, but the main issue is that it is an assertion without any actual evidence behind the claim. Just because it was common ground to produce stories that have no depth of truth or for entertainment does not mean that this was done so for the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. What is more is that these Gospel accounts were written as historical narratives to explain a story that the original authors felt had to be spread.

            The second objection submitted by Crossley is the idea that Paul did not provide evidence in his writing (1 Cor 15) about the resurrection specifically. This objection has some merit to it but the main problem here is that there could have been reasons for Paul not to lay out a step by step analysis of the resurrection (empty tomb specifically) account. Also, this is a letter written to a church so it can be assumed that since this was a Christian church they were probably aware of the resurrection/ empty tomb (since this is a foundational premise) so there was no need to go into great detail about it.

            Another objection submitted is that the visitations of the resurrected Jesus were not a bodily representation of him but rather visionary experiences of some modified, non-physical body of Jesus by those who saw it. This is a common objection but through modern science/ psychology, it can be shown that hallucinations or visual experiences such as this could not have happened on such a grand scale since the resurrected Jesus was seen by and interacted with a great number of people, five hundred at one time in fact.

            The last set of four objections will be looked at in tandem, starting with there is little explanation (i.e. embroidery) of the resurrection accounts. This simply is an unimportant point since the resurrection of a person is so unique in history that the event speaks for itself. Second, there is little mention of a future hope, which is supposed to be countered by the story of the resurrection. The main problem with this is that there is simply no evidence to suggest this was the case. As a matter of fact, as will be pointed out later something has to explain the revitalization of the disciples to spread the Gospel other than a made-up story of some dead guy coming back to life. The objection that the authors did not cite the right passage seems a little misguided since each Gospel account had its own theme and pointed out what the author thought important, this could have been simply that the authors did not need to make a connection to a writing that some or most people would not have known but rather they forged their way through the new covenant that Jesus has established. The last objection is that the testimony of women would not have been legally accepted. This point has a great deal of truth behind it but is misplaced and this will be shown thoroughly in the next section.

Case Against Crossley

            Within this section, there will be a systematic case submitted whereby each of the objections will receive an answer which will culminate into an overall defense for the empty tomb and bodily resurrection of Jesus. The intent is to go in the order that the objections were placed in this discourse to keep some order and make it easy to follow. The ultimate goal is to provide at the very least a counter-claim that sufficiently answers the objections as presented by Crossley.

            Starting with Crossley’s objection that the writers made up the stories seems to be the most logical place to start. A few beginning notes about this, (1) needs to be answered since this is an essential claim that the writers of the gospels (and epistles) cannot be trusted for the material that they have given and (2) this claim is also a somewhat modified version of the genetic fallacy, where the authors simply did as the people did because it is where they were born and accustomed too. Also, a subsequent comment is that this is simply an assertion that goes against the prevailing evidence that is actually present and known about the material they have written.

            The gospels have been compared to traditional epics of the era but are written more in the style of a biography (albeit with sub-genres mixed in).[9] Klein et al describe the gospel genre as such,

Formally, a gospel is a narrative account concerning the public life and teaching of a significant person that is composed of discreet [sic] traditional units placed in the context of Scriptures…Materially, the genre consists of the message that God was at work in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection effecting his promises found in the Scriptures.[10]

            From this, we can surmise that the general genre of the gospel accounts is that of a “theological biography.”[11] This is a way of saying that the material contained in these gospel messages is one that is about a historical person, the way the lived and died, and was to put forward a specific ideology. This does not mean that the material cannot be trusted but rather they were reporting historical information but with a purpose, like most historical discourse. A major issue is that modern historians want to place these ancient writings in a modern box and judge the material based on modern standards but the way that history was written back then was done so in a different manner then it is today. Most histories from that time period were written in a fashion that put forward a certain view (perspective on the situation) and was constructed in a thematic manner as opposed to a systematic laying out of the information. The writers typical presented what they felt was important and left out information that was not important to the message they wanted to convey, so the resurrection is a very important event to write about. There is a certain problem with Crossley’s assertion and it is that he takes a very naturalistic approach or Humean idea about supernatural events taking place within history, these events must not be true because there is a supernatural component to them. But as you read Paul or the gospels about these events there is no doubt that in their minds they believed that these events (the resurrection specifically) happened and Paul “insisted that the record of Jesus’ resurrection was true and factual history.”[12] Though the gospels have different sub-genres found within them (i.e. parable) does not mean that all of the information should be understood in that way. As a matter of fact, the parable stories are conveyed in such a way as to let the readers know that this is an object lesson and the resurrection and empty tomb do not convey this sort of meaning but that of historical happening.

            The second objection is that Paul did not provide any evidence of the empty tomb within his main resurrection part in 1 Corinthians 15. As stated above, this objection does have some merit in the sense that Paul in this epistle does not give direct evidence that the tomb was empty. But the information contained within this particular section (1 Cor 15:3-4) is believed to be one of the earliest Christian creedal formulas in the New Testament (NT) and Paul even states at the beginning of this section that he received it from someone else.[13] Something else to consider is that epistles are the most occasional writings in the NT which mean that they were written for a specific church, with a specific need, at a specific time.[14] So, Paul in this section is writing to a NT church that already believes (or has been taught) that there was an empty tomb and resurrection so there is no need to elaborate on something already known to be true. The only thing that Paul is doing here is reminding them that this information is true because it comes from him (someone who saw the risen Lord) and that there are others who have given it to him who also saw Jesus alive after his subsequent death and burial. Also, something else to note is the fact that all of the information afterwards (i.e. after the resurrection) is written or given in such a way that does not imply these were visual experiences but rather they believed and understood that they saw a physical Jesus which alone stands to reason that the tomb must have been empty. One final point is made by Habermas and Licona, “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.”[15] This is the view amongst most serious historical scholars who study this material so the fact that Paul in this place does not give substantial evidence because the empty tomb has a firmly established foundation that most agree is historical fact.

            The next objection has to do with these phenomena called visionary experiences or that Jesus did not physically or bodily return after death but was some sort of personal visual experience instead. This is a common theory amongst skeptical scholars and people concerning the resurrection. It could be understood that those who loved Jesus and were close to him may have had some visual experience since they were loved ones and cared for him and they were dealing with their loss. But something that runs contrary to this idea is that of Paul (mainly) and James, even though James was Jesus’ brother he was very skeptical of who he was (even thought he was heretical to the Jewish faith). However, Paul hated the Christians and was blatantly killing Christians as criminals. Habermas and Licona have this to say, “his belief that he had witnessed the risen Christ was so strong that he, like the original disciples, was willing to suffer continuously for the sake of the gospel, even to the point of martyrdom.”[16] This is curious since Paul was so drastically converted, most would doubt that someone would change that much unless they were very certain about something being true because Paul preached that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Another piece of information seems to run contrary to this idea and that is the risen Jesus had taken part in eating and drinking with the disciples (Luke 24:43 [Jesus only eats here]; Acts 1:4; 10:41 [here Jesus also eats and drinks]). This should lead any person to ask, how can a non-physical entity eat and drink? This is a curious thing indeed. The fact that the risen Jesus sat and ate and drank with the disciple’s points to there had to be a physically present body to partake in these physical acts of humanity. Something else to note from the sermon accounts of Peter and Paul, they compare Jesus to King David but Jesus’ body does not decay in the grave but rather it was raised by God, it would seem an odd connection to compare a visual representation to a physical body, they (Peter and Paul) clearly intended to “communicate a literal, physical resurrection.”[17]

            Regarding the point made about embroidery not being a part of the resurrection, the explanation seems to be a little off-kilter. This (in my mind) really points to the fact that these people were writing a historical account of a certain thing (the resurrection) that had happened and there was no need to embellish or make it out to more than what it was. Also, the resurrection of the body was not something that was widely held too in the ancient world nor did anyone believe that it has ever happened. The closest thing to that of resurrection is something called metempsychosis which is a form of reincarnation where either upon death your soul transmigrates to another body or you go into a sort of holding for a certain amount of time before your body transmigrates to another body.[18] This is startling because this Christian idea of a resurrection is so unique within history that the authors probably understood that it was something that went without being said (so to speak).

            The next assertion presented by Crossley points to the idea that there was no future hope presented. This objection seems to be somewhat misplaced in the sense that the message of hope was formulated on the fact that their leader and founder was raised from the dead, a completely unique event in history (even to them) and this event was enough to inspire hope in any person who believed. Groothuis has this to say, “these men went from dejected, dispirited and grieving followers of a crucified rabbi to apostles, those who had beheld the risen Christ and who, on that basis, preached him as the Lord of life and Judge of history.”[19] One can see that the message of hope was found in the message itself and in the transformation of the individuals who were tasked with spreading this message of hope. The message was that if you believed in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection and confessed this with your mouth and believed it in your heart you would have eternal salvation and be in the presence of God forever upon death. Yes, the disciples and writers said throughout their writings (even Jesus) that the world would hate you and that the task of the Christian life is like running a race but ultimately being with Jesus in paradise and his resurrection event was enough to inspire the kind of future hope that led to many giving up their lives for the cause, if that is not an idea of a future hope there is no certainty about what is.

            The next objection is that the authors should have cited Dan 12:2-3 as some formulation of Jesus’ resurrection is again misplaced. The problem is that Jesus is portrayed having a “human body with unusual properties.”[20] But the main problem here is that Crossley is submitting the way in which he thinks it should have been done. But the original writers did it in their own way and just because they do not conform to the correct methodology as that of the objector than there is immediately an issue but this is not the case since they were formulating their own basis on which to convey this unique event and person to the world. It is probable that since Gentiles were a major concern for them (especially Paul) then why would they use an archaic Jewish Scripture to convey a message that these people would not know anything about, much less understand. This is not to say that the NT writers did not use Old Testament (OT) material, because they did, but again they were forging the way for the new covenant and thus used the material they felt conveyed this message the best, not what Crossley believes they should have used.

            The last objection to be considered in this discourse is that the women who discovered the empty tomb did not possess a legally acceptable testimony. This does have some historical truth to it because during this time it was understood that women could not be used as witnesses in a court of law because they were not reliable witnesses unless they had a man to back up what they were saying. If you were trying to get a message out and believed, Crossley (and others) suggest that you would not have used women as your first responders. This is, of course, true unless the material and the event convey the truth. This shows that this story about the empty tomb/ resurrection is most probably not a made-up event since women were used and it shows also that the writers were more concerned about reporting the truth than some version of a story that would be most palpable to the general public. The general fact that women are listed as those who found the empty tomb first suggests that there is credibility to the information conveyed (since this would be an odd invention story) through these historical writings, a point held by many scholars in this area of study.[21]

Conclusion

            Throughout this discourse, it has been the objective to cancel out or at least provide an answer to an assortment of objections to the empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus Christ as laid out by Crossley. It has been shown that the gospel (and epistle) accounts did not, in all probability, make up the stories that they wrote much like the ancient epics of the time. But rather these writings conveyed a historical biography of the person Jesus Christ and his life, death, and subsequent resurrection. It has also been shown that though Paul did not explicitly give evidence for the empty tomb in his epistle to the Corinthian church, there was no need to since this epistle was written for a specific purpose and the church would have already had a knowledge of this information. Also, it has been shown that the resurrection was not a visionary experience but rather a physical raising of Jesus, it had to be so first to inspire such a drastic change in the despondent disciples and for Jesus to physically partake in eating and drinking with the disciple’s post-resurrection. The fact that there is not embroidery of the historical account simply means that the event spoke for itself and that the future hope is contained within the message of the resurrection and lives of the disciple’s themselves. Though the disciples did not meet the citational criteria of Crossley this point should not even be considered since this is looking back and saying that modern people could have done it better and the fact these writers were forging a new way through the information they felt was most prevalent. Lastly, the simple fact that since women were not considered credible witnesses but all of the information we have points to women being the primary witnesses gives a substantial amount of credibility to the information left behind and that the story was not invented. Though this writing has not been an exhaustive account of all the possible objections to the empty tomb and resurrection, it has been shown that the concerns submitted by Crossley have little weight and should be considered as a moot point. The resurrection of Jesus is the most probable conclusion based on the evidence that we have today, and it should be considered within the conversation when looking back over the historical content and lead people to a certain conclusion, that Jesus is the risen Son of God.

Bibliography

Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.

Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003.

Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.

James Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to N.T. Wright” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 no. 2 (2005): 171-186.

Klein, William W., Blomberg, Craig L. and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017.

Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

---

[1] James Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to N.T. Wright” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 no. 2 (2005): 171-186. Since this was just a general summation of his paper’s ideas this is a citation that encompasses his entire work.

[2] Crossley, “Against the Historical,” 181.

[3] Ibid., 178.

[4] Ibid., 177.

[5] Ibid., 176.

[6] Crossley, “Against the Historical,” 176.

[7] Ibid., 182.

[8] Ibid., 183.

[9] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 512.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Klein et al, Interpretation, 222.

[13] Gary Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 19.

[14] Klein et al, Interpretation, 542.

[15] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 73.

[16] Habermas and Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 65.

[17] Ibid., 89.

[18] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 77-78.

[19] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 551.

[20] Crossley, “Against the Historical,” 183.

[21] Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, 544; Habermas and Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 71-72; Habermas, Future Hope, 23; Wright, Son of God, 607-608. All of these sources list that women being recognized as the primary witnesses is an odd feature leading to a credible recording of the actual events.