The Gospels disagree on what happened at the empty tomb, on who was there, and on what they saw or heard. The fact that our earliest written witness to the risen Christ, Paul, says nothing of the empty tomb has long provoked the question, what did early believers know about Easter, and when did they know it? Daniel A. Smith seeks to get behind the theological and apologetic concern to “prove” the resurrection and asks, where did the accounts of the early tomb come from, and what purpose did they originally serve? He shows that Paul is a valuable witness to the development of Easter traditions; that Q was already interested in connecting the disappearance of Jesus with his future role; that Mark was interested in the disappearance of Jesus, rather than in the empty tomb as such; and that both sources had interests different from the later Gospels.
Logos Bible Software dramatically improves the value of this resource by enabling you to find what you’re looking for with unparalleled speed and precision. Scripture passages link directly to your English translations and to the original-language texts, and important theological concepts link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. In addition, you can perform powerful searches by topic and find what other authors, scholars, and theologians have to say.
Smith has given us a carefully reasoned and original piece of scholarship that allows us to think about some old issues from new points of view. The fresh approach to Q and Jesus’ vindication is particularly suggestive. A solid contribution to a perennially fascinating topic.
—Dale C. Allison Jr., Erret M. Gragle Professor of New Testament, Pittsburg Theological Seminary
In Revisiting the Empty Tomb, Daniel Smith advances a thesis that makes sense of several puzzles that have plagued scholarship on the resurrection account. On his showing, the empty tomb story is not, as many had thought, fabricated as a deduction from the announcement of the resurrection of Jesus. Instead it belongs to a different complex of representations of the vindication of Jesus—the belief that he, like Elijah, Enoch, and other heroes was assumed and was therefore ‘not seen.’ Smith’s important and lucidly argued work promises to help sort out many of the complexities of the accounts of Jesus’ post-mortem vindication. A ‘must read’ for anyone concerned with the beliefs of the earliest Jesus-movement.
—John S. Kloppenborg, professor, Department of Religion, University of Toronto