Refuting Arguments for the Empty Tomb - With Dr. Richard Carrier

Summary

The video examines common arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ empty tomb. The guest, identified by the video title as Dr. Richard Carrier, argues that these arguments do not establish that the tomb was empty and that the Gospel accounts are better understood as literary and theological development. These conclusions are presented as Carrier’s historical arguments, not as a consensus view.

1. The Gospel accounts do not provide independent confirmation

The host introduces William Lane Craig’s claim that the empty tomb is supported by early, independent sources, including Mark’s Passion narrative, material unique to Matthew and Luke, and Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

Carrier argues that these sources cannot simply be counted as independent attestations:

• Matthew and Luke may have used Mark and one another rather than relying on separate traditions.
• The proposed source Q, sometimes used to explain shared material in Matthew and Luke, is not established by independent evidence, in Carrier’s view.
• Even if earlier sources existed, their relationship to the Gospel accounts is uncertain.

Carrier proposes that Mark created an empty-tomb story and that later Gospel authors adapted and expanded it. Similarity among the accounts, he argues, can reflect literary dependence rather than multiple eyewitness reports.

He also stresses that Paul does not mention an empty tomb or anyone discovering one. Carrier takes this silence as evidence that the empty-tomb story was not yet part of Paul’s account of the resurrection.

2. The “women as witnesses” argument

A common apologetic argument says that the Gospels would not have made women the first discoverers of the tomb because women supposedly were not trusted as witnesses in that culture.

Carrier challenges both the logic and the historical premise:

• In Mark’s account, the women do not report what they saw; the story says they tell no one. Carrier therefore argues that Mark is not using them as witnesses to persuade readers.
• The Gospels and Paul place more emphasis on male witnesses to appearances of the risen Jesus. Carrier argues that later Gospel accounts add or emphasize male confirmation as the tomb becomes more important as evidence.
• He disputes the broad claim that women’s testimony was generally considered unreliable, citing ancient legal and historical material in which women appear as witnesses.

Carrier also offers a literary explanation for Mark’s choice of women: Mark’s Gospel often reverses expectations and elevates people seen as socially low or marginal. He argues that this fits the Gospel’s themes better than the apologetic explanation.

In Carrier’s account, the empty tomb was not initially central to Christian persuasion. He suggests that later authors made it more important as Christian groups debated the nature of the resurrection.

3. Matthew’s story about the body being stolen

As presented in the interview, Craig argues that Matthew’s account of an accusation that Jesus’ disciples stole the body presupposes an empty tomb: even Jesus’ opponents supposedly accepted that it was empty.

Carrier responds that this accusation appears only in Matthew, a Christian source hostile to the Jewish authorities it depicts. He says there is no independent Jewish source confirming that this was an actual Jewish counterclaim.

Carrier argues that Matthew may have invented the story in response to criticism of Mark’s empty-tomb narrative rather than preserved an earlier historical dispute. He notes that Luke and John do not include Matthew’s account of the guards and the stolen-body allegation. He also interprets Matthew’s episode as a literary construction with parallels to Daniel in the lions’ den, including the sealing of the tomb.

Carrier concludes that Matthew’s story cannot independently verify the empty tomb.

4. Joseph of Arimathea and the burial

Dale Allison’s argument, as discussed in the video, is that Christians would be unlikely to invent a story in which a member of the Jewish council does the right thing and buries Jesus.

Carrier first distinguishes burial from an empty tomb: even if a specific person buried Jesus, that would not show that the body later disappeared.

He challenges the claim that such a burial would have been implausible:

• He says Roman and Jewish practices required the executed dead to be taken down and buried, and that Jewish authorities had burial arrangements for executed criminals.
• In his account of Jewish law, executed people would ordinarily be buried in designated criminal cemeteries rather than family tombs.
• He suggests that a council member arranging the burial would therefore not be surprising.

Carrier also argues that Joseph of Arimathea may be a fictional character. He interprets the name and place as potentially symbolic or as wordplay, and says that later Gospels’ transformation of Joseph into a disciple may reflect the development of the story. He notes that Joseph does not appear in Acts as a witness to the burial or to the body’s disappearance.

Carrier’s broader point is that realistic or historically plausible details do not prove a story is factual: historical fiction can use familiar customs and settings.

5. Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15

Bart Ehrman’s argument, as described in the interview, is that Paul’s creed would likely have named the person who buried Jesus if the burial by Joseph of Arimathea were known early.

Carrier disagrees that the creed is unbalanced without a named buri­er:

• He argues that its two parts serve different functions. The first half refers to events such as death and burial as being “according to the Scriptures,” while the second half lists or identifies witnesses to Jesus’ appearances.
• On this reading, the creed had no reason to name the person who carried out the burial.

Carrier nevertheless argues that Paul’s wider discussion of resurrection would have been a natural place to mention evidence of an empty tomb if Paul knew of such evidence. He takes Paul’s silence as suggesting that the empty tomb was not part of Paul’s understanding.

He also notes that later creeds added other names and details, but, in his view, Joseph of Arimathea did not become a significant element of the creedal tradition.

6. Burial customs and possible explanations for the story

The interview discusses Jewish burial practices and the possibility that Jesus, if executed, would have been buried in a criminal cemetery.

Carrier distinguishes Mark from later Gospel versions: he says Mark does not explicitly state that Jesus was placed in Joseph’s own family tomb, a detail developed in later accounts.

He also raises the possibility of temporary burial. According to the discussion, Jewish rules could permit placing a body somewhere temporarily when the Sabbath was approaching, with proper burial completed afterward. Carrier suggests that, if such a temporary placement occurred, the body could have been moved after the Sabbath. He presents this as one possible natural explanation for how a story of a missing body might develop, while maintaining that his preferred explanation is that the account is fictional.

Carrier compares explanations such as literary invention, relocation, or theft with a supernatural resurrection and argues that the natural explanations are more plausible. This is Carrier’s assessment, not a claim demonstrated by the interview alone.

7. The claim that the burial story should fulfill Isaiah more explicitly

Allison’s argument, as presented, is that a Christian author inventing the story might have placed the two criminals alongside Jesus in burial to echo Isaiah’s description of being “with the wicked.”

Carrier replies that this assumes the author would write according to a modern critic’s expectations. He argues that Mark could have expected his original audience to know that executed criminals were buried in designated places, making additional details unnecessary. He also says that adding other criminals to the tomb story could have made the plot confusing by raising questions about whose body was missing.

Carrier’s methodological lesson is to interpret an ancient author in the author’s own historical and literary context, rather than assume what the author “should” have written.

8. The claim that Mark’s account is unembellished

Craig’s argument, as summarized in the interview, contrasts the Gospel accounts with the more dramatic Gospel of Peter, which includes extraordinary elements such as a talking cross. The relative restraint of the canonical accounts is offered as evidence that they are less legendary.

Carrier argues that this reasoning is flawed:

• An earlier version of a story can be less elaborate than later versions without being historical.
• Mark’s account already contains supernatural and literary features, including an angelic figure and a resurrection narrative.
• Carrier says Mark’s account contains substantial scriptural allusions and literary construction, including parallels he identifies with Psalms, Genesis, Daniel, Enoch, and other biblical texts.

He interprets these elements as evidence that Mark’s account was composed as theological literature, not as a straightforward report from eyewitnesses.

9. Resources recommended by the guest

Carrier points viewers to two blog posts: one focused on the women-as-witnesses argument and another on the literary, biblical, and contextual case that Mark created the empty-tomb story. He also recommends The Empty Tomb, an anthology containing his chapters on the topic; Jonathan M. Pierce’s book on the resurrection; and Resurrection: Faith or Fact? as a shorter introduction.

Speakers and sources featured

Speakers

• The host: The presenter of the Modern Atheism channel; not named in the subtitles.
• Dr. Richard Carrier: The guest and principal speaker. The opening subtitle appears to say “Dr. Rachel Kerr,” but this seems inconsistent with the video title and the conversation’s identification of the guest.

Authors and works discussed or cited

• William Lane Craig: Source of several arguments for the empty tomb examined in the interview.
• Dale Allison: Source of arguments concerning Joseph of Arimathea and the burial details.
• Bart Ehrman: Source of an argument about Paul’s creed and the burial.
• Jonathan M. Pierce: Author recommended for discussion of resurrection and burial practices.
• Paul and 1 Corinthians 15; the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John; the Gospel of Peter; Acts; Daniel; Isaiah; and other biblical texts: Referenced in the discussion of the creed, Gospel narratives, and literary parallels.
• Josephus, the Mishnah, Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, and Ignatius: Cited in relation to ancient testimony, Jewish burial customs, and the development of Christian creeds.