On the evidence, so far, to the empty grave, we are constrained to say that the Aveight of the Evan- gelists' united testimony is so strong that it cannot with any justice be rejected. (For critical acknow- ledgment of this see Oin- LorrFs Res7irrection in Oxf. Libr. Pract. Theol. p. 87 f.).
(2) But it has been asserted that, whatever the Evangelists might think, at any rate St. PnuVs theory of the Resurrection was independent of all interest in the empty grave (0. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus). His theory of the spiritual body, so it is said, does not require the resurrection of the material elements of the buried corpse. And it is further remarked that St. Paul, in his evidences of the Resurrection, not only makes no appeal to the emptiness of the grave, but actually makes no reference to the subject at all in his teaching. This supposed inditlerence of St. Paul to the ques-
tion of the empty sepulchre is based partly on the character of his theology, and partly on his omission of any reference to the fact. But here we must remember St. Paul's antecedents. He was educated in the principles of the Pharisees, and doubtle.ss held the prevalent theory of physical resurrection. As Schmiedel truly says, ' His theology came into being only after his conversion to Christianity. When he tirst came to know of Jesus as risen, he was still a Jew, and therefore conceived of resurrec- tion at all in no other way than as reanimation of the body ' (EBi iv. 4059) ; cf. 1 Co 15^-^. The sug- gestion in the term ' rose ' [eydpeiv) as applied to the dead is that death is compared with sleep, and the resurrection out of the former to the awakening out of the latter. Moreover, the fact of the burial implies that the Resurrection was not merely of one who died, but also of one who was buried. Thus resurrection refers to an experience afl'ecting the body, and not to an isolated experience of the soul ; cf. Ro 8'\ where resurrection is described as quickening our mortal bodies. Thus the grave of Jesus cannot be considered by St. Paul otherwise than as empty (see Schmoller in SK, 1894, p. 669). St. Paul believed in 'a highly objective resurrec- tion, including a bodily somewhat, though of a non-fle.shly order' (V. Bartlet, Apost. Age, p. 4; Riggenbach, p. 7).
(3) There is the further evidence of the applica- tion to Jesus Christ of the pa.ssage in t?ie sixteenth Psalm (W) : ' Neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption ' (Ac 2^'). St. Peter sees an exact parallel between this language of the Psalm and the phy.sical experience of the dead Christ. It is a reference to the Resurrection. ' He [David] seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption ' (v.^^). No contrast could be greater than between this and the ordinary experience as exemplified in David. David manifestly saw cor- ruption. ' He is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day' (v.^^). Corrup- tion its sad work had done. The foul engendered worm had fed on the flesh of 'the anointed one.' But St. Peter's contention is that, in the case of Christ, the physical frame saw no corruption. The fact of the empty grave is here involved, and is, moreover, thrown out as a challenge in the very city where our Lord was buried ; and that within six weeks of the burial ! It has well been asked : Was not St. Peter disturbed by the misgiving that the hearers might interrupt him with the crushing remark — We know where he was buried, and that corruption has begun its task (Ihmels, Die Avfer- stehung Jesu Christi, 1906, p. 26). The whole argu- ment of St. Peter would be absolutely worthless, if any could refute the major premiss of the empty grave.
(4) The emptiness of the grave is acknowledged by opponents as well as affirmed by disciples. The narrative of the guards attempts to account for the fact as a fraudulent transaction (Mt 28"-i5). ' But this Jewish accusation against the Apostles takes for granted that the grave was empty. What was certain was that the grave was empty. What was needed was an explanation.' So far as the present writer is aware, this acknowledgment by the Jews that the grave was vacated extends to all subse- quent Jewish comments on the point.
Here, for instance, is a 12th cent, version of the empty grave circulated by the Jewish anti-Christian propaganda. 'The story is that when the queen heard that the elders had slain Jesus and had buried Him, and that He was risen again, she ordered them within three days to produce the body or forfeit their lives. ' Then spake Judas, " Come and I will show you the man whom ye seek : for it was I who took the fatherless from his grave. For I feared lest his disciples should steal him away, and I have hidden him in my garden and led a waterbrook over the place." ' And the story explains how the body was produced (Toledoth Jesu ; see Baring Gould, Lost and Hostile Gosi)e.ls, p. 88). It is