The Wrong Tomb Theory

A more obscure topic of the empty tomb was that of the burial cloths. In the gospels of Luke and John, they record that the burial wrappings of Jesus were left inside the tomb with the head wrapping folded and placed separately from the other linens (John 20:5-7, Luke 24:12, Latham2009-ky).

The body wrappings and the headpiece were found lying in place undisturbed and hollow as if the body that once inhabited them vanished. Carefully removing, then wrapping, and folding the linens would be difficult to achieve without damaging the wrappings (Cook_undated-dn, Schaff2007-pp). Additionally, it appears that the 70-pound spices were still tucked inside the folds of the grave clothes and not scattered about the tomb. It is not likely that anyone that wanted the corpse of Jesus would take such care to unwrap the body and then neatly fold it back together (Harris1990-jy). Scholars and Christians have noted that the text indicates a supernatural removal of the body from the wrappings (Barclay2001-yu), Tract_Committee_Ernest_Hermitage_Day_Society_for_Promoting_Christian_Knowledge2019-br), Giunta2015-px, Stott2012-py, Pink1968-mu, Latham2009-ky).

The unique detail of the burial cloths in the tomb of Jesus, as described in the Gospels of Luke and John, describe the linens left behind as undisturbed and arranged in a manner that suggests a meticulous and deliberate act that a typical grave robbery would not answer. The headpiece, set apart from the body wrappings, and the untouched spices suggest an orderly scene, contrasting with the expected chaos of a tomb violation. This careful arrangement has led scholars and believers to ponder the possibility of a supernatural event, as the state of the tomb and its contents seem to defy natural explanations. The detail of the folded linens, in particular, has been interpreted as a sign of Jesus' resurrection, implying that his body was not stolen but was raised, leaving behind the grave clothes as silent witnesses to the miraculous event.

The Bible records that after Jesus was buried, the Pharisees urged Pilate to place a guard at the tomb of Jesus because of His teachings proclaiming He would rise from the grave. Due to fear that His disciples would steal the body, Pilate approved. It is not 100% certain if it was the Jewish temple guard or the Roman guard, but the story in the Gospels implies Roman guards. Most scholars that do accept the guards at the tomb favor the Roman guards or even both parties (Orr1908-rn, Craig1984-pb, Cassels2016-md, Gospel of Nicodemus, The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, E. LeCamus, Wright2003-bg).

The biblical account notes that after Jesus' burial, the Pharisees, concerned about His prophecy of resurrection, requested Pilate to secure Jesus' tomb. This led to the deployment of guards, although it remains unclear whether they were Roman soldiers, Jewish temple guards, or a combination of both.

The Gospels imply Roman involvement at the tomb, and many scholars lean towards this view due to the high stakes associated with guarding the tomb and the severe penalties for Roman soldiers abandoning their posts, which included death. Conversely, the presence of Jewish temple guards is considered plausible by some scholars based on the narrative details and interactions within the biblical texts, such as the guards' report to the Pharisees. The debate between whether Roman or Jewish guards were stationed is part of the broader discussion regarding the historical events surrounding Jesus' resurrection.

The belief in resurrection among the Pharisees and Essenes was not simply a hope for an afterlife, but specifically the belief in the physical resurrection of the body. They believed that after death, the body would be raised and reunited with the soul, which would then continue to exist in a new, transformed state. This belief was based on a number of sources, including biblical texts such as Ezekiel 37, where the prophet sees a vision of dry bones being brought back to life, and Daniel 12:2, which speaks of a resurrection of the dead.

In Rabbinical literature, arguments in favor of resurrection are based on promises made to the dead in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, as well as similar expressions in other texts where the future tense is used to refer to future life. Promised rewards not fulfilled in this life and the grain of wheat are also used as arguments for resurrection. Historical parallels to the miracles of revival by Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel are also made. The necessity of divine justice is another reason for resurrection, as body and soul cannot be held accountable for their deeds in life unless they are brought together again. The sources used to support these arguments include Sanhedrin, ?ullin, Leviticus Rabbah, Genesis Rabbah, Sifre, and others.

The Pharisees and Essenes also drew on various other texts, including apocryphal writings and rabbinic literature, to support their belief in resurrection. These texts presented a range of arguments in favor of resurrection, including appeals to promises made to the dead in the Torah, parallels with the miracles performed by prophets such as Elijah and Elisha, and the need for divine justice to be served through the reunion of body and soul. The Apocryphal writings of Pharisaic origin (such as II Maccabees, Book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and others) assert the belief in resurrection and argue against the views of Sadducees.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, did not believe in resurrection, and instead held to the belief in the immortality of the soul. They rejected the idea of a physical resurrection, arguing that it was impossible and contradicted the laws of nature. This difference in beliefs was a major point of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and was one of the factors that contributed to their broader political and religious conflicts (RESURRECTION - JewishEncyclopedia.com).

According to Ulrich Wilckens, Jews did not believe in the resurrection of the dead until the end of the world or the arrival of the Messiah (Wilckens1974-hs). However, at the time, the Messiah was not expected to be the Suffering Servant described in Isaiah 53 or to be executed on a cross, as this would indicate that he was cursed by God (Gal 3:13, Deut 21:23). It is worth noting that some Jews did believe in a Messiah who would rise from the dead after three days, as evidenced by sources such as Acts 17:2-3 and (1 Corinthians 15), as well as the work of Pinchas Lapide (Lapide2002-rs) and the discovery of an ancient tablet that sparked a debate on the topic(Bronner2008-ko).

The belief in the physical resurrection of the body held by the Pharisees and Essenes represents a significant aspect of Jewish eschatological thought in the Second Temple period. Unlike the Sadducees, who rejected the notion of resurrection, these groups anchored their hope in the reuniting of body and soul into a transformed existence, drawing from biblical prophecies, rabbinic interpretations, and historical precedents. The use of scriptural passages from Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Torah, alongside rabbinic literature and apocryphal texts, provided support for this doctrine. Despite the prevailing Jewish expectation of a Messiah, the concept of a suffering, crucified, and resurrected Messiah diverged significantly from traditional messianic views, leading to debates and reinterpretations within the Jewish and emerging Christian communities. The early Christian claim of Jesus' resurrection thus engaged with, and departed from, existing Jewish beliefs about the end times, the role of the Messiah, and the nature of life after death, marking a pivotal development in religious history.