By AD 75, some Jewish circles were postulating that the empty tomb was the result of body theft, in an attempt to counter Christian arguments positing the resurrection. The fundamental implication in this response is the acknowledgment of the tomb being empty. This line of argumentation is believed to have roots in Jewish perspectives from around AD 30, as documented by scholars (Craig1984-pb), Stein2009-qz, Swinburne2003-tz).
“What was in dispute was not whether the tomb was empty but why it was empty. We have no early evidence that anyone, either Christian or non-Christian, ever alleged that Jesus’ tomb still contained his remains.”
Moreover, it is significant to note that no documented instances exist of the Jewish community or Christian opponents producing Jesus's body to disprove the resurrection. This point, analyzed by scholars such (Pannenberg2004-dc, Davis1993-wv, Craig1989-gr, Evans2004-sq, Anderson1968-jz, Moreland1987-wo), boosted the reliability the Christian narrative.
In the face of these debates, the early Christian church persevered and expanded, with the uncontested claim of the empty tomb a significant factor in its growth, as detailed by scholars (Pannenberg2013-ig), Godet1887-xs, Fairbairn1882-fa).
By AD 75, some Jewish circles began proposing the theory of body theft to counter Christian claims of resurrection, acknowledging the empty tomb as a fundamental premise. However, there is no early evidence to suggest that anyone, whether Christian or non-Christian, alleged the presence of Jesus' remains in the tomb. The absence of documented instances where Jesus's body was produced by opponents further strengthens the reliability of the Christian narrative, a point emphasized by various scholars. Despite debates surrounding the empty tomb, the early Christian church continued to thrive and expand, with the uncontested claim of the empty tomb playing a crucial role in its growth, as evidenced by scholarly analysis.