The empty tomb of Jesus: significant interview with Udo Schnelle from Halle, Wittenberg

 This is a transcript of an interview with Professor Udo Schnelle, head of the department of New Testament, Martin Luther University, Halle - Wittenberg, Germany, held on 22 March 2011. Prof. Schnelle graciously consented that we publish it on the web. This is Part 1, Part 2 to follow next time.

Mulder: Debates about the resurrection of Jesus has been going on since (at least) David Friedrich Strauss. As professor who, in one sense occupies Martin Luther’s’ chair in Theology here in Halle, Wittenberg, why should it or is it important for Christians to believe that Jesus’ tomb is empty?

Schnelle: It is important because it is a historical question. You have to either say yes or no! It is important because faith is grounded in history. It makes a big difference whether the tomb is empty or not.

Mulder: Do you think we have plausible textual evidence that can substantiate belief in the empty tomb?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: What about Paul who doesn’t refer to the empty tomb explicitly?

Schnelle: In Paul we do have Romans 6:3-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:4. But there is one important point: After the death of Jesus, the first Christians in Jerusalem proclaimed that Jesus is alive. At that time Jerusalem was a city with between 25 000 to 50 000 inhabitants. Thus, not so many people. The Christians preached: Jesus is alive, the tomb is empty. If that was not so, their opponents could say: Why? Come with us, there he lies! It is a historical question which of course cannot be proven scientifically. But, if we try to reconstruct the history with their preaching, then you cannot explain the success of their preaching, especially in Jerusalem, without an empty tomb.

Mulder: So would you say the empty tomb of Jesus is the best explanation for the evidence available to us?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: So, does that mean that people like Gerd Lüdemann and John Dominic Crossan’s reconstructions (that Peter and Paul experienced hallucinations, or that his body was devoured by animals on the cross) are not the best historical explanations for the available evidence we have?

Schnelle: Yes. It is not the best historical explanations. It’s their personal and private explanations. If you ask how was it possible that such a small group of believers, became within a very short time such a strong movement, especially in Jerusalem? I think the best historical explanation is to say that the tomb was empty.