Arguments against the empty tomb

[YahWhat]

1. Paul indicates no knowledge of it. He does not reference a Joseph of Arimathea, angel, the women, - nothing. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention in 1 Cor 15. The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He goes through all that "spiritual body" stuff but not mentioning the empty tomb is quite suspicious.

=====================================

2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark and John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced
by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel.

=====================================

3. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions" were quite common in this time period. A Jewish example is found in the Testament of Job 39:8-13; 40:3-4. The disappearance/assumption motif is used to explain what happened to the bones of Job's dead children. They were taken up to heaven by God and glorified.

A more interesting Greek example is found in the 1st century novel by Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven.

Sound familiar?

This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives. I'm not arguing for direct dependency or copying but it does show that the empty tomb story in Mark was nothing new.

Furthermore, the gospels also depict people believing that John the Baptist rose from the dead after his execution and even that Jesus was the risen John (see Mark 6:14 and Mark 8:27-28). The idea that John had risen from the dead came from the belief in the coming general resurrection. Obviously, the concept of a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air when Jesus was executed.
http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus

=====================================

4. It conflicts with archaeology. In regards to Mark's "rolling stone" door (Mark 16:3-4) the use of the Greek word ἀποκυλίω (to roll away) indicates that the stone closing the tomb was round. A survey of First Century Jewish rock cut and cave tombs by Amos Kloner found that 98% of them were closed by square stones prior to 70 AD, with only 4 (out of over 900) closed by a rolling round stone. After 70 AD, however, round stones became far more common. So this detail seems to be indicating the kind of tomb in the later First Century (when Mark was writing), or it could be that the tomb itself, an element conspicuous by its absence in Paul's version, was an addition to the story.

Kloner says that the word can also mean "to move" but he is incorrect. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0617.html

The word was only used in regards to round objects.

Source: Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?

=====================================

5. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the narrator of Mark had a strong motivation to present his hero Jesus as receiving a noble rather than a shameful burial, consistent with tendencies in ancient hero biography.

Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Matthew and John turn Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus. Mark has the body wrapped in a newly purchased linen cloth and laid in "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock." Matthew 27:60 has the variant "in the tomb, which HE HAD hewn in the rock" - that means Joseph himself or workers commissioned by him hewed out the tomb which is not the case in Mark. Luke 23:53 has "rock-hewn tomb." Matthew says that he laid him in his own tomb and Luke 23:53/John 19:41 notes that it was a tomb "Where no one had ever been laid." All of these are later additions to the oldest Gospel Mark and they are all apologetic attempts to show that Jesus had an honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one.

It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin, which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews. But even if we grant the possibility, it is more likely that a "rich distinguished councillor" would not climb up the cross himself to get a dead body down but rather have his servants do it. Most crucified criminals were left on the cross to rot then later thrown into a common criminals grave. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

Therefore, we should infer this is most likely what happened to Jesus' body. According to Paul (Acts 13:29) it was "the Jews" who buried Jesus. Acts 13:29 also fits perfectly well with him being thrown in a common criminal's tomb.

"When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb."

The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."

The earliest Christians and the author of Mark could have seen in Jesus' body being placed in such a burial site the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death." So the composer of the narrative just "fulfilled" prophecy by creating the story of the empty tomb.

In addition to Acts 13:27-29 which records that it was "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", there are other traditions that indicate things were not as straightforward as the canonical gospels might indicate. For example, the Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. An early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1.

"If the corpse of Jesus had really been removed by his enemies, the tradition would have grown like this. Jesus was laid in a common grave, like anyone who had been executed. Soon people found this intolerable, but knew that none of his followers had shown him, or could have shown him, the least service of love. A stranger did, and preserved his body from the ultimate shame. Now this could not have been an insignificant stranger, but had to be someone who could dare to go to the court authorities; he had to be a counsellor. The name was to be found in the Gospel tradition, like any other name, and gradually - this last phase is reflected in the Gospels themselves - the pious stranger became a secret...or even an open...disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57), someone who did not approve of the counsel and action of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51)...someone who was a friend not only of Jesus but also of Pilate (Gospel of Peter 3). So the story of Joseph of Arimathea is not completely impossible to invent." Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, pg. 180.

=====================================

6. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains.

[Goose]

2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse.

It’s generally agreed that John is not dependent on the synoptic gospels. So even if we eliminate Matthew and Luke due to literary dependency on Mark we still have literary independency between Mark and John. Thus we have multiple attestation.

This is a gross oversimplification / misrepresentation.

Or just a simply misunderstanding on your part. When I said it's "generally agreed" I meant the majority of current scholarship rejects the theory that John is literarily dependent on Mark.

[Inigo Montoya]

Goose,

I notice you haven't responded to my post. You spend inordinate amounts of time and energy insisting historical methodology be applied equally to religious narrative. Please answer the following two questions.

If Seutonius, Plutarch and 7 of Caesar's closest friends and family also wrote that Caesar had come back to life a week later and visited with some folk before ascending into the clouds, would you accept it as having happened?

If the story of Jesus's resurrection were discovered, hypothetically, alone and without any association with the bible, would you still try so hard to make this 'inference to the best explanation (a dead body came back to life)?'

I don't think you can help answering No to both questions. You may do it in a very long-winded fashion, but I think it will still be No, if you're consistent and honest. As to why you'd say No, that's what fascinates me.

Hope you'll respond.

[Goose]

Goose,

I notice you haven't responded to my post.

I don't respond to rabbit trails. Your hypothetical questions about my personal belief is irrelevant to the points being made about multiple attestation and dependency.

[Inigo Montoya]

Goose,

I notice you haven't responded to my post.

I don't respond to rabbit trails. Your hypothetical questions about my personal belief is irrelevant to the points being made about multiple attestation and dependency.

Very well. Your unwillingness to answer an honest question says more than your Habermas/Licona/Stroebel/Craig regurgitation anyhow.

[Zzyzx]

.

Goose,

I notice you haven't responded to my post.

I don't respond to rabbit trails. Your hypothetical questions about my personal belief is irrelevant to the points being made about multiple attestation and dependency.

Would an honest answer expose major flaws in the resurrection tale?

Can a rational, informed person answer "yes" to either of those questions?

[Student]

2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse.

It’s generally agreed that John is not dependent on the synoptic gospels. So even if we eliminate Matthew and Luke due to literary dependency on Mark we still have literary independency between Mark and John. Thus we have multiple attestation.

This is a gross oversimplification / misrepresentation.

Or just a simply misunderstanding on your part. When I said it's "generally agreed" I meant the majority of current scholarship rejects the theory that John is literarily dependent on Mark.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I recognise a spurious generalisation when I see one.

If you intended to say that a majority of scholars hold that view, then that is what you should have said and provided the evidence to substantiate your claim and demonstrated why an appeal to the majority was in any way relevant to the debate.

Furthermore, I note, with little surprise, that you fail to address any of the points in my post that demonstrate John's dependency upon Mark.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 16 by Student]
Correction:
The gospels of Mark and John depend in small part on a common source, the Passion Narrative and a little bit more.
Some scholars think John even had Mark basically as we know it before him when he wrote. Most scholars don't.

[Goose]

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I recognise a spurious generalisation when I see one.

There was a misunderstanding on your part and I clarified my statement for you. But I'll try to be more carful next time.

If you intended to say that a majority of scholars hold that view, then that is what you should have said and provided the evidence to substantiate your claim and demonstrated why an appeal to the majority was in any way relevant to the debate.

Appeals to the majority of scholarship are always relevant to any debate. No demonstration needed beyond that.

�Although the majority of contemporary scholars side with the magisterial work of Dodd, who argues that there is no good evidence for any literary dependence of John on any of the synoptic Gospels, a number of scholars...argue that John had read at least Mark, perhaps Luke, and (one or two have argued) perhaps also Matthew – or, at the very least, substantial synoptic tradition. “ – Carson and Moo, An introduction To The New Testament, 2005, pg. 259.

Furthermore, I note, with little surprise, that you fail to address any of the points in my post that demonstrate John's dependency upon Mark.

I don't think it's necessary for me to overturn arguments supporting a position not held by the majority of scholars.

[Regens Küchl]

My thoughts on the problem that a round stone was uncommon/improbable:
The OPs idea that Mark would write Jesus a noble grave with a noble formed stone is good, but I see an even importantet reason.
I just suspect here that a round stone could be movrd easier than a swuare one. And Mark needed for a logical story a stone that could be moved by two women or a single man.
Or else how could the women have intended to get at Jesus body for caring.

Or else how coud the young man at the grave move the stone?

Or else how could the resurrected Jesus gotten out.? He never had a radioactive accident to receive Superpowers!

Another thought from me to add to my recent question about why was the tomb still closed when the Angel told that Jesus already left and resurrected.
Was Mark really capable of such a plump logical error or had he reason to write that so?

So I just thought about the fact that the Jews had highly neurotical fanatical rules about all kinds of things.

So possibly it would have been a horrible rulebreak for a Jew to leave a jewish tomb OPEN BEHIND in any case. Even if it would be your own tomb from which you just resurrected.

In that case Mark was obliged to indicate that Jesus closed the tomb behind himself after getting out. What we find strange a jewish audience back then would need to hear of a correct hero.

Just my newest theory Could someone of you check into that?

[YahWhat]

Of course it’s implied. Just like when I say I went to bed last night, got up this morning, and walked around. You wouldn’t think I meant I was still in my bed would you? No, of course you wouldn’t. You know my bed is now empty because it’s implied. I don’t need to explicitly state it. Then again, I suppose if I were speaking to a person of abnormally low intelligence I might need to.

How on earth can you say an "empty tomb" is implied when Paul mentions nothing whatsoever regarding the manner in which Jesus was buried? He could have thought Jesus was buried in a ditch or a criminal's tomb with other bodies in it or not even known how he was buried at all! It is dishonest to say Paul "implied" an empty tomb when he doesn't even use the word "tomb" once in his firsthand material. This is just another anachronism fallacy where you're letting Mark's empty tomb influence your reading.

Ah yes. When the text causes problems just assert it was a redaction (or interpolation).

Luke wrote Acts and copied Mark's empty tomb. Paul never mentions a "tomb" in his firsthand material. Your point is overruled.

his is a creedal passage (1Cor15) that Paul was recounting. So there’s no need to expect him to add details to it especially when we consider he was writing a letter to a struggling church not a bio of Jesus’ life.

Paul says that ‘Christ’ died ‘for our sins’. The term ‘Christ’ was applied to Jesus only after his death and Resurrection, and this use of ‘Christ’ on its own with no article is typically Pauline, and not a literal translation from an Aramaic tradition. Moreover, the idea that ‘Christ’ died ‘for our sins’ is a product of the Gentile mission. This means that, however early Paul inherited this tradition, it has been rewritten.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nOiRB ... &q&f=false

I’m letting Paul’s Pharisaical background colour Paul’s understanding. This is why Paul speaks of the Jesus being the “firstfruit� of the general resurrection (1Cor15). In light of that, when Paul says Jesus was raised from the dead he means Jesus rose bodily implying an empty tomb.

Ok so you just ignore the wide range of meaning of that word and carry on with the same literal meaning while arguing Paul's Pharisaic background trumps any Hellenization whatsoever? You don't think at least some sort of Greek influence is possible?

In 1 Cor 15:44 Paul says it's the "spiritual body" that's raised which is distinguished from the natural body. This spiritual body is not composed of flesh and blood (1 Cor 15:50) so I'd like to hear exactly how a "pneumatic spiritual body" being raised implies that the fleshly body must leave the tomb as well. The word that you have to wrestle with is πνευματικόν, which has a range of meaning that is much more problematic for the orthodox apologetic reading you are trying to maintain. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/4152.html

As a Jew, Paul could not conceive of resurrection without envisaging some kind of body [some Jews believed it was going to be the same body: 2 Mac 7:11; Eccl.R 1:4; GenR 95:1], but, combining his Jewish legacy with the Hellenistic ideas of his readers, he insisted that this body would be totally different from the one that had died. The risen body would be imperishable, glorious, and powerful, bearing the image not of the mortal Adam, but that of the glorified Christ. The raised dead would be granted a spiritual body, and the just, alive at Parousia, would have their earthly bodies transformed into spiritual ones. — Geza Vermes, The Resurrection: History and Myth p. 124-125

Therefore, we can conclude from Paul’s conception of resurrection, Jesus’ physical body would have rotted in his grave not leaving an empty tomb behind. Jesus was resurrected in a new, spiritual body.

Then you can’t argue literary dependency. If John isn’t literarily dependant on Mark it is literarily independent thus providing multiple attestation to the empty tomb.

How do we know John didn't get the empty tomb story from Mark's source or heard the story from someone who read Mark? Aren't you guys the ones that argue for the reliability of oral tradition?

On the contrary the simple fact John and Mark show no obvious signs of literary dependency (at least in the way we see between the synoptic Gospels) is prima facie evidence they are independent works. In light of this, it would be your burden to show there is dependency.

Even though John does not follow the exact language of Mark, there are still clear parallels and adaptations between the texts, as shown by Louis A. Ruprecht in This Tragic Gospel https://books.google.com/books?id=nJkjg ... &q&f=false. John Dominic Crossan in The Passion in Mark (pgs. 138-145) argues that all of the post-Markan references to the empty tomb can be shown to derive from Mark and are thus not independently attested. Adela Yarbro Collins allows that Mark indirectly influenced John in the context of its re-oralization. She argues that Mark’s narrative source was in a transitional stage between oral and literary production, that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark yet knew other ongoing oral traditions, and John indirectly depended on Mark though modified it in the context of re-oralization with other traditions known to him. She concludes:

"The author of the Gospel of John probably made use of the passion narrative of Mark in its role as part of early Christian oral literature."
http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf

Like I argued I don’t need it to be eyewitness testimony for it be independent and therefore multiple attestation. But since you are appealing to the majority view of modern scholarship the consensus among modern scholarship is that John is not dependent on Mark.

Since I've provided sufficient evidence that gives us reason to doubt John is an independent source, it doesn't matter if you have the majority view or not here. Case in point, even from your own quote, it says "a number of scholars" argue that John was familiar with Mark so you cannot claim with certainty that John is independent even if that is the majority view.

By the way, do you mean "majority view" among ALL scholars or just the ones that are employed at a seminary or faith based institution which require that they adhere to a statement of faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible? If we were to go with the majority view among critical scholars they would conclude gJohn has hardly any history in it at all when it comes to the historical Jesus. It's kind of a red flag when John explicitly portrays Jesus as God while the three synoptics somehow failed to mention this very important detail, don't ya think? Duh!

In any case, since both myself and another poster have given evidence that John was influenced by Mark's empty tomb it follows that there is no clear independent attestation and my original argument still stands.

It’s not irrelevant. It speaks to your methodology since historians do not generally argue for dependency based upon the later writer possibly being aware of an earlier writer. Your methodology argues against multiple attestation for virtually every event from antiquity. Thus I conclude your methodology is flawed.

When you have a story that has been circulating for 20-40 years (depending on when gJohn was written), used by 2 other authors, and being read or recited to members of the same religious cult - to which the author of John was also a member of, then the historian has a right to be skeptical here.

Even if the empty tomb were multiply attested that would not prove it's historicity. When a claim is independently attested by multiple sources that only means that it goes back to an earlier source. It does not entail that it goes back to an actual historical event.

How's that for "methodology"?

It’s been my experience these borrowing arguments often overstate the similarities and virtually ignore the starch differences. Perhaps this is why modern scholarship has largely abandoned the copy-cat thesis.

I've made it quite clear that I wasn't arguing for the "copy-cat thesis" twice now so I'm not sure why you would try to bring up this straw man argument. You're missing the overall point which is literary mimesis.

This is supposed to be evidence of borrowing? They are more different in material ways than they are similar. The difference is so self evident it barely needs to be expounded upon.

Again, straw man and you're missing the most salient point, which as those two images show, several themes/parallels are shared. It's not just the missing body.

In regards to Romulus there’s no mention of a tomb or a resurrection. Romulus is reported to have been cut in pieces and the pieces smuggled out under robes. Which is why there was no body.

It's still the "missing body" motif which was applied to all kinds of demigods and divine figures in the literature of the time period. I gave two more clear examples in my OP. The bones of Job's children go missing and experience heavenly glorification. The story describes their physical removal by God after death. In Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven. The work is mentioned in the Satires of Persius, who died in 62 CE, so it had to have been completed before then, making Markan influence at least possible. So the fact that we have missing bodies and empty tombs in both Jewish and Greco-Roman literature supports the hypothesis that the gospel authors could have used these established tropes as a guide.

If you need a reference to the resurrection being applied to a single individual just look at Mark 6:14-15. Herod and other people think John the Baptist and Elijah had been raised from the dead. Obviously, the concept of a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air when Jesus was executed!

That’s no surprise. Martyr is petitioning his persecutors to stop by making Christians sound similar to them.

"present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.�

No, he's trying to say "Romans! All we have done is produce myths and fables with our Jesus just as you have done with your own heroes and emperors! Why must you persecute us?"

Other early church fathers admit similar things. Origen, Contra Celsus 3.22-31; Tertullian, Apol. 21.20-23; Minucius Felix, Octavius 21.9-10, and Arnobius, Adversus Gentes 6.1.41.

Origen tries to get out of it by "blaming it on the devil." Lol!

But the evidence you gave proves it wasn’t non-existent. That’s the whole point. Rare perhaps. But non-existent.

So you think it's reasonable to conclude that Jesus was buried in a tomb with a rolling stone door when, based on the statistics we have, those tombs accounted for 0.04% of the total during that time period?

How about this? Mark was writing during the time period when rolling stone doors were more common so this conspicuous detail is probably not historical when it comes to Jesus. Which leads us to doubt the rest of the empty tomb story as well.

Another sign the story is fiction is this little line here:

Mark 16:3
On the way they were asking each other, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?"

You'd think they would have thought of that before they set out on their way, right? I mean that is what people would do in real life. Just sayin'.

There’s no discernible evidence of linear accumulation. It was simply a difference in reportage. It was common. Indeed it still is.

You mean like how Matthew adds a great earthquake, guards at the tomb, a descending angel, all the graves opening up to let zombies walk around and "appear to many"? How could the other evangelists and historians of the day fail to report those discernible events?

It was oral tradition compiled much later. Surely that’s enough to doubt it if it’s enough to doubt the Gospels.

The "traditions" didn't just pop out of nowhere. In this case, the burial rules must have at least been codified somewhat before they were written down. Your comparison with the gospels as history vs "rules of burial" in the Mishnah is a false analogy. You have given us no reason to believe that the passages in the Mishnah I cite do not reflect older tradition.

Pilate seemed interested in keeping the peace with the Jews. The last thing he’d want is a large scale insurrection. The Jews would have wanted Jesus taken down and buried.

What makes you think not granting the body of a criminal messianic pretender to the Jews would cause a "large scale insurrection"? Wasn't it the Jews that sentenced Jesus to death in the first place?

As for Pilate "keeping the peace", according to Josephus, when Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct to provide freshwater to Jerusalem he financed the project by raiding the sacred treasury of the temple. The authorities and the people were outraged and protested loudly. Pilate responded by having his soldiers mix in with the crowds, disguised, to attack the people, not with swords but with clubs, at his command. They did so, and “many� of the Jews were killed in the onslaught, and many others were trampled to death in the tumult that followed (Antiquities 18.3.2).

Philo says:
“his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity� (Embassy to Gaius 302).�

John Dominic Crossan states:
“Pilate was an ordinary second-rate Roman governor with no regard for Jewish religious sensitivities and with brute force as his normal solution to even unarmed protesting or resisting crowds.�

"the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." – Josephus, Wars 44.5.2

It was not Jews who killed Jesus, and so they had no say about when he would be taken down from the cross. Moreover, the Romans who did crucify him had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities. If Jesus was allowed a proper burial then he was the exception, not the rule.

This is a minor quibble. Paul could very well have been speaking metaphorically of Joseph of Arimathea when he spoke of “the Jews.� Surely Justin Martyr was aware of the Gospel narratives inclusion of Joseph of Arimathea but he likewise says “they� rather than point to Joseph of Arimathea.

It seems if Luke was willing to alter Paul’s words to fit his own agenda Luke would have fixed this problem if Paul meant something that would have been understood as a contradiction to the Joseph of Arimathea narrative. Even if Paul wasn’t aware of the secondary detail of Joseph of Arimathea and wrongly thought it was literarly the “Jews� who buried Jesus it does nothing to undermine the empty tomb itself.

I think it's quite suspicious how this "Joseph of Arimathea" character pops out of nowhere and conveniently fulfills the "prophecy" in Isaiah 53 only to fall into obscurity and never be heard from again. The details about him change as the gospels develop making him out to be "more Christian" as time goes on. It's quite suspicious indeed.

Gameliel was certainly very highly regarded by Jews of the era holding a high position in the Sanhedrin. And yet we don’t know where his tomb is either.

I don't think you get it. Gamaliel was not resurrected by God. Jesus was, and according to the gospels, he left an empty tomb behind which his followers knew about. Tomb veneration was quite common and even increasing in Jesus' time so considering Resurrection was sort of a rare occurrence, you would expect the site to have been held in high esteem and venerated by the earliest Christians.

"There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets." - Raymond Brown

"During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored." - William Lane Craig

"Of the many Jewish shrines of the Middle East, some of which are undoubtedly of very great antiquity, the most famous were traditionally the supposed tombs of the prophet Ezekiel at el-Kifl and of Ezra the Scribe at Kurna, both in Babylonia (modern Iraq)." - Nicholas de Lange

Joachim Jeremias thought it "inconceivable" that the primitive community would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion.

"Was (the Resurrection) that not in itself reason enough to note and remember and cherish the site, regardless of whether it contained Jesus' remains or not?" - Alexander Wedderburn

Matthew 23:29
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous"

Luke 11:47
"Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed."

The lack of evidence for the veneration of Jesus’ tomb is good evidence that there was no such tomb. No doubt it would have been extremely important to early Christian preaching as it is in all four Gospels. It is reasonable to expect some early source mentioning the location and veneration of this one of a kind Holy place, however we have nothing for 300 years. How is this lack of mention best explained?

I think it's best explained by the hypothesis that Jesus received a shameful burial hence there was no such "empty tomb" and the gravesite was simply unknown to the earliest Christians.

In order to overturn this argument you would have to show that the lack of veneration of Jesus' grave is more probable on the assumption that the empty tomb story is historical rather than on the assumption that Jesus ultimately received a shameful burial and the site was simply unknown to the earliest followers.