Mark Goodacre approaches the details of the "empty tomb" from a historical perspective (*see below), that is, on the assumption that the account originated from historical reminiscence or tradition of some sort and was subsequently elaborated out of apologetic interests. I prefer to approach the text from a literary perspective since the literary sources of the Passion narrative in the Gospel of Mark are relatively evident while the provenance of the gospels -- knowledge of which is a sine qua non for any valid historical research into sources -- is unknown.
Mark's knowledge of Jerusalem tombs?
Goodacre's discussion centres on the physical layout of first-century Jerusalem tombs but I think that concern should be balanced against the apparent absence of detailed knowledge of the historical settings and geography and Temple dimensions in the earliest gospel in particular. Mark's confusions with geography are well-known, his account of the "cleansing of the Temple" presupposes a temple of the dimensions of the smaller "pagan" temples in the Greco-Roman world, and his portrayal of Pharisees and synagogues throughout Galilee at the time has also been questioned. Mark certainly imagined a tomb large enough for persons to enter but we cannot be sure he was thinking of a kokhim tomb.
Goodacre's observation that Matthew, Luke and John add to Mark's description of the tomb to stress its newness and lack of prior use is quite reasonable. This elaboration is coupled with apologetic elaborations of the resurrected body of Jesus itself. The emphasis is "not from some kind of theological adornment, as if an unsullied tomb is the appropriate home for Jesus' body".
Other corpses present the need for a "precise location"?
I am less persuaded by what Goodacre refers to as Mark's "drawing attention to ... precise locations" in the tomb "in order to make clear there was no confusion about which body was which".
One possibility Goodacre raises is that the bodies of the two bandits crucified with Jesus might also have been put to rest in the same tomb. Yet surely Mark does not allow for any such confusion in his narrative: after all, Jesus is said to have been prematurely dead so the reader has to imagine those two lingering on their crosses while Jesus' body alone is taken down for burial.
Another detail Goodacre raises is the young man's question: "Why are you looking for the living one among dead people?" Surely, however, that question can just as logically be asking the women why they had come to a cemetery to look for Jesus. Is there any reason to prefer that the reference is to looking for Jesus among other bodies in the tomb?
Goodacre also stresses the "preciseness" of the young man's directions to indicate where, exactly, Jesus' body had been placed. I myself, though, do not see precision in those "directions". If the young man was sitting on the right side then I would have thought that the reader's imagination would be to think of him pointing opposite to the left side when he says, "See where they laid him." Or maybe others think of the young man pointing to the bench on which he himself is sitting. There is nothing "precise" about the directions. Even less so is there any precision when the women at the moment of burial are said to "see where the body was laid". So they noted which tomb was the correct one? Again, precision is not a feature of the narrative.
Explaining Mark's Tomb through the same sources for the preceding scenarios of the Passion
Many commentators have noted the Scriptural sources for Mark's story of the death and burial of Jesus. There is no need to repeat the many allusions to Psalms 22, 31, 38, 69 and 109; Isaiah 13, 50, 53; Jeremiah 15; Lamentations 2; Amos 8; Genesis 29; Exodus 26 and Leviticus 21 and Deuteronomy 21 and Joshua 10; 2 Chronicles 16; Daniel 10; Judges 13-16; . . . (from Kee and Girard et al.)
In such a context it should not surprise anyone to learn that there is one likely allusion:
Isaiah 22:16 (LXX) (where the sepulchre is a metaphor for the temple) thou hast here hewn thyself a sepulchre, and madest thyself a sepulchre on high, and hast graven for thyself a dwelling in the rock
In Isaiah the "tomb hewn out of a rock" is a metaphor for the Temple. It is not a simple tomb or grave (taphos) but a "memorial tomb" or "monument" -- "hewn out" -- as in Isaiah 22:16 LXX. (Hanhart, The Open Tomb)
With this metaphor in mind (and recall the earlier cryptic associations of the temple with the body of Jesus - Mark 14:58 and 15:29, 38) when the young man is said to be seated on the right side it is not a stretch to treat the position as an indicator of the position of power and victory (Psalm 110:1) even in heaven. The temple, after all, depicts God's place in heaven. Goodacre rejects such associations because he does not consider the association of the tomb with the temple through the author's apparent reference to Isaiah 22:16.
The Temple metaphor further allows for people to enter and look around without any need to call upon Mark's knowledge of Jerusalem kokhim tombs despite his otherwise vague knowledge of the region. (Though other stories from Greco-Roman era also spoke of tombs in other parts of the world large enough for people to enter.)
-------------------------------------------------
* Goodacre begins with reference to the "difficulty" of "contemporary historical imagination" and subsequently speaks of "historical possibility", "what is ultimately unknowable to the historian" and "judgments about the historicity of the narratives".
---------------------------------------------------
