In the passages of Mark, Luke, and John it is clear that the stone was rolled away before the women arrived at the tomb . . .

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”

(Mark 16:1-3, ESV)

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

(Luke 24:1-3, ESV)

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

(John 20:1,ESV)

Matthew, however, tells the story a little differently,

[1] Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. [2] And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [3] His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. [4] And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. [5] But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. [6] He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.

(Matthew 28:1-6, ESV)

Some have taken Matthew’s account and have assumed that it describes the women having been present while the stone was rolled away. However, nowhere in Matthew’s account does it clearly say that the stone was closed when the women arrived at the tomb or that the women were present and saw the stone rolled away. It is likely the stone was rolled away at Jesus’ resurrection, which clearly had already happened before the women arrived since Jesus’ body was not there.

The Greek participle γάρ is often used when providing an explanation for something. Here it seems to be explaining the cause of the earthquake. “Descended” is also in the aorist participle, which allows it to be read as “had descended”. This allows verses 2-5 to be read as a parenthesized account (a common literary device at this time), put in to explain the earthquake. This is further emphasized by the fact that when Matthew picks up the story of the women again, he contrasts the angels effect on the soldiers and their fear to the angel’s effect on the women, “Do not be afraid”. He purposefully goes back to tell what happened before the women arrived at the tomb not only to explain the earthquake but also to provide this stark contrast between the effect of the angel on the guards and the women. It is a beautiful and effective literary device that wouldn’t work if he told the story in absolute chronological order.

A legitimate understanding of this passage, if you include the grammar and the literary devices Mathew uses, could be:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, [on the way] there was a great earthquake, ([This earthquake occurred] because an angel of the Lord had descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.) In contrast [to the guards, when the women arrived] the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.”

It is also important to note that it appears that Matthew got the story from at least two sources and is combining those accounts here. Verses 2-5 appear to be an account of one of the guards, who described the events of the stone being rolled away, for we see later Matthew giving an account of the guards meeting with the Jewish leaders. This account could be from the guard or one of the Jewish leaders, or someone present at the meeting who heard the guard’s account firsthand. Either way, this description is specific to that time when the guards were present, and the stone was rolled away and does not necessarily describe, for example, the position of the angels at the time of the women’s arrival. We cannot read the Gospel accounts as if no one ever moves and they were just a panorama and static. No, the events of the Gospel were dynamic, and they describe people being in different places within the account. And this is what you would expect to see if multiple witnesses were giving their account of an event, emphasizing the things that stood out specifically to them, providing further evidence that the Gospels are indeed based on eyewitness accounts.

• Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived? | Is Jesus Alive?
• Bible Contradiction? Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived? | The Domain for Truth (wordpress.com)

“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 21:22–23, ESV)

According to the law of Moses, if they did not “bury him the same day”, the land would have been defiled. They might not have cared about a man on a cross, but they cared about not defiling their land and would have obeyed this law. It was Roman policy to be respectful of local customs whenever it was reasonable, and this custom was most likely upheld. And the evidence does support that it was. There is evidence of crucified victims being buried in the area as well as writing to support this. Could he have been buried in a mass grave that was just covered up? This is also unlikely giving the care given to burial customs. Josephus wrote, “The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors (criminals) who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset”(Jewish Wars 4.5.2; cf. Ant. 4.265). “We must furnish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies” (Against Apion 2.211, cf. 2.204). The Temple Scroll among those writings found at Qumran calls for the burial of crucified victims (DSS: 11QT 64:7-13a, 4Q524 frag. 14, lines 2-4). This “care” on how bodies were buried makes it unlikely that they were buried in a mass grave. Could he have been buried in an unmarked grave? It doesn’t matter if there were eyewitnesses to his burial, they would have been able to come back to the spot. Added to this, there is archeological evidence that crucifixion victims were buried in tombs, even with the name written on the ossuary dating to 20s CE. Because of the evidence, we can confidently say that the idea of Jesus being placed in a tomb after his crucifixion is not outlandish but is instead expected.

As far as I know, there are no early accounts of this objection. If it were true, you would expect this to be a common argument against the resurrection from the very beginning, especially among the Jews. After all, it is a more plausible explanation than “the disciples stole the body”. It would be hard to believe that the disciples could have taken down or bribed well-trained Roman soldiers. And it is hard to believe any, let alone all, of these Roman soldiers would have fallen asleep considering the consequences for doing so. “The disciples stole the body” is a pretty poor excuse, especially if they had the option of saying that Jesus’ body was lost in a mass grave. It is way more believable that dogs and carrion came and ate the body, or that the body had been lost in a pile of bodies. The Jewish leaders were smarter than that and would have used this excuse if they could. Even if they were unaware of the events at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, as Christianity grew and became more of a problem for them, this would have been a reasonable objection for them to bring up, even if it was years after the event. If we can think of it, they would have especially having been more aware of what happened with the bodies after crucifixion. But you do not see this objection raised by people who were closer and more aware of the customs of the time. Instead, from what I can tell, this is a recent argument against the resurrection.

Based on the evidence, it is likely that Jesus was put in a tomb. Ironically, in a backhanded way, this claim has produced additional evidence for the empty tomb. If it were a viable objection, you would expect it to be raised early and held on to throughout history. But it is not. It is most likely that this objection was not raised, because it was well known that this was not the custom and that crucified victims were buried. We don’t see objections to his burial, only to his resurrection.

Information on evidence for burial after crucification below:

• Burial of Jesus: Supposed Biblical Error #15 – YouTube
• Matthew 28:11-15 — Matt Whitman and The Ten Minute Bible Hour (thetmbh.com)
  • Episode 0785, 0786
• Refutting the no tomb theory, the idea that Jesus was not burried in a private tomb but a mass grave. (doxa.ws)
• Is it likely that Jesus’ body was not buried? | Questions.org