
Here again, the problem with most of the individuals posting here, you take the
biblical account as though it were some sort of historical recounting in the
modern sense.  I would refer you to John Dominic Crossans Book _The Cross That
Spoke_ (Pub. Harper and Row, 1988).  The earliest texts which we have make no
reference to an empty tomb.  Nor is an empty tomb necessary for a claim of
resurrection. Modern Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have completely missed what
the point of resurrection is -- Here the work of George Nickelsburg's work 
_Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism_ (Publ
Cambridge, Havard Univ. Press, 1972) is most helpful.  Look At Rom 1:1-3.  Paul
here has no need of an empty tomb.  Additionally in 1 Cor 15, Here again there
is no mention of an empty tomb. He was raised (note the passive), he appeared,
no ascension either.

Resurrection could be accomplished without ever disturbing the bones in the
grave.  The whole idea of an empty tomb isn't broached in any of our texts
until well after the fall of Jerusalem.  By that time, the idea of coming up
with a body would have been ludicrious.  Moreover Mack has argued (convicingly,
I think) that the empty tomb story first appears in Mark (we have no texts
before this which mention the tomb). 
    


You are quite right here.  Even the Idea of a subjective mystical event as the
foundation of the resurrection narratives is currently becoming more untenable.
See B. Mack _A Myth of Innocence_.