Some critics of the Resurrection of Christ suggest that the Empty Tomb isn't historical because empty tombs were literary devices. That is, many ancient authors mention empty tombs as literary devices. Or, so argues this anonymous author on Reddit (s/he quotes from the book on the left to substantiate his/her claims: let's just call this author Reddit, for convenience - there are 24 authors, I think, mentioned in the quotation). If the empty tomb is a literary device, then it's not meant to be taken historically. (Also mentioned is the 'Post-Mortem Appearance' Motif, but I think what I say below applies to this sufficiently.)
