The Historicity of Matthew's Guard Narrative

 

The Gospel of Matthew narrates that, after Jesus's burial in Joseph's tomb, concerns are made regarding the security of Christ's body. The Sanhedrin fear that the disciples will steal the body of Jesus and fake His resurrection, and so request guards to be placed in front of the tomb. The guards are stationed in front of the sepulcher on Saturday night as Passover comes to a close. (Matt. 27:62-66) The Gospel later has the guards witness the angel roll the stone away, and report back to the Pharisees that the body has gone missing. The Jewish leaders then bribe the soldiers to keep quiet and say they fell asleep, spreading the story as a counter-apologetic to defend the notion that the disciples faked the resurrection (Matt. 28:11-15).

 

Objections to Historicity

Most non-Christian New Testament scholars reject this story as fictitious, a later-apologetic legend invented by Christians meant to combat the accusation of body theft. This is for several reasons: 1) the story is only mentioned in Matthew and not implied or described in any of the other Gospels, 2) the concern for Jesus's resurrection seems like an ex-eventu prophecy added by Christians, 3) there would be no witnesses to this event, and no way for the author to know of secret conversations held between the Pharisees and the soldiers, and 4) the story is implausible historically and serves better as an apologetic. Other objections pertaining the timing and semantics of the stationing of the guards are also brought up. [1]

The first objection is of little force, only surmounting to an argument from silence. The failure to mention the story in the other Gospels does nothing to establish or hamper the credibility of the story. Given that it is generally agreed that the Synoptic Gospels are interdependent, with John being a bit more removed, it is hard to see how a mention in another Gospel would establish an independent tradition anyway. Indeed, the 2nd century Gospel of Peter also describes a version of the guard story, but given that it is almost certainly dependent on Matthew, this is of little use.

The successive argument that claims the concern for Jesus's resurrection was a motive for the guards' placement and is anachronistic, is also not overly persuasive. While certainly many scholars do not accept that Jesus predicted His death and resurrection, a great many others have argued that the Passion predictions could be historical at their core. [2] Given Jesus's preaching of the imminent eschaton and tribulation, and His preaching of the future vindication of the righteous, it is not wholly unlikely that Jesus envisioned Himself as being martyred in the near future. There are after all frequent examples, even in the modern days, of holy men and spiritualists predicting when they will die. [3] Given that John the Baptist was martyred by Herod only a few years prior to Jesus's untimely death, Christ may have seen His own fate as forthcoming. As will be argued below, there are also precedents in Antiquity for religious movements being started under the belief that the leader of said movement was raised from the dead, sometimes by intentionally faking their death or stealing a body. The idea that the Jewish leaders could have anticipated a superstition of this nature and sought to prevent it, is not difficult to justify historically.

The third point, that the stationing of the guard could not be recounted from a known witness and is thus fictional [4], is not without unmerited assumption. The Gospels do frequently give narratives in which any potential source is of the question, though in other places inferences can be made. A well-known example is Joanna, a female follower of Jesus whose husband, Chuza, was a servant of King Herod (Lk. 8:1-3). Though she is a minor character, she may have been instrumental in passing down the traditions regarding Herod's court that were utilized in the Gospel traditions. It is possible that the conversations between Herod and his servants could have been relayed to the disciples via Joanna given her connections. While this is an inference, it is not an unwarranted one.

Where then did the guard stories originate if they are in fact historical? Matthew 28 mentions the women arriving at the tomb to find the guards nearly fainted, thus establishing the women as potential witnesses. [5] If Peter and John visited the tomb of Jesus to inspect it upon hearing that the body had gone missing (Lk. 24:12; Jn. 20:3-10), would they have not noticed a broken Roman seal? What of the private conversations between the soldiers and the Pharisees in Matthew 27:62-66 and 28:11-15? Here there is a subtle connection; Joseph of Arimathea, the owner of the tomb being guarded, is described as a rich disciple of Jesus (though a secret disciple, cf. Jn. 19:38) in Matthew 27:57. However Joseph was also a member of the Sanhedrin according to Mark 15:43 and Lk. 23:5, which is perfectly consistent with his description of being wealthy. Is it not likely that Joseph would have been present for such dialogues between the other members of the Sanhedrin and the soldiers, especially since the guards were to be placed in front of his own family tomb? If the other Gospels are correct that Joseph was in fact sympathetic to the Jesus movement, it is difficult to imagine how the informant Pharisee would have failed to pass along such a tradition.

The final argument, that the story is suspicious given its apologetic nature, is better than the previous objections but limps upon further examination. The guards' story does not serve well as an apologetic against the theft of the body, for the guards are not even stationed in front of the sepulcher until Saturday evening, meaning that the corpse was left unguarded for a full night. Nor do the guards witness the resurrection of Jesus, only seeing the angel rolling away the stone to reveal that the grave is already empty. Contrast this with the version presented in the Gospel of Peter, where the guards are immediately stationed on the night of burial and place seven seals (Matthew only mentions one seal) to secure the tomb. Likewise, an entire crowd gathers around to see the resurrection unfold in front of their eyes. The elaborate ordination and apologetic fervor of Peter's narrative may very well be due to the author feeling as if Matthew's description did not go far enough to refute the concern of theft. [6]

This rebuttal is not, unlike the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, air-tight. Matthew 27 is not overly clear as to the security of the tomb at the time of stationing. If the tomb was broken into on Friday night, would not the stone be thrown open and displaced rather than neatly fitted back into the front of the structure? Surely this could have not gone unnoticed. Would the soldiers have not checked to make sure the body was still in the grave Saturday night before sealing the tomb closed, knowing full well that the grave was unsupervised for a full night? If the guards were so incompetent as to fail to consider this, then this would not restore confidence in their ability to prevent theft. The same concern arises with their keenness on accepting bribes. Matthew's story thus presents the guards as either incompetent or dishonest or both. If the guard's stationing on Saturday is indicative of being non-apologetical, then the sheer stupidity of the legion will not assist the Christian in refuting the stolen-body hypothesis. But if the guards took precautions by checking the tomb beforehand and ensuring that the body was still there prior to the end of the Sabbath, then Matthew's narrative works as a Christian apologetic. Either way, much is left to the imagination.

This objection is not as strong as skeptics may argue, but it is also not as defeated as the Christian would like. It is likely enough that the narrative could have apologetic intentions and, while this does not definitively render the story ahistorical, it is an evidential bullet in the critic's arsenal.

There are, in my judgment, better objections that could be surmounted against the historicity of the guard narrative that are not often brought up. The excuse given by the Pharisees for the guards' failure to perform their duties, that they had fallen asleep, would not keep them out of trouble. A Roman soldier who fell asleep on duty would probably have been executed (Acts 16:27). It is unlikely that the soldiers would have gone along with such a statement, even with a bribe. The Devil's Advocate inquires that, if it is the case that the Christians were accused of body theft, as Matt. 28:15 states, why were they never questioned by the local authorities? Even in Acts 4 where Peter and John are arrested and placed in front of the council, they are only pressed on the healing of a beggar. There is no apparent concern for the recent disappearance of Jesus's body in a tomb that belonged to one of the council's own members. [7] Theft of corpses was not taken lightly in Antiquity, and I can only imagine that the members of the council would be less enthused with the idea that someone had broken into a tomb belonging to one of their members and stolen the bodies within it. Perhaps there was not enough evidence to convict the disciples of theft, though if Jesus's trial is anything to go by the Sanhedrin seemed to have no issue illegitimately prosecuting people they disliked in the absence of hard evidence (Mk. 14:56). [7b]

 

Historical Parallels to the Guard Narrative

Given that there are legitimate reasons to doubt the historicity of the guard story, we must now look at the positive arguments on the apologist's side. The semitisms and subversive grammar used in the story is likely not a Matthean invention, but comes from an earlier tradition that Matthew later incorporated. [8] After a detailed analysis of the phraseology in the guard story, Matti Kankaanniemi concludes that, [9]

 

“We have found that only a small part of the suggested Matthean characteristic words and expressions...can convincingly be demonstrated to indicate Matthean redaction. Thus we must conclude that the actual number of Matthean words and expressions in the [guard story] is remarkably lower than what is [normally] assumed...This forces us to reject the arguments for Matthean origin of the [guard story] as based on the number of Matthean words and expressions..."

 

While this argument, if it is accurate, would succeed in showing that the guard story is not constructed by Matthew out of whole cloth, it is still possible that the story is an early tradition that has little basis in history. 

There are no hard proofs for the historicity of the guard story, though there are many factors that enhance its plausibility as being based on a historical event. It is, for example, well-evidenced that Rome was concerned with grave robbing, as seen by the well-known Nazareth Inscription dated to around the time of Christ. Though there is much debate as to whether the inscription originated in Nazareth and if it can be connected with the early Christian movement, [10] the tablet does forbid the stealing of bodies and inflicts the death penalty on anyone caught with disturbing a grave. Body snatching was a capital offense, not merely a trivial misdemeanor.

The Nazareth Inscription

The concern with body-snatching could be due to an incident involving Tiberius that occurred in the early 1st century. Tacitus tells us that a slave named Clemens pretended to be his deceased master Agrippa by stealing his cremated ashes and growing out his hair to resemble him, [11]

 

"A servant of Postumus Agrippa, Clemens by name…stole the ashes of the deceased [his master Agrippa], sailed to Cosa, a promontory of Etruria, and there hid himself in obscure places till his hair and beard were long. In age and figure he was not unlike his master. Then through suitable emissaries who shared his secret, it was rumored that Agrippa was alive, first in whispered gossip, soon, as is usual with forbidden topics, in vague talk which found its way to the credulous ears of the most ignorant people or of restless and revolutionary schemers. "

 

The newly crowned Caesar Tiberius, being a relative of Agrippa, feared that Clemens's impersonation and the following that he gained from it could start an insurrection and threaten his power. Thus Tiberius ordered Clemens to be captured and eventually executed.

Incidents like this were more prevalent than one would expect. When Emperor Nero committed suicide in 68 AD, many rumored that he would return to try to claim Rome. For the next several decades, at least 3 men physically resembling in distant regions of the Roman Empire claimed to be the dead emperor and managed to gain a following before eventually being exposed as frauds. [12] Centuries earlier, a Thracian cult formed around the character Zalmoxis, who had dug an underground residence and lived there for three years in hiding. His devoted followers thought he had been killed. Zalmoxis returned to them on the fourth year and explained to them that he had risen from the dead. [13] More relevant is John the Baptist, a Jewish teacher contemporary with Jesus who was executed by Herod Agrippa after being seen as a political threat. Some in Herod's courts rumored that John may have in fact been revived from the grave (Mk. 6:14-16).

Emperor Tiberius and the governors under his rule were certainly familiar with many of these cults and the potential threats they may have posed. They may have very well been concerned with future movements of this kind cropping up, and surely the concern of a miracle-working Rabbi (especially one who predicted His own death, resurrection, and eventual rule as a king) who had a large following could be seen as a threat directly parallel to Clemens. It is not unlikely that Pilate, in hearing the concerns of the Sanhedrin that the Jesus movement might take a similar turn, would have sought to take precautions. Indeed, only a few years later, Pilate would take military action against a group of armed Samaritans led by an individual claiming to be the reincarnation of Moses. [14]

 

Adding on to this is that the execution and burial of Jesus occurred on Passover, a time in which tensions were exceptionally high and the potential of an insurrection was always present. The holiday celebrated the Jewish people's freedom from Egyptian slavery, and so many Jews were quite zealous in being reminded of their current subjugation to their Roman oppressors. It is in part for this reason that Passover had a very blood history of violent revolts and sieges over the years,

• 65 BC- Jerusalem is sieged by King Aretas during Passover. [15]
• 4 BC- Around the eve of Passover a large group of Jewish rebels and zealots get into a bloody fight with the soldiers of King Herod Archelaus, in order to protest the king's abuse of power. The riot gets so bad that Herod's entire army is sent in. Around 3,000 people were killed, and the rest of Passover was essentially cancelled [16]
•  50 AD- Roman soldiers gather around the temple on Passover in order to control the expected crowds and prevent uprisings. One soldier crudely exposes himself to the crowd of Jews, which they take not only as an insult to their people but to God Himself. The Jews hurl insults and threats to the Romans, which results in a violent encounter. Many people try to flee the chaos of the crowd but are trampled to death by the thousands trying to escape the incident.[17]
• 68 AD- Jewish rebels known as the Sicarii invade the city of En Gedi and massacre many people there on Passover.[18]

Precautions were taken on Passover to prevent such frequent revolts. Josephus, in describing actions being taken to secure Jerusalem in 50 AD, notes that this was the standard procedure carried out by previous governors, [19]

 

"When the feast called the Passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to serve unleavened bread, a great multitude gathered together for it from all parts. Cumanus was afraid lest an attempt at resolution by prompted by their presence, so he ordered one company of soldiers to take their weapons and stand guard in the porticoes of the Temple to repress any attempts of rebellion that might begin. Indeed, this was what previous procurators of Judaea had done at such festivals."

 

Pilate, in having just executed a popular teacher on Passover Eve, could have not failed to see how the fervor of the event could have potentially sparker would-be insurrectionists. It was already standard precedent to heighten security around Jerusalem for the holiday, and so it is not improbable to suggest that procurator was concerned with followers of Jesus attempting to protest his execution by stealing his corpse, venerating the grave, or starting a riot around Passover. If Roman guards could be stationed at the Temple to secure it for Passover, is it really a stretch to think that soldiers may be ordered to supervise a site which could be the subject of much veneration?

 

Indeed, veneration of tombs would probably have been a concern. It was common practice for residents of Israel to adorn the graves of prophets and martyrs as shrines. Jesus alludes to this practice in Matt. 23:29 and Lk. 11:47, and it is implied in Acts 2:29. The death of Jesus could not have failed to elicit widespread street gossip through the streets of Jerusalem, with everyone curious as to what had become of the Rabbi and His followers (cf. Lk. 24:18). Surely curious residents and passersby would ask around to see if the could visit the tomb outside the walls of the city. Could Rome have been concerned that a rowdy group of disgruntled followers may try to visit the grave, venerate the tomb, or steal the body? There is some indication that Rome was less than enthused about the idea of Christians venerating the grave of a seditious criminal; Christians allegedly venerated the site of Jesus's grave until the early second century, when Emperor Hadrian built a temple dedicated to the Roman god Jupiter atop the sepulcher in order to show his dominance over the cults of Christians that remained in Jerusalem following the war. This site later went on to become the Church of the Holy Sepulchre when Constantine constructed a Christian place of worship where the temple had been. 

 

In summary, the story of the guard as narrated in Matthew is both memorable and mysterious. While there are elements that raise issues with the event's historicity, so also are there hints of verisimilitude that contextually add plausibility to the narrative:

 

1. Roman law established harsh penalties for grave robbery.

2. Roman rulers, including both Pontius Pilate and Caesar Tiberius, had experience with dealing revolts and movements that arose from stolen bodies and impersonation. 

3. Passover was notoriously a time for high-security and many areas in Jerusalem were secured with soldiers to prevent potential uprisings. 

4. Tomb veneration of martyrs was common, and later on Rome would attempt to halt shrines being built on top of the site where Jesus was allegedly buried. 

 

The guard story cannot be demonstrated to be historically true, but nor can it be rendered as highly unlikely given the verisimilitude found in the Roman-Jewish context of the day. One's conviction as to the credibility of the narrative rests on their view of Matthew's general reliability.

 

References

[1] Michael Alter brings up objections regarding the hiring of Gentile soldiers in The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry. Xlibris, 2015, pg. 337-343, among other points. For Alter's exchange with apologist and philosopher Timothy McGrew, see http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/why-there-probably-wasnt-a-guard-at-jesus-tomb/. Others have argued that mimesis regarding parallels to Daniel 6 implies historicized fiction on Matthew's part, see Carrier, Richard C. "The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion's Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft." The Journal of Higher Criticism 8, no. 2 (2001): 304-318.
[2] For a defense of the historicity of the Passion predictions, see the following; Evans, Craig “Did Jesus Predict His Death and Resurrection?” in S. E. Porter, M. A. Hayes, and D. Tombs (eds.), Resurrection (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 1999: 82-97; Licona, Michael. "Did Jesus Predict his Death and Vindication/Resurrection?." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8, no. 1 (2010): 47-66; and Allison Jr, Dale C. The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021: 183-206.  
[3] The Hindu holy man Sathya Sai Baba proclaimed that he would die at the age of 96 (in actuality he passed away aged 84). Psychic Sylvia Brown died at the age of 77, off by 11 years regarding her prediction that she would die at age 88. Proclamations of when one will die, though usually incorrect, are not uncommon in religious circles.
[4] Richard Carrier argues that, "Matthew’s account involves reporting privileged conversations between priests and Pilate, and then secret ones between priests and guards that no Christian could have known about (27.62-65, 28.11-15). This is always a very suspicious sign of fiction." Quoted from Carrier, “Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006)”. The Secular Web. https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard-carrier-resurrection-2/#viii 
[5] However, if the women did know of the guards, it would have to be upon arrival to the tomb as it is unlikely that they would have attempted to visit the sepulcher to anoint the body had they known it was guarded.
[6] Craig, William Lane. "The Guard at the Tomb." New Testament Studies 30, no. 2  (1984): 273-81.
[7] Though the accusation of theft is not brought up in Acts, it is mentioned in later Christian sources such as Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 108) and Tertullian (De Spectaculis, Ch. 30),, as well as Jewish sources like the Toldet Yeshua.

[7b] Acts 4:16 and 4:21 may however provide clues at to why the apostles were not prosecuted of any crime when arrested; vs. 21 mentions that "they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened." It seems that Acts implies that the Sanhedrin feared pushback from the rowdy crowds, especially of the thousands of Christians that had allegedly converted hours before (Acts. 4:4). This is reminiscent of the crowd's reaction to James the Just's death at the hands of the High Priest Ananus around 30 years later, where Josephus in Ant. 20.9.1 mentions that the Jews were displeased with Ananus's unlawful decision and reported him to Albinus, who had him deposed and replaced.

[8] Arguments for an earlier tradition of the guard story based on non-Matthean are discussed in Broer, Ingo. Die Urgemeinde und das Grab Jesu: Eine Analyse der Grablegungsgeschichte im Neuen Testament. Vol. 31. Kösel-Verlag, 1972:69-78. Daives and Allison, in Matthew: Volume 3: 19-28 (Vol. 3). A&C Black. 1988, also argue on pg. 645 that the narrative "contain[s] features not typical of Matthew." 

[ 9] Kankaanniemi, Matti.  The Guards of the Tomb (Matt 27:62-66 and 28:11-15): Matthew's Apologetic Legend Revisited. Åbo Akademis Förlag. 2010: 94.
[10] Isotopic analysis has shown the Inscription to be carved from stone derived from the Island of Kos, see Harper, et al. "Establishing the Provenance of the Nazareth Inscription: Using Stable Isotopes to Resolve a Historic Controversy and Trace Ancient Marble Production." Journal of Archaeological Science 30 no. 4 (2020). This does not, however, necessarily mean that the inscription has no association with Israel, for Judea normally imported much of their stones to the authors' admittance, “any marble in Palestine must necessarily have been imported given the lack of local sources.”
[11] Tacitus, Annals, 2.39-41.
[12] Tacitus, Histories 1.78; 2.8; Suetonius, Nero 57
[13] Herodotus, Histories, 4.93-96.
[14] Josephus, Antiquities, 18. 85-89
[15] Josephus, Antiquities, 14.2.1. 21-28
[16]  Josephus, Antiquities. 17.9.3 213; Jewish War 2.1.3 10
[17] Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3 106; JewishWar 2.12.1 224
[18] Josephus, Jewish War 4.7.2 402
[19] Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3 106, Jewish War 2.12.1 224