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
