How does Matthew 28:12 challenge the authenticity of the resurrection account? Text Of Matthew 28:12 “When the chief priests had assembled with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money” Why This Verse Is Questioned Skeptics note that Matthew alone records a bribe. They argue an invented payoff story might deflect criticism that Jesus’ body was stolen, therefore casting doubt on the resurrection. Immediate Context: Matthew 28:11-15 The guards report the empty tomb. Religious leaders pay them to spread the theft explanation while promising protection from Pilate. Matthew closes by observing, “this account has been circulated among the Jews to this very day” (v. 15). The evangelist is answering a live first-century objection—hardly necessary if no objection existed. Criterion Of Embarrassment Inventors of a legend rarely highlight the enemy’s control of the narrative or admit disciples were initially absent from the tomb. A fabricated story would paint believers, not adversaries, as dominant. The inclusion of a bribery plot against Christians actually weighs in favor of authenticity. Independent Corroboration Of An Empty Tomb 1. Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20 assume the tomb’s vacancy; Mark’s pre-70 dating (attested by the absence of Jerusalem’s fall) supplies early attestation. 2. The Jerusalem factor: declaring an empty tomb in the city where Jesus was buried could be disproved instantly by producing a body. No sources—Jewish, Roman, or Christian—report a corpse on display. 3. Early hostile acknowledgement. Justin Martyr (Dialogue 108) and Tertullian (Apology 21) cite Jewish claim that disciples stole the body, echoing Matthew’s statement that the story persisted. Hostile agreement that the tomb was empty strengthens, not weakens, historicity. Motivational Analysis Of The Guards Roman soldiers faced capital punishment for sleeping while on watch (cf. Valerius Maximus 6.5.3). Accepting a bribe that required them to confess dereliction underscores desperation; it also implies that a guarded tomb really was found open. Behavioral science recognizes that eyewitnesses rarely incriminate themselves without a compelling, unavoidable event. Historical Plausibility Of A Temple Bribe Josephus (Ant. 20.9.1) records the priestly aristocracy’s readiness to bribe Romans. This background dovetails with Matthew’s narrative and situates the event within known power dynamics of AD 30–33. Archaeological And External Support • The Nazareth Inscription (first-century imperial edict forbidding tomb violation on penalty of death) shows Roman concern over grave tampering in the very timeframe the resurrection proclamation erupted. • Ossuary findings (e.g., “Yehohanan” crucifixion remains) verify Roman practice of burying the crucified in rock-hewn tombs, matching the Gospel setting. Early Creedal Witness 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dated by critical scholars to within five years of the crucifixion, lists burial, resurrection, and multiple appearances. This pre-Matthew tradition already assumes the tomb was empty; Matthew adds detail, not invention. Prophecy And Theological Coherence Psalm 16:10 and Isaiah 53:11 foretell a suffering servant who would not see decay. Matthew frames the guard-bribery episode as a futile human attempt to thwart divine prophecy, reinforcing Scripture’s unified storyline. Conclusion Rather than undermining authenticity, Matthew 28:12 supplies a historically plausible explanation for a well-attested hostile alternative. Multiple independent lines—textual stability, enemy admission, cultural context, archaeology, and early confession—converge to show that the bribe narrative reinforces the factual reality of an empty tomb and, by extension, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. |
    |