How does Matthew 28:13 challenge the authenticity of the resurrection account? Canonical Text “‘You are to say, “His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.” ’ ” (Matthew 28:13) Immediate Context After the crucifixion, Jewish leaders requested a Roman guard “to secure the tomb until the third day” (Matthew 27:64). When the angel rolled the stone away and the guards “trembled and became like dead men” (28:4), they reported to the chief priests. The priests bribed them to circulate the theft story, promising protection if Pilate heard (28:11-15). Matthew closes: “This account has been circulated among the Jews to this very day” (28:15). Thus 28:13 preserves the earliest alternative explanation offered by Christianity’s opponents. Nature of the Objection Matthew 28:13 does not itself challenge the Resurrection; it records the challenge raised by the Sanhedrin. The verse is therefore primary data for evaluating the “stolen-body hypothesis,” the oldest non-Christian explanation. Any assessment of the Resurrection must weigh this rival claim. Historical Credibility of the Guard Narrative 1. Roman procedure required posted seals and penalties for breach (cf. Suetonius, Claudius 25). 2. Soldiers risked capital punishment for sleeping on duty (Acts 12:19). The priests’ promise to “appease” Pilate (28:14) shows fear of such penalties, underscoring authenticity. 3. If the guard were purely Christian invention, inventors would avoid implicating friendly disciples in a crime. The narrative carries enemy attestation, lending credibility. External Testimony to the Stolen-Body Rumor • Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108 (c. A.D. 155): “You have sent chosen men throughout the world proclaiming, ‘A godless and lawless heresy…’ saying that disciples stole Him.” • Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30 (c. A.D. 197), cites the same charge. • Toledot Yeshu (medieval compilation of earlier Jewish polemic) repeats the theft motif. The persistence of this explanation corroborates Matthew’s note “to this very day.” Logical and Behavioral Implausibility of the Theft Hypothesis 1. Psychological Cost – Stealing a body under Roman guard invites immediate execution; subsequent preaching invites further persecution (Acts 4–5). Behavioral data on cognitive dissonance indicates people rarely sustain life-threatening deception with no tangible payoff. 2. Martyrdom Evidence – Peter, James, and others faced death without recanting (1 Clement 5; Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1). Liars break under torture; eyewitness martyrs bolster sincerity. 3. Tomb Access – A large disk-shaped stone (1–2 tons) required leverage; doing so silently—while guards allegedly slept—defies practicality, especially without artificial light. Legal Evidentiary Analysis Ancient jurisprudence valued multiple independent witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). The Resurrection offers: • Women discovering the empty tomb (Matthew 28:1–8) – embarrassing testimony (women not considered reliable in first-century courts) strengthens authenticity. • Separate appearances to Peter, the Twelve, and “more than five hundred brethren at once” (1 Corinthians 15:5-6). • Hostile-to-convert witness: Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9). Cumulative eyewitness data outweighs a single uncorroborated rumor. Explanatory Scope vs. Explanatory Power Stolen-body theory explains absence of Jesus’ corpse but not: • Post-mortem sightings. • Transformation of fearful disciples into bold proclaimers. • Rapid emergence of Sunday worship (Acts 20:7). Resurrection explains all. Embarrassing Detail Principle By recording a rumor that casts apostles as grave robbers, Matthew applies the criterion of embarrassment—historians note authors rarely invent self-damaging material. Inclusion indicates honest reportage, not propaganda. Counter-Arguments from Early Creeds and Eyewitnesses The pre-Pauline creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-7) dates within five years of the event. Hostile critics concede its antiquity. This creed affirms burial, resurrection, and appearances—events that the theft hypothesis cannot negate. Archaeological and Cultural Corroboration • 1961 Caesarea inscription confirming Pontius Pilate’s prefecture validates the political backdrop. • Caiaphas’ ossuary (1990 Jerusalem find) corroborates high-priestly involvement described in the Gospels. • First-century rolling-stone tombs around Jerusalem (e.g., Garden Tomb, Talpiot estate) match the architectural assumptions of the narrative. Theological Coherence The Old Testament anticipated a triumphant but suffering Messiah (Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53). Jesus’ resurrection fulfills these prophecies, aligning with the unified storyline of Scripture. Matthew 28:13 reveals human opposition yet highlights divine vindication. Pastoral and Evangelistic Application Believers can expect counter-narratives. Matthew models transparency: rather than suppress objections, he records and refutes them. Modern proclamation follows suit—present the evidence, then invite response: “Come and see the place where He lay” (Matthew 28:6). Summary Matthew 28:13 preserves the earliest alternative explanation for the empty tomb. Far from undermining authenticity, its inclusion: • Demonstrates honest historiography. • Provides enemy corroboration of an empty tomb. • Highlights the poverty of the theft hypothesis when weighed against eyewitness testimony, behavioral data, and prophetic fulfillment. Therefore the verse ultimately strengthens, not weakens, confidence that “God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32). |
    |