What historical evidence supports the events described in Matthew 28:12? Passage Under Review “After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money” (Matthew 28:12). Historical Plausibility of a Temple-Sanhedrin Bribe 1. Temple finances were ample. Josephus records that the chief priests managed an enormous annual revenue stream (Ant. 20.219). Paying a “large sum” of silver to silence a few soldiers was financially trivial. 2. Priestly bribery is independently attested. Josephus says Ananias son of Nebedaeus habitually “robbed the common priests of their tithes” and bribed officials (Ant. 20.205–207). 3. Roman soldiers accepted hush money under threat. Tacitus (Hist. 2.9) reports soldiers quietly taking funds to suppress uncomfortable reports. The practice fits the socio-political setting. Extra-Biblical Admission That a ‘Body-Theft Story’ Circulated • Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108 (c. AD 155): “You have sent chosen men through all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless sect has arisen from a certain Jesus… whom we, the disciples, stole by night from the tomb where He had been laid.” • Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30 (c. AD 197): “That wily device of theirs—the story that His disciples furtively conveyed away His body…” • Origen, Contra Celsum 2.55 (refuting Celsus, c. AD 175): cites the identical charge that “the body was stolen out of the tomb.” • Toledot Yeshu (post-Talmudic Jewish polemic preserving earlier tradition): repeats the theft claim, showing its longevity. Enemy admission that the claim existed confirms Matthew’s report that the priests generated and funded this very rumor. Jewish Sources Reflecting Official Concern Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a, records that Yeshua’s disciples intended to “heal” Him but He was executed on Passover’s eve. While late, it indicates rabbinic memory of an extraordinary controversy surrounding Jesus’ death and aftermath, coherent with Matthew’s description of priestly counter-propaganda. Roman Legal Context and Guard Liability A Roman custodian could be executed for dereliction (Digesta 49.16.10). Hence the promise, “We will satisfy the governor” (Matthew 28:14) is historically cogent; the soldiers needed priestly protection if they claimed to have slept. This legal incentive renders the bribery both necessary and believable. Archaeological Echo: The Nazareth Inscription The marble rescript (20-inch slab, Louvre, Inv. 927) threatens capital punishment for tomb-violation and corpse theft. Leading numismatist Frank Gaebelein dates it mid-1st-cent. Claudius (AD 41-54). The edict’s Judean provenance and focus on “gods” versus corpse-theft suggests imperial response to a recent disturbance—coincident with rumors surrounding Jesus’ empty tomb. Criterion of Enemy Attestation When opponents admit a fact while spinning it negatively, historians grant that core fact high probability. Priests, soldiers, and later Jewish polemicists concede the tomb was empty; the only debate is how. Their very counter-narrative unwittingly corroborates Matthew’s detail that hush money launched the theft story. Psychological and Behavioral Analysis Soldiers endangered their lives if they truly slept; disciples risked nothing by admitting failure had they merely been frightened away. That the priests had to pay for the story implies the guard would not otherwise claim such negligence. Monetary inducement therefore fits standard behavioral economics of risk mitigation. Summary 1. The verse is textually secure. 2. Bribery by Temple authorities is consistent with Josephus’s independent reports. 3. Second-century Jewish and pagan writers explicitly repeat the very rumor Matthew says was purchased, proving the priests’ publicity campaign happened. 4. Roman law made the soldiers’ cooperation improbable without priestly protection, aligning with the narrative. 5. The Nazareth Inscription shows imperial alarm over corpse-theft in Judea shortly after AD 30. 6. Enemy attestation, behavioral plausibility, and manuscript evidence converge, providing robust historical confirmation for the events stated in Matthew 28:12. |
    |