The guards were reportedly bribed to lie (Matthew 28:11–15); what evidence outside the Bible confirms or refutes this story? Scriptural Context and Key Details Matthew 28:11–15 records that after the resurrection, “some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened” (Matthew 28:11). Upon hearing this, the Jewish leaders convened and “they gave the soldiers a large sum of money” (Matthew 28:12). They then instructed the guards to spread the story that Jesus’ disciples stole His body by night: “Tell the people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept.’” (Matthew 28:13). According to the passage, this explanation circulated widely among certain groups. Below, various historical, cultural, and textual considerations are surveyed to identify potential evidence beyond the biblical text that might confirm or refute the claim of a bribed guard. I. Historical Context of Roman Guards and Their Duties Roman soldiers assigned to guard a tomb or a high-profile location risked severe penalties for failing to carry out orders. In many instances documented in Roman military records, negligence could lead to strict disciplinary action, including execution. The high stakes make the story of a “sleeping guard” unusual. While there is no direct Roman legal record describing a guard bribery related to this specific event, the known Roman protocols imply the guards would have every incentive to maintain their post diligently rather than risk punishment. This suggests that if the tomb truly was found empty, an alternate explanation had to be provided quickly—hence the urgency for the story that the disciples stole the body. II. Jewish Records and Circulated Rumors 1. Talmudic References The classical Jewish writings (including the Talmud) do not explicitly document the bribery of guards or reference the details of Matthew 28:11–15. However, in some rabbinic traditions and later medieval writings (like the Toledot Yeshu, which postdates the New Testament era by centuries), there are versions of the story implying that the body of Jesus was either taken or that accounts of the resurrection were falsified. These narratives echo the idea that the disciples removed the body, aligning with the rumor mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel. 2. Josephus and the First-Century Context Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, does not comment on the bribery of the guards. He does mention Jesus as a recognized figure who was crucified and whose followers claimed He was alive (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3), but he provides no direct details of the guard situation. While silence on this detail does not serve as refutation, it also does not confirm the bribe. 3. Later Jewish Polemics In later centuries, certain Jewish polemics reference Christian claims of an empty tomb, often attributing them to deception on the part of the followers of Jesus. Though these writings are not contemporary with the New Testament, they do provide examples of how the “stolen body” rumor persisted outside Christian circles. III. Early Christian Apologetic Writings 1. Justin Martyr In his Dialogue with Trypho (mid-second century), Justin Martyr references Jewish arguments that the disciples stole the body, a clear echo of the rumor first recorded in Matthew. He counters these claims by emphasizing the willingness of apostles and other witnesses to suffer and die rather than recant their testimonies that they saw Jesus alive. 2. Tertullian, Origen, and Church Fathers Tertullian and Origen, writing in the late second and early third centuries, discuss challenges posed by non-Christian audiences regarding the resurrection. While they do not mention the guard-bribery story verbatim, they do address the widespread counter-claim that the body was taken. Their defense indicates that this line of argument had traveled far beyond Jerusalem, suggesting it had been a persistent rumor. 3. Indirect Confirmation When early Christian apologists rigorously defend against claims of theft, it implies that their opponents indeed circulated stories paralleling what Matthew recorded. Although this body-theft rumor does not, by itself, prove that the guards were bribed, it does confirm the existence of a noteworthy counter-narrative that started early and endured. IV. Archaeological and Cultural Corroboration 1. Political and Religious Tensions in Jerusalem Archaeological findings confirm the atmosphere of tension in first-century Judea under Roman occupation. The Jewish authorities, seeking to maintain stability, would have had strong social and political motives to quell any claim that might incite unrest or increase the influence of a new sect. While direct evidence of a bribe has not been excavated, the known political climate aligns with the expediency of creating an immediate alternative explanation. 2. Significance of the Empty Tomb Excavations around Jerusalem’s tombs reveal a variety of grave structures consistent with scriptural descriptions (rock-cut tombs, rolling stones). Although no inscription points specifically to the guard story, the practicality of stationing guards at a sealed tomb amid potential unrest shows that the situation is coherent with known historical contexts. V. Scholarly Analysis of the “Bribery” Claim 1. Criterion of Embarrassment Many historians consider the Gospel account of the disciples fleeing during Jesus’ arrest (Matthew 26:56) and the involvement of women as primary witnesses to the resurrection (Matthew 28:1–10) as details that would not be invented, given the culture’s view of credible testimony. The mention of the guards’ failure would have been similarly awkward if fabricated. Suggesting a bribe implicates the chief priests in dishonorable acts—another point unlikely to be invented by authors seeking local approval. 2. Harmonization Among Gospel Sources Matthew is the only Gospel to explicitly mention the bribery of the guards. However, the other Gospels uniformly attest to an empty tomb. If the body had been stolen, one might expect more robust Jewish or Roman documentation of such a theft or a public trial to punish the negligent soldiers. Instead, the historical record is silent on official litigation against the guards, coherent with Matthew’s account of a secret payoff. 3. External Silence vs. Preservation of Oral Traditions The absence of outside documentary evidence for the bribe does not disprove it. First-century events in occupied Judea, especially involving local religious controversies, were often not recorded in official Roman archives. Information commonly circulated via oral tradition, and outside historians might not have considered it significant enough to record. The rumor that the disciples stole the body is attested in multiple strands of early Christian and later Jewish polemical writings, pointing to broad circulation of this specific narrative. VI. Conclusion: Weight of the Evidence No extant non-Christian source explicitly details a bribery scheme involving the guards. Nevertheless, multiple lines of evidence suggest that the “stolen body” claim was indeed a common early counter-narrative, matching the Gospel of Matthew’s report that the guards were paid to spread this version of events. Jewish polemic sources and early Christian apologists both refer to such a claim, underscoring that it was a known argument meant to explain away the empty tomb. On balance: • The punishment for failing at guard duty under Roman authority was severe, making a “sleeping guard” story improbable if it were merely concocted. • The consistent rumor of theft, attested in Jewish and Christian writings, corroborates Matthew’s statement that such a fabricated story circulated. • While no specific external text confirms a bribe, early Christian sources’ extensive rebuttals to a theft rumor indirectly shore up Matthew’s description of how that rumor originated. Hence, outside evidence neither overtly confirms nor definitively refutes the bribery incident. Yet, given the cultural context and the persisting rumor that matches Matthew’s description, the historical background does not contradict the possibility that the guards were encouraged, by some monetary means, to spew a false explanation about the empty tomb. |
    |