Hostile Witnesses for the Resurrection of Jesus
by Steve Hinrichs (Revised 1/11/98) http://home.comcast.net/~rrr33/home.html
1. Hostile Witnesses Implied from Friendly Witness
Matthew 28:11-15 presents the story of the guard protecting the tomb where according to the Gospels Jesus resurrected. If this guard story were true, it makes a strong case for the resurrection. Thus, naturally critical scholars claim the guard story was not true. However, the 15b passage presents a difficulty for the assertion that the guard story was not true.
Matthew 28:11-15 is listed below.
V.11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass. V.12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers, V.13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. V.14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. V.15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.
The combination of the guard and the empty tomb of a well known individual (Joseph of Arimethia) presents a problem for the critics. In order for whoever to remove Christ’s body they would have to get past the guard. Not a plausible feat for the disciples especially since most likely it was a Roman guard. When the guard came to the Chief Priest and told them what happened, these Chief Priests were in a real predicament. They could not claim the guard was not there because many other Jews probably knew (especially those in Jerusalem who would have seen the amazing events of the past week) and so would the Roman army which this guard most likely came from. They couldn’t say that the guard was overpowered because this was not realistic and these guards would not have any marks from a losing battle such as sword cuts. They could not say the guard left their post because they were waiting for at least the third day and there was a penalty of death for Roman soldiers leaving their post. The best alibi that they were left with is that the guards were asleep and during the time that the disciples stole the body. However, they had to say that the guards knew the disciples stole the body (would not be possible because they were sleeping) so the alibi has a contradiction, but it is the best alibi they had. There was also a penalty of death for Roman guard falling asleep on the job so as explained in verse 14, the Priest said that they would keep them out of trouble.
While the renewed disciples were supposedly running around proclaiming they had seen the risen Christ, the Chief priest must have been trying to explain away these folks with their alibi. Many people probably went to the empty tomb and the Priest would have to time and time again explain their alibi. They probably even posted a sign at the empty tomb explaining their alibi. Even though it is not recorded in the book of Acts, I suspect that Peter said, "Do you believe the contradictory testimony of the Chief Priest. How could and why would (Jesus taught the disciples to be honest and truthful) we meek disciples overpower a Roman guard and take Jesus’s body to propagate an intentional lie?"
Critics claim that the author of Matthew searched the Old Testament for prophecies and concocted up prophecy fulfillment and the story of the Roman guard at the empty tomb. Many conservative scholars (1) place both Matthew and Luke in the 60’s or earlier which means they were written less than 40 years after Jesus’s death while many eyewitnesses would still be alive. Most critical scholars place Matthew and Luke in the 70’s or 80’s. Eyewitnesses would still be alive at this point in time. The existence of eyewitnesses is important because they would be in a position to refute claims made about the events surrounding Jesus.
A difficulty for the legend hypothesis is that the Gospel of Matthew (28:15b) claims the contradictory alibi (disciples stole the body while guard was sleeping) which the Chief Priests gave was well known among the Jews (not just the Christian Church) even until the very time when he wrote his gospel. This would make sense if Matthew’s resurrection account was true. However, there is no good explanation for such a rumor being well know among the Jews if there was no resurrection for the Chief Priest to explain away. The hostile Chief Priest would have never allowed such a rumor to develop among the Jews. They would have easily snuff it out by just claiming that they never even sent out a guard which would be the case if there was no concern about Jesus resurrecting which would be true if Jesus was an ordinary man. The Gospel of Matthew even states that there was no guard there until the day following the crucifixion. If the Author of Matthew was making up the guard story he would have placed them there as soon as Jesus was in the tomb. In general, the Jews would have believed the Chief Priest rather than sources from this new controversial Early Christian Church which believed in ridiculous things like people physically resurrecting. This point is difficult to avoid because the Christian church grew right out of Jerusalem where the Jewish leaders could have controlled the development of rumors believed by the Jews. The Jews would have just gone down to the temple and asked the Chief Priest if they had made such an alibi and if they did not they would have obviously said no. Thus, it is quite unlikely that such a rumor of the Chief Priest would develop into an accepted legend amongst the Jews if the Chief Priest never made such an alibi.
If the Author of Matthew or the Early Christian Church concocted up this alibi story like most of the rest of his gospel as the critical scholars claim, then he most likely would not have chosen this version of the story and would not have reported that such a rumor was well known at the time of his writing his gospel. Once his gospel was passed out, the readers of his gospel would realize on this key issue the author was intentionally fabricating the story. This would bring into question the whole rest of his gospel and especially the important resurrection account. Thus, if the author was fabricating the story then the author would most likely not state that such an alibi of the Chief Priest was generally known. It is much more likely that the author would have chosen a story such as, the Chief Priest told the guard to keep quiet and say that they were never guarding the tomb. In addition, he would not claim that such a rumor was well known. This sort of story could not be easily refuted even if it were not true, because the Christian church could just say the Chief Priest are not admitting they sent out a guard.
Legendary allegations are usually of the type that is difficult to refute. For example, a losing political party often claims that the winners secretly manipulated the ballots. Since the alleged manipulation was supposedly done in secrete, the probability of there being evidence to check this claim is small. I am aware of many times when a losing political party has claimed that the winning party manipulated the ballots in secrete (analogous to the Gospel of Matthew reporting that the Chief Priest told the guard to keep quiet and say that they were never guarding the tomb). However, I do not ever remember the leadership of the winning party somehow unintentionally admitted to manipulated the ballots (analogous to Matthew’s actual report because the contradictory alibi would be an unintentional admission of guilt). This implies that if there was no real resurrection then the Priest never would have made such an alibi. Thus, most likely such a rumor would never develop; therefore, Matthew most likely would not have written that such a rumor if there was no resurrection. Thus, the fact that Matthew did write that such a rumor was wide spread supports the view that there was a real resurrection.
The Author of Matthew did write the story that could be easily refuted if it were not true. Even if the Gospel of Matthew was written in 80AD, after the destruction of Jerusalem, his mention that the alibi was well known at the time he was writing it could still be refuted and his story of the Roman guards would also be refuted because individual leaders of Judaism did survive the war against Vespian. This supports the view that the Chief Priest’s did actually mention this contradictory alibi which implies that the resurrection was real. It is interesting that compared to the alternative Chief Priest possible alibis, Matthew’s version not only is refutable (if it wasn’t true), but also inherently has specific explanatory power. It produces a straight forward specific explanation for why hostile witnesses would unintentionally testify for a claim which they definitely did not want to promote or confirm.
The above discussion indicates that if the resurrection of Jesus was only a legend than there is no good explanation for why the Gospel of Matthew included 28:15b in his gospel because it is unlikely that such a rumor could have developed among the Jews. I believe the best explanation for 28:15b that fits the legend hypothesis is that the Author of Matthew knew that the release of such a statement in his Gospel would initially have a detrimental effect on his credibility with the Jews, but eventually many years later when the Jews hopefully would have forgotten that no such rumor was prevalent then finally 28:15b would have a positive effect on convincing the Jews. This is speculation about Matthew’s psychology and motivation and even the critic’s agree that the Author of Matthew intended to show the present not just the future Jews the evidence supporting Jesus as God and Messiah. If the resurrection was a legend then the Author of Matthew would have chosen the safe alternative that that the Chief Priest told the guard to keep quiet and just say that they were never guarding the tomb. However, the Author of Matthew did not; thus, it appears that the most hostile witnesses, the Chief Priest, turned out to be a witness for the risen Christ.
2. Neutral Witness
The above discussion implies hostile witnesses from a friendly account, the Gospel of Matthew gospel. There is a neutral witness to Jesus from the most important historian for the Jews at the time of Jesus, Josephus (born AD 37). Josephus was a Jew and not a Christian so was not a friendly witness. In Ref. 7, he writes in the following "hotly" contested passage,
"about this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accepted the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up his affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
Because some of this passage contains strong Christians statements such as the resurrection, critical scholars assert that the complete passage was inserted in by the Christian Church which did control much of the Josephus documents after the 2nd century. This is based upon the obvious point that such strong Christian remarks are not expected from someone who was not a believer. Also, Origen, a Christian leader from the 3rd century, writes that Josephus did not believe. Since Origen was familiar with Josephus’s writings, this implies that at least the underlined portion did not exist in the Josephus’s text in the 3rd century. However, Yamauchi (6) points out that some of the features of this passage are of Josephus style and there is evidence that the non-underlined portion was part of the original text. In addition, Josephus mentions Jesus elsewhere in Ref. 7 in an incidental way which most critical scholars do not reject. Thus, many critical scholars such as Crossan concede that the nonundelined portion was most likely authentic. In addition, Jesus and the Early Christian church is also mentioned by other important historians at this time (6).
There is no present physical evidence available for refuting or confirming the reality of the resurrection. Thus, one is reliant upon the past testimony of humans; thus, one must deal with the issue of what inspired the people surrounding the resurrection story. Determining a meaningful rationale for humans involves understanding what truly inspires them. Thus, it is seems to me natural and appropriate that a belief in the resurrection comes down to a determination of what inspired the individuals involved in disseminating the resurrection account. I hope that my article provides insight into what truly inspired the human testimonies surrounding the resurrection story.
The reader should be aware that this article presents just a limited discussion of the arguments for (3,5,6&8,10) and against (2) the resurrection. Also, contrary to the critics claim that the resurrection accounts are contradictory, these accounts can be shown in a reasonable manner to be consistent and compliment each other in a remarkable way (9).
References
Return to Steve Hinrichs home page