The Guards on the Tomb

 Many Christians cite the guards on the tomb as good evidence for the resurrection, claiming that they are pretty much a historical fact. In contrast, I hold that the guards were made up. How would this have played out?

Jesus was real, and was know to be real to the Jews (i.e., the non-Christian Jews) of the time that Matthew was written. The story of the Empty Tomb was already circulating by then (whether true or not), as Mark had already been written, and so the Jews (some at least) also knew that the Christians were claiming an Empty Tomb as part of their apologetic. As a reaction to the claims of an empty tomb, some Jews were saying that the disciples had stolen the body. So far, I do not think any of this is particularly contentious.

In this environment, the author of Matthew wrote his gospel. This would have been a community effort. Probably one person did the writing, but the book represented the collective view of the community, and that community invented the guards on the tomb as a counter to the Jewish claims, and more specifically a way to counter doubt within their own ranks.

The point here is this is not an exchange like two people arguing on the internet, with one person claiming, the other counter-claiming, back and forth. These are ideas that are appearing in a community and evolving and getting stronger, before going into the wild, as it were. The earthquake and dead saints getting out of their tombs and wandering around Jerusalem are presumably similar inventions; someone in the community made them up (or misheard or misunderstood something), and they circulated in the community for a while, gaining substance and credibility, before getting recorded in the written gospel.

The Gospel of Peter

It is significant that of the four gospels, only Matthew mentions the guards. Why did the other authors not mention this important fact (and it is important, look at how much effort Christian put into showing it is true)?

However, the Gospel of Peter does mention the guards, and some Christians take this as proof that it was part of the early account.

The problem with that claim is that we do not know what was originally in Peter, as we only have one manuscript from centuries later. We do know the original texts had material added to them, such as the ending of Mark and the last chapter of John, and, furthermore, the anti-Semitism in Peter argues that there were significant revisions made at a later date, after Christianity had significantly diverged from Judaism..

It therefore seems entirely possible that the guards in Peter were a later addition, and were based, if loosely, on the account in Matthew.

Indeed, the account in Peter is rather more comprehensive than that in Matthew. Given how Matthew used virtually all of Mark, it would be strange that the author chose to omit so many details from Peter. A more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that a later redactor added the guards to Peter, and did so to shore up the holes in Matthew's account.

Issues in Matthew's Account

If Matthew is to be believed, the guards and the priests knew Jesus was resurrected. Indeed, according to Peter they had an excellent view of the resurrection itself. They saw dead saints walking around, and experienced an earthquake, and yet this was not enough to convince them of Christianity.

Think about that. Christians want us to believe Jesus was resurrected based on some dubious second or third hand accounts written decades later, and yet the people who were they and saw it with their own eyes were not convinced!

Rather than becoming Christians, which apparently would earn them life eternal, the guards instead took bribes which was likely to earn them an early death! 

Furthermore, Matthew's account does not exclude the possibility of theft. If the gospel is to be believed, the disciples had all night to take away the body before the guard was placed on the tomb.

It is also worth noting that - according to the gospels - the disciples were not expecting Jesus to be resurrected; they were surprised when it happened. And yet the authorities acted on the basis that Jesus' resurrection was expected! If Matthew is to be believed, the authorities had a better understanding of Jesus than his own disciples did!

Why would Pilate want to put a guard on the tomb? If the gospel account is true, then Pilate had no beef with Jesus, so why agree to put a guard on the tomb?

It is also dubious the Pharisees would ask such a thing on the Sabbath - though I not sure exactly what the rules were.

If there really was a guard on the tomb, there would be no story of the disciples stealing the body. The very fact that this story was circulating proves there was no guard.

When the women go to the tomb, there is no worry about whether the guard would let them in.

The other gospels have no mention of the guard, but more than that, the other gospel accounts have the stone already rolled away. Matthew stands on it it, as it is obliged to say the stone rolls away as the women approach to maintain this story.