This is a short pericope, but it is an important one, thus whether it is historical is not an unimportant issue. If, as Wright points out, this story “is part of an apologia for the bodily resurrection of Jesus . . . an attempt to ward off any suggestion that the disciples had in fact stolen the body,”[1] determining its historicity is a worthy exercise.
First, let us deal with the objection that this passage is found only in Matthew. It does seem strange that no other Gospel writer mentions this – given that the disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body.[2] Deciding that a passage is fictional because it is single-tradition, however, is tenuous. For example, as Haberman shows, of the three times that the Gospel writers record that Jesus raised someone from the dead, only the account of Jarius’ daughter appears in more than one Gospel (Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56).[3] A skeptical scholar such as John Meier admits the raisings of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11) are probably historical.[4] Why not this passage?
An important point is made by Craig – “the evangelists often inexplicably omit what seem to be major incidents that must have been known to them (for example, Luke’s great omission of Mk. 6. 45 – 8. 26) so that it is dangerous to use omission as a test for historicity.”[5]
An independent witness would help us determine the pericope’s historicity. After all, among the important criteria of authenticity is multiple attestation. Does the Gospel of Peter fit that bill?[6] There are similarities between Peter and Matthew, but there are many and often incredible differences between the two. In Peter the elders go to Pilate (on Friday) and ask for the guard for three days, “Otherwise the people may assume he has been raised from the dead and then harm us” (v. 28). As mentioned above, the centurion Petronius and the soldiers are commanded to guard the tomb – where it was sealed with seven seals (v. 33). The next morning a crowd came from Jerusalem to see the sealed crypt (v. 34), but during the night, while soldiers stood guard, a great voice was heard from the sky, which opened and two men, very bright, descended and drew near to the tomb (vv. 35-36). Three men emerge from the tomb, two of them supporting the other, with a cross following behind them (v. 39). The heads of the two reached the sky, but the head of the one they were leading went up above the skies (v. 40). And they heard a voice, “Have you preached to those who are asleep” (v. 41)? The cross replies, “Yes” (v. 42).
Next in Peter is the guard telling Pilate what happened, the centurion proclaiming the one they saw as the Son of God and Pilate exclaiming, “I am clean of the blood of the Son of God” (vv. 43-46).
Finally, the soldiers are told to say nothing, “For it is better . . . for us to incur a great sin before God than to fall into the hands of the Jewish people and be stoned” (v. 48).
Frankly, this mid-second century document is not much help in determining the historicity of the Matthew passage. It appears dependent upon Matthew, but there are so many embellishments.[7] As Habermas concludes, “There’s a stark difference between sources that ‘make it’ into a historical slot and those that can be used to build the essentials of a historical case. Peter may possibly make the first prerequisite but is incapable of leaping the latter barrier.”[8]
The Gospel of Peter does not affect our assessment, one way or another, about the historicity of the Guards at the Tomb pericope.
One other point should be made about the passage’s origin. There’s much discussion about possible sources among scholars. Nolland, for example, writes, “At various points non-Matthean features do seem to point to a source, but Matthew seems likely to have significantly overwritten his source.”[9] Other commentators write similarly. There had to be a non-Matthean source. There is no doubt the Gospel writers used sources, Luke admits that in his prologue. He interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4)? Perhaps Matthew did the same thing. While he certainly was not there when the religious leaders went to Pilate to ask for guards at the tomb, the fact that he allowed it would hardly be a secret. Matthew could have spoken to those who would have first-hand knowledge of what the religious leaders had done. Maybe one of them (Nicodemus?) told him.
Ultimately, according to Wright, there are five reasons to conclude the passage is historical:
- It is implausible to suppose that the story would have been invented in the first place, let alone told and finally written down, unless there was already a rumour going around that the disciples had indeed stolen the body.
- A charge like this would never have arisen unless it was well known, or at least widely supposed, that there was an empty tomb and/or a missing body, requiring an explanation. This mitigates the idea that the empty tomb is a late legend, invented by the church (Matthew).
- The story presupposes that for the chief priests, Pharisees, and anyone else involved, the reported prediction that Jesus would rise again after three days must refer to something that happened to his corpse – no need for a guard if something just happens to his soul.
- The telling of this story indicates well enough that early Christians knew that the charge of stealing the body was one they were always likely to face. Thus, it was preferable to tell the story of how the accusation originated.
- This story shows that without question early Christians believed unquestionably in the resurrection of Jesus. There was no early Christianity without the resurrection (contra Bultmann who believed it was a late apologetic fiction).[10]
There are good reasons to conclude that the “Guards at the Tomb” passage in Matthew is fact, not fiction. That it is found only in Matthew is not an unsurmountable problem. Unique passages found in the Gospels are often characterized as historical by critical scholars. While the Gospel of Peter does not assist one to determine historicity, the summary by Wright is hard to ignore. Finally, there’s much discussion about a pre-Matthean source for the pericope, it seems just as possible that Matthew knew someone who knew someone who knew what happened. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best.
I agree with Wright’s conclusion that the pericope is an apologia for the resurrection of Jesus and especially against the charge that the disciples stole the body. Both the empty tomb and the charge of body-snatching had to be true and well known for the pericope to make any sense.
[1] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 638.
[2] An accusation Justin tells us in the middle of the second century the Jews were still claiming (Dial. 108).
[3] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024), 657.
[4] John Maier, M Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (New York: Doubleday), 2:970.
[5] William Lane Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-guard-at-the-tomb. Accessed 27 October, 2025.
[6] Gospel of Peter is likely at least a mid-second century document. It is impossible to know the circumstances of its writing. Ehrman surmises that its author used oral traditions and documents he had heard or read. That is as good a guess as any (Bart Ehrman and Zelako Plese, London: Oxford University Press, 2011), 240. The summary below follows the verse numbering of Ehrman and Plese.
[7] Most scholars follow Zahn and Swete that the text is dependent upon the canonical Gospels (Wright, Resurrection, 593). Crossan dates the gospel to the mid-40s first century, but few follow him on that point (J.D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper and Row).
[8] Habermas, Evidences, 670. Wright concludes: “This remarkable and dramatic presentation contains several features which seem to me and many to others to mark it as a secondary production, dependent on the canonical sources and showing signs of later theological reflection” (Resurrection, 594).
[9] Nolland, Matthew, 1234.
[10] Wright, Resurrection, 638. “If Bultmann is right to say that the empty tomb was itself a late apologetic fiction, the rise of both stories of body-snatching and of counter stories to explain why such accusations were untrue is simply incredible” (639).
StevePattonOnline 