brightlights

Matthew 28:11-15
While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

The Gospel of Matthew is dated to have been written anywhere from 60-100 ad, so anywhere from about 30-70 years after Christ's death. If we read this passage honestly, we can probably assume that the sentence in bold above is true -- that there was a circulated story concerning Jesus' disciples stealing his body. If this was not really a common theory at the time of Matthew's writing, then there wouldn't be any reason to include this in his gospel.

What, though, are the implications, if any, of the existence of this passage? Is this indicative of, assuming that Christ existed and was killed on a cross, a missing body? That is to say, if the story of Jesus' disciples stealing his body really was something that circulated around (let's be conservative for a moment) 60 ad, then could this imply that after Jesus died his body actually turned up missing?

Amaleq13

Missing or unidentifiable after rotting for over a month before, according to Acts, the Disciples went public with claims of a resurrection.

Charles Wilson

If you've not read any of my material (Jesus vs. Archelaus, now on page 3 and fading fast), the following may seem strange.

Matthew tends to want to hide meanings rather than explain. I feel he is intentionally confusing the issues but...whatever.

Whenever this was written, it is a l-o-n-g look back at what has occurred. There is one phrase in this that indicates (to me) that something original was in front of Matthew here.
"...some of the guards went into the city..."

I believe that this was literally true. After the founding event (It's NOT the crucifixion but let me write as if it was the event.), some of the people/Priests escaped. The boulder is in front of Lazarus'/Jesus' tomb and this is a statement that "No one shall speak of this event - EVER!". Well, the boulder was rolled away for a few short moments. Then it was rolled back, for about 2000 years now and counting.

The reference to the guards going to the Priests "in the city" is to the Hasmonaean Palace, which literally overlooked the Temple. This is consistent usage throughtout the gospels and it is an historical marker ( It explains the many "Be on watch..." passages.). It is the location of the Realm of Heaven.

"His disciples came during the night and stole him while we were asleep" is a blood libel in this whole affair. Technically, it is another washing of the hands but it actually refers to the very active role the Herodian Priests and Elders took in the "founding event" (You say the Crucifixion. I believe it was referring to the Temple Assault of Archelaus in 4 BCE.).

The "body" of Jesus, if that what it was, was taken into exile in Galilee. "The good Samaritan" is another story that elliptically marks what happened to those who escaped the founding event - those who were not killed. The Priests and Pharisees just walk on by because they have chosen the Roman way, not the Way of God. It is the Samaritan who helps the newly exiled.

Meanwhile, the story of the empty tomb is repeated as a message. "There was no slaughter. There were no deaths." This is the official party line.

Charles

Toto

It is only indicative of a story about a missing body and an empty tomb.

Doug Shaver

I don't see why.

And what exactly do you mean by reading "honestly"? Do you think there is something dishonest about skepticism?

fromdownunder

I find it interesting that soldiers sent to guard a tomb at the express order of Pilate would have been happy for it to get back to him that they had fallen asleep on the job.

I doubt that Pilate would have been impressed by this, and I doubt that the guards would have been alive for much longer. Pilate was not exactly the most compassionate man on the planet.

Norm

Joe Bloe

Exactly. The story is pretty bizarre and unbelievable as a report of an actual historical event. In a time when people were typically quite superstitious and liable to believe supernatural stories of gods intervening, what were the soldiers more likely to say (regardless of what actually happened): "A divine being came down and rolled away the stone!" or "We fell asleep on the job."? If they say the former, at least they have a chance of being believed, or at least given the benefit of a doubt, and let off the hook. If they admit to the latter, there's a 100% chance of being executed for falling asleep while on guard duty (the standard Roman punishment for that sort of thing).

It's far more likely that they would have made the divine interference claim to cover up falling asleep than to make the falling asleep claim to cover up the divine interference.

Spanky

None of the above. Just cause you write one sentence in a book that implies history does not mean it was history. Maybe some of the believers posed the question, in Mathews time, that what if the body was stolen. And the writer then felt the need to use the bully pulpit to nip that dissent in the bud. That could have happened. I know it says that this was circulated among the "jews" to this very day but this sentence is no more credible than the rest of the story. Again, the writer could have been using propaganda to further his/her agenda. Non of it is proof for the historicity of jesus, of the cruxifiction, buried body of one jesus, etc. It is just a sentence written by someone who was trying to sell a product. . .and that of imagination.

Vivisector

I think you're correct that there was such a story in circulation at the time and in the region in which GMt was composed. I also think the "Stolen Body" reaction was just one reaction to a particular set of claims (physical resurrection of Jesus's original body) made by one group (the "Matthew Community"). I'm not at all sure that physical resurrection (as opposed to a spiritual resurrection) was the only claim, or even the first claim to be circulated.

I'm not sure why the objection took the form of the stolen body argument. If the Christian claims and Jewish rebuttals are occurring decades after the fact and distant from Jerusalem (e.g., post-war Syria), then the skeptics might have been willing to concede, for the sake of argument, (a) Jesus's existence, (b) his crucifixion and (c) his entombment, preferring to focus their arguments against a physical resurrection. Then again, the skeptics might have had much better arguments, and the author of Mt might have elected to give voice only to the one he thought he had the best chance of answering. :huh:

V.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Brightlights,

In my new book the Evolution of Christs and Christianities, I demonstrate that the phrase "to this very day" is a "tell" of Bishop Eusebius. Whenever he forged/reworked a passage in an historical document, he seems to have practically always used this phrase. It was probably not a conscious thing that he did, but an unconscious tick or habit. I give a dozen examples of this in the book. However this is not included.

That the E.T. (Eusebean Tell) is found in this passage makes me suspect that it was added by Eusebius in the Fourth century to the text. I have previously suspected him of editing the last few chapters of the Book of Acts of the Apostles, but this is the first thing that makes me suspect that he also edited a canonical gospel.

I need to do more research on this when I find the time.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin