The People v.
The Claims of Matthew 28:6
The research shows that this passage raises real questions. The court will hear the strongest reasonable challenge first. Then the defense will answer it. No verdict will be handed to you.
← RETURN TO THE EVIDENCE ROOMWhat must be examined?
1The tomb does not contain Jesus's body.
2Jesus has been raised.
3The event happened as Jesus had said.
4The women are invited to inspect the place where Jesus had been lying.
5Matthew's wider story presents Jesus as bodily risen, appearing first to the women and later to the disciples.
6Matthew's story about the guards answers a claim that the disciples stole the body, but this verse itself does not mention guards or theft.
7The passive verb “has been raised” does not grammatically say that God is the agent, although Christians commonly infer this.
8The verse claims a resurrection, but an empty tomb alone could have more than one possible explanation.
The Prosecution
The strongest reasonable challenges are presented first. The purpose is to give the opposing case a fair hearing.
Historian of ancient sources
Matthew was probably written around 80–90 CE by an anonymous Greek-speaking author who used Mark. It is not signed eyewitness testimony and should not be counted as a completely independent report.
Textual and literary critic
Matthew adds guards, an earthquake, an angel coming down, and a bribery story. These additions clearly serve apologetic purposes and are not independently confirmed by the other canonical Gospels.
Historian of religion
Paul and the Gospels show that early Christians believed Jesus had appeared to them. They do not by themselves prove that a supernatural resurrection happened. The Gospel accounts differ about the witnesses, timing, location, and physical details.
Historian of miracles and historical method
Historical methods can study reports, settings, and ordinary explanations. Deciding whether God performed a unique miracle also requires philosophical and theological judgments about divine action.
The Defense
The defense now answers those challenges using the strongest support the available evidence reasonably allows.
Early-Christian-history scholar
The early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 shows that resurrection preaching existed well before Matthew. This argues against the idea that resurrection belief was invented much later.
Historian of early Christianity
The early Christian movement grew quickly and developed distinctive beliefs and practices. Supporters argue that a bodily resurrection explains these changes better than the idea that Jesus continued only as a spiritual presence.
Historian of the empty-tomb tradition
Matthew's account of guards and bribery may preserve an early dispute about a missing body rather than being completely invented by Matthew. If so, the dispute may go back to a time before the written Gospel.
Historical-critical scholar
A careful historical assessment can support some parts of the empty-tomb and appearance traditions without claiming mathematical certainty. Support for these parts is not limited to purely religious argument.
The Case Comes Together
Matthew 28:6 is a clear statement, but a statement is not the same as independent proof. Matthew was written decades after Jesus’s death. It probably used Mark and changed earlier material for theological and defensive purposes. Its special stories about the guards, earthquake, angel, and bribery are not confirmed by independent sources. The earliest surviving manuscripts show how the words were passed down, not whether the event happened. Paul shows that belief in the resurrection began early, but early belief and reported appearances do not prove a bodily miracle. Even if the tomb was empty, there could be more than one explanation. The setting is historically recognizable, but no surviving source from the time confirms the tomb, guards, supernatural signs, or resurrection. If the prosecution is right, Matthew is important evidence of what early Christians proclaimed. But the passage does not require belief in a unique act of God without further philosophical or theological judgment.
The case for Matthew 28:6 does not depend on a late story appearing from nowhere. Paul’s report, written around 56 CE, preserves an earlier tradition: Jesus died, was buried, was raised, and appeared to named people and groups. This places resurrection preaching well before Matthew and shows that the central claim was present from the beginning. Matthew may have developed earlier material, but development does not prove that he made it up. The guards and bribery story could preserve an earlier argument about a missing body. A careful historical judgment can support parts of both the empty-tomb tradition and the appearance tradition. The defense also argues that the early movement’s special beliefs and practices fit a bodily resurrection better than a merely spiritual continuation. If the defense is right, Matthew’s theological changes do not erase its historical value. The passage preserves and explains an early belief that Jesus was absent from the tomb because God had raised him.
The issue is not only whether Matthew used Mark or whether a later copy added “the Lord.” The issue is whether the central Christian announcement describes a real event or an interpretation of experiences, traditions, and a possibly empty tomb. If the prosecution is right, Matthew remains a powerful witness to early belief in the resurrection, but the passage cannot prove a miracle through historical evidence alone. If the defense is right, the verse records the decisive act on which Christian hope, worship, and identity were built. The reader must weigh both the strength of the early testimony and the limits of what the surviving evidence can prove.
The Evidence Is Yours.
Matthew 28:6 clearly announces the resurrection: the messenger says that Jesus is absent from the tomb because he has been raised. The main wording is well supported, although the KJV includes the later phrase “the Lord.” Historical study supports the early and central place of resurrection belief and the broad Roman-Judean setting. It also shows that Matthew was written decades after the event and shaped by Mark and by its own theological and apologetic goals. Scholars continue to disagree about whether divine resurrection, another historical explanation, or the limits of historical method best explain the empty tomb and appearances.
The witnesses have been heard.
The arguments have been made.
Faith on Trial does not hand you the verdict.