The Guards at the Tomb

The Problem:  Mark’s omission of the stone’s removal and of the Roman guards.  Is he assuming an account of the empty tomb that is contradictory to Matthew’s account?

Matthew’s Account: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.  And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.  And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

Mark’s Account: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.  Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb  and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

These accounts are not, strictly speaking, contradictory.  To be strictly contradictory Mark would need to say something to the effect that “No angel moved the stone and no guards had been present.”  Nevertheless, there does seem to be a strong tension between the two accounts that calls for a harmonization, leading us to ask--why would Mark omit the account of the guards and miraculous removal of the stones if they did in fact happen? 

Before we suggest two possible harmonizations, we need to keep in mind that Matthew used Mark as a source and read the text above by Mark. Would Matthew intentionally discredit Mark’s account or rather see himself as merely adding an omitted element? 

Two possible harmonizations:

Defense 1

Adapted from Tim McGrew

The Perfect Past Defense:  The stone had been moved by an angel and the guards had been knocked out.  The event was not witnessed by the women--and thus we have a decent coherence with Mark’s text. 

Objection 1: Then how do we know about the event at all?  

Response 1: The guards.

Objection 2: But the text has its own explanation for how we know about the event; the women were witnesses to it.  This seems to be the most natural reading, too.  Why resort to the guards?

Response 2: Because, given the demands of the text, we must resort to the guards’ witness anyway.  For how do we know what was said between the guards and the Jewish leaders?  Further, this point might help explain the reason Mark omitted the account: perhaps the testimony of the guards had not come to light by the time that Mark had written his gospel--maybe only after some time did the guard’s testimony of the angel come available to Matthew.    

Defense 2

Adapted from a suggestion by S.G.F. Brandon (1967)

The Evangelistic/Apologetic Defense:  Mark was writing to a primarily Roman audience.  Mark intentionally presented an account that would be palatable to a Roman audience, and in view of this omitted the presence of the Roman guards.  

It’s hard enough to convince Romans that an enemy of the state that had been crucified should be followed, so Mark intentionally strives to include (a) pro-Roman quips and (b) exclude elements of the story that would put Rome in a negative light.  

In support of (a), see the centurion at the cross exclaim “Surely this is the Son of God!,” in Mark 15:39.  Also see Mark’s account of the trial of Jesus in which the Romans seem to bear very little responsibility.  

The argument here is that the omission of the Roman guards at the tomb constitutes an example of (b).  Mark is intentionally excluding this element of the story so as to make it more presentable to a pro-Roman audience.  

Objection 1: This account assumes the guards were Roman rather than Jewish guards.  

Response 1:  Matthew 28:14 is good evidence that the guards were Roman.

Note:

William Lane Craig helpfully points out that the Jewish-Christian polemic as preserved in Matthew 28 helps to establish the historicity of the guards: 

Christians: Jesus rose from the dead! See his empty tomb.

Jews: You stole the body, that's why his body is missing.

Christians:  We couldn’t have stolen his body, there were guards protecting the tomb.

Jews: The guards fell asleep and that's when you stole the body.

Christians: No, you bribed the guards to say that they fell asleep.

The procession of this polemic would be surprising if there were no guards.  Would not the Jewish response simply have been that the Christians were lying about there ever being guards? Why would they resort to the guards falling asleep if the guards did not in fact exist? The only plausible explanation for why the Jewish would claim that the guards had fallen asleep rather than deny that they existed is that the guards did in fact exist.