Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

You're not making a bad point, though here's why I disagree:
1. Matthew sets up the guard as a literary device to close the circle started by the Murder of the Innocents (which may or may not have happened). Just as Herod worked with the scribes and priests, so does Pilate.

I agree that the gospel authors used literary devices. AFAICT, however, that has no bearing on the historicity of the described events, though it could explain in part why the passages in question were not used by other gospel writers.

Matthew does have an anti-Jewish tone, so it does make sense.

No, Matthew does not have an "anti-Jewish" tone. Nearly every single person mentioned, positively or negatively, was a Jew.

2. The guard only exists to refute the Jewish polemic against the empty tomb (i.e. the disciples came and stole it away). Obviously, if the guard was even remotely competent, he would've seen the disciples taking the body out.

Poorly attested is not the same as ahistorical, that's true. Arguments from silence can be dangerous, but I think it's clear, at least in this case, that the guard is designed to refute the Jewish polemic. I find the fact it's not mentioned in Mark, John, or Luke rather troubling for its historicity.

Even if it is designed to refute the Jewish polemic, that doesn't diminish its historicity. Even assuming a late date, it's highly doubtful that the Jewish polemic was new. A late refutation that introduced substantially new information would be immediately pointed out as suspect and probably false. People in the ANE were not stupid.

And as others have pointed out, there are many stories in the gospels only reported by one writer. Each writer approached the topic with different emphases in mind. Events only singly attested are most likely less important in the whole grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make them any less historical.

[William]

It was a sign for the House of David. "Hear, o king" was not said, nor "Hear, Ahaz". The prophecy was translated by native speaking Hebrews into Koine Greek using the word παρθενος - virgin. The said pregnancy is stated to be a sign from God: that precludes a pregnancy resulting from swyving.

ISAIAH 7:
11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The


So it's like this:

ISAIAH: ask for a sign
AHAZ: no
ISAIAH: well, he's going to give you one anyways (vs 14)

again, nothing in that context points to 700 years down the road.

You have said it yourself - bethula could not be used with regard to someone who was pregnant.

right, and Isaiah didnt use that word.

Isaiah 8:1 begins a new topic, just as Isaiah 7:10 begins a new topic.

It takes an imagination to ignore the fact that Isaiah 8:1 begins a whole new topic - unrelated to the topic of Isaiah 7:10 - 25.

if you mean that chapter 7 was the topic of prophecy and chapter 8 was the topic of fulfillment, then I can agree. If you're saying that Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with child born in chapter 8, but instead is talking about Jesus being born 700 years later, which had nothing to do with Ahaz' enemies, then I do not agree.

[William]

Even if it is designed to refute the Jewish polemic, that doesn't diminish its historicity. Even assuming a late date, it's highly doubtful that the Jewish polemic was new. A late refutation that introduced substantially new information would be immediately pointed out as suspect and probably false. People in the ANE were not stupid.

I just dont get this reasoning.

why would it be immediately refuted? you state that as an absolute fact of natural law. some christians will say that there wasn't enough time for legend to form, and then here some of you seem to say the exact opposite, that any new information would be instantly shot down...

people back then werent stupid, but they were predisposed to superstitious beliefs. They also lacked much of the information that we have today as well as the means we have to investigate claims - and even now, with all of our advantages, people still believe weird stuff and still get things wrong all the time. Look at facebook and all the political nonsense people put up there.

but the "it's crazy to believe that people back then would have been fooled" is a manipulative way of phrasing it, especially when you'll then say, "coming back to life and flying away is the most reasonable conclusion." It's as if you only read history as it relates to christian apologetic, as normal history isn't taken the way you all take the NT claims.

Does the NT contain history? I believe it does. But like other historical sources we have, I believe it also contains myth, legend and errors - and it's not hard to pick out the bigger ones.

in the filming of the new mission impossible movie, it was said by the director (or someone involved in that movie) that Tom Cruz held his breath for 6 minutes. I dont believe it. They may all think he did. One guy might have looked at his watch wrong and said, "wow 6 minutes" and then others, who didnt pay attention to the time transpiring, just agree that Tom held his breath for 6 minutes because it was a long time and someone else seemed certain it was actually 6 minutes. They might even say, "I saw it," and they may have, but just didnt actually verify the actual amount of time.

whether tom cruz actually did or didnt isnt the point, the point is that mistakes in witness happen routinely. embellishments in stories happen often. "they would have caught it," may sound nice, but there are too many other examples of people being wrong, mistaken and tricked.

But you believe it. okay. It's believable to you.

It's not to me, for what i think are obvious reasons.

[Gary]

I agree that the gospel authors used literary devices. AFAICT, however, that has no bearing on the historicity of the described events, though it could explain in part why the passages in question were not used by other gospel writers.

No, Matthew does not have an "anti-Jewish" tone. Nearly every single person mentioned, positively or negatively, was a Jew.

Even if it is designed to refute the Jewish polemic, that doesn't diminish its historicity. Even assuming a late date, it's highly doubtful that the Jewish polemic was new. A late refutation that introduced substantially new information would be immediately pointed out as suspect and probably false. People in the ANE were not stupid.

And as others have pointed out, there are many stories in the gospels only reported by one writer. Each writer approached the topic with different emphases in mind. Events only singly attested are most likely less important in the whole grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make them any less historical.

"And as others have pointed out, there are many stories in the gospels only reported by one writer. Each writer approached the topic with different emphases in mind. Events only singly attested are most likely less important in the whole grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make them any less historical."

How do you know for sure that the reason that some stories are only mentioned by one author is due to each author having a different emphasis in mind? I believe that this is unprovable. It is nothing more than an assumption. It may be true, it may not. It also may be true that these stories were "invented", not for a malicious purpose but as a literary device, an allegory. Something that a first century reader would understand.

[William]

in the filming of the new mission impossible movie, it was said by the director (or someone involved in that movie) that Tom Cruz held his breath for 6 minutes. I dont believe it. They may all think he did. One guy might have looked at his watch wrong and said, "wow 6 minutes" and then others, who didnt pay attention to the time transpiring, just agree that Tom held his breath for 6 minutes because it was a long time and someone else seemed certain it was actually 6 minutes. They might even say, "I saw it," and they may have, but just didnt actually verify the actual amount of time.

whether tom cruz actually did or didnt isnt the point, the point is that mistakes in witness happen routinely. embellishments in stories happen often. "they would have caught it," may sound nice, but there are too many other examples of people being wrong, mistaken and tricked.

has anyone come out to refute it? not that I heard about. Maybe they arent refuting it because they didnt watch the time themselves, and have no hard proof. maybe they think the rumor helps get people to the movie, so they just let it run. maybe they don't care enough to say anything.

and maybe back in the day, they didnt want to shame their friends who went around spouting off erroneous stuff. or maybe they were so shamed by the crucifixion, they were happy that anything may take the focus off of that fact. just so many possibilities that dont require divine intervention or magic.

[Gary]

Below is Stein's list for the evidence for the Resurrection:

1. The tomb was found empty by a number of women (the women tradition is extremely early and the criterion of embarrassment suggests its truth)
2. The disciples had experiences of the risen Jesus, who appeared to all twelve of them, as well as to James and Paul.
3. The disciples were convinced Jesus had risen from the dead, in contrast to a widespread belief that resurrection would only happen at the end of history and what we know of other Jewish Messianic movements.
4. At least three of them died for their belief (1st century sources for James, Paul, and Peter).

Let's add Nick's position to this list:

5. A very shameful belief arose in an Honor Shame Society, and, the believers of this shameful, never-heard-of-before shameful claim were willing to endure intense persecution and even death in defense of this shameful belief.

So, Stein and Nick: Would you agree that there are plausible, alternative explanations for each of these individual pieces of evidence, and, that if there are alternative, plausible explanations for each piece of evidence listed, then it is reasonable to believe that there are plausible alternative explanations for the cumulative evidence?

If we can agree on this point, then I think that we have achieved an important achievement/milestone in our discussions: Skeptics are accepting the possibility of miracles, and Christians are accepting that plausible, alternative explanations can account for all the evidence. The only major disagreement remaining is our differing views on the probability of miracles.

[One Bad Pig]

I just dont get this reasoning.

why would it be immediately refuted? you state that as an absolute fact of natural law. some christians will say that there wasn't enough time for legend to form, and then here some of you seem to say the exact opposite, that any new information would be instantly shot down...

It beggars belief that there was not pretty much continual dialogue between believing and non-believing Jews from the time of Jesus' crucifixion and (alleged, for the sake of argument) resurrection. If, for some reason, someone introduced the idea of guards at the tomb after 50 years of dialogue, the other side is going to immediately counter with, "If that's true, why haven't you claimed it before?" or "grandpa Joe was there, and he never saw any guards."

[William]

It beggars belief that there was not pretty much continual dialogue between believing and non-believing Jews from the time of Jesus' crucifixion and (alleged, for the sake of argument) resurrection. If, for some reason, someone introduced the idea of guards at the tomb after 50 years of dialogue, the other side is going to immediately counter with, "If that's true, why haven't you claimed it before?" or "grandpa Joe was there, and he never saw any guards."

maybe. And maybe some did question.

What we do know is that some of the issues in early Christianity weren't solidified until much later, which is evidenced by early church father debating on jesus' degree of deity, which books were inspired or not, why Matthew and Luke's genealogies don't match, etc.

we also know that many of the jews at that time didn't believe.

and there could have been guards, I don't know or even really care. even if it happened just like Matthew says, there was time when the tomb was still unguarded. but f supernatural events are on the table as not only possible, but plausible and likely, then it seems like any natural explanation should be as well, while being no more far reaching than the supernatural claims.

[One Bad Pig]

even if it happened just like Matthew says, there was time when the tomb was still unguarded.

If I'm in charge of guarding the tomb to make sure no one takes the body, and I know that the tomb has been unguarded for a time, I'm going to check to see if the body is still there before starting guard duty.

[William]

If I'm in charge of guarding the tomb to make sure no one takes the body, and I know that the tomb has been unguarded for a time, I'm going to check to see if the body is still there before starting guard duty.

If I'm God, and I have knowledge of all things, and I know that some people wont buy this story I'm having several guys write down for me, I may take some extra measures to ensure this message is as believable to everyone as it can be - I guess what you or would do doesn't mean that everyone or everything would do the same...

if I'm out of line for trying to reason what an all powerful God might do, why wouldnt it be out of line to suggest that fallible people couldn't make mistakes?

and the guards may have done as you say. they may have even reported that the body was gone. They may have even been the ones who moved the body. all we know is that matthew says they were there, and arrived sometime after the body was said to have arrived. The story then goes that an angel knocked the guards out and rolled away the stone to reveal that the prior occupant was not there because he came back to life, and that sometime later he flew into heaven.

maybe it happened just like that, but for some reason, something about that story just doesn't seem to hold water to me, so I cant seem to resist thinking of other possibilities.

[Adrift]

It beggars belief that there was not pretty much continual dialogue between believing and non-believing Jews from the time of Jesus' crucifixion and (alleged, for the sake of argument) resurrection. If, for some reason, someone introduced the idea of guards at the tomb after 50 years of dialogue, the other side is going to immediately counter with, "If that's true, why haven't you claimed it before?" or "grandpa Joe was there, and he never saw any guards."

Yeah, both Raymond Brown and William L. Craig agree that the story serves some sort of apologetic purpose, but as Brown puts it,

Source: Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 by Raymond Brown

In my judgment the possibility or plausibility of this story must be discussed on the same basis as that of any other Gospel story. Other a priori principles have been invoked to deny historicity. For example, the observation that this is a late and popular story (found only in Matt, not in Mark), or that it has an apologetic bent, would cause many to dismiss it out of hand as a fabrication. I argued above that apologetics is not the primary thrust; and even if it were, why are apologetics and historicity incompatible?

© Copyright Original Source

And W.L. Craig makes the same point you did (the whole article is good, but here's the relevant snippet),

Source: The Guard at the Tomb by W.L. Craig, New Testament Studies 30

...perhaps the strongest consideration in favor of the historicity of the guard is the history of polemic presupposed in this story. The Jewish slander that the disciples stole the body was probably the reaction to the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen.{14} This Jewish allegation is also mentioned in Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108. To counter this charge the Christians would need only point out that the guard at the tomb would have prevented such a theft and that they were immobilized with fear when the angel appeared. At this stage of the controversy there is no need to mention the bribing of the guard. This arises only when the Jewish polemic answers that the guard had fallen asleep, thus allowing the disciples to steal the body. The sleeping of the guard could only have been a Jewish development, as it would serve no purpose to the Christian polemic. The Christian answer was that the Jews bribed the guard to say this, and this is where the controversy stood at Matthew's time of writing. But if this is a probable reconstruction of the history of the polemic, then it is very difficult to believe the guard is unhistorical.{15} In the first place it is unlikely that the Christians would invent a fiction like the guard, which everyone, especially their Jewish opponents, would realize never existed. Lies are the most feeble sort of apologetic there could be. Since the Jewish/ Christian controversy no doubt originated in Jerusalem, then it is hard to understand how Christians could have tried to refute their opponents' charge with a falsification which would have been plainly untrue, since there were no guards about who claimed to have been stationed at the tomb. But secondly, it is even more improbable that confronted with this palpable lie, the Jews would, instead of exposing and denouncing it as such, proceed to create another lie, even stupider, that the guard had fallen asleep while the disciples broke into the tomb and absconded with the body. If the existence of the guard were false, then the Jewish polemic would never have taken the course that it did. Rather the controversy would have stopped right there with the renunciation that any such guard had ever been set by the Jews. It would never have come to the point that the Christians had to invent a third lie, that the Jews had bribed the fictional guard. So although there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb, there are also weighty considerations in its favor. It seems best to leave it an open question. Ironically, the value of Matthew's story for the evidence for the resurrection has nothing to do with the guard at all or with his intention of refuting the allegation that the disciples had stolen the body. The conspiracy theory has been universally rejected on moral and psychological grounds, so that the guard story as such is really quite superfluous. Guard or no guard, no critic today believes that the disciples could have robbed the tomb and faked the resurrection. Rather the real value of Matthew's story is the incidental -- and for that reason all the more reliable -- information that Jewish polemic never denied that the tomb was empty, but instead tried to explain it away. Thus the early opponents of the Christians themselves bear witness to the fact of the empty tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

Craig Evans briefly explores the subject of the guard and the implausibility of tomb robbery in his commentary on Matthew,

Source: Matthew by Craig Evans

Protecting tombs was a serious matter in late antiquity, among Gentiles as well as Jews. There were stiff laws against tampering with tombs, including vandalism, unauthorized entry, theft, and removing or adding corpses without authorization. An inscription of uncertain provenance, perhaps originally erected in Galilee and probably dating to the early first century A.D., records Caesar's edict against grave robbery (SEG 8.13):

Ordinance of Caesar: It is my pleasure that graves and tombs - whoever has made them as a pious service for ancestors or children or members of their house - that these remain unmolested in perpetuity. But if any person lay information that another either has destroyed them, or has in any other way cast out the bodies which have been buried there, or with malicious deception has transferred them to other places, to the dishonor of those buried there, or has removed the headstones or other stones, in such a case I command that a trial be instituted, just as if they were concerned with the gods for the pious service of mortals. For beyond all else it shall be obligatory to honor those who have been buried. Let no one remove them for any reason. If not, however [i.e., if anyone does so], capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery I will to take place.

In all probability, Matthew's readers would have understood the story of the posting of the guard and the sealing of the stone that covered the entrance in light of the laws and values expressed in this inscription, whatever its precise date and provenance. Caesar's edict forbids the removal or transfer of bodies. If one violates the edict, the emperor wills "capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery."

Of course, Jewish readers would also be mindful of their own laws and customs that forbade full funeral rites for condemned criminals. These rules made it unlawful to remove the corpse from the dishonorable place of burial to a family crypt (cf. 1 Kings 13:21-22; Jer 22:19; Josephus, Ant. 5.44, "he was given the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned"; m. Sanh. 6:5, "And they did not bury [the executed criminal] in the burial grounds of his fathers, but two burial places were kept in readiness for the use of the court"). Mourning was not allowed (cf. Jer 22:18, "They shall not lament for him"; m. Sanh. 6.6, "they did not go into mourning; but they observe a private grief, for grief is only in the heart"; Semahot 2.7, but mourning is allowed if the condemned person had been judged only by the Roman government; cf. Semahot 2.11). Sanctions against mourning and reburial (i.e., in an ossuary) were lifted after one year, or when the flesh had decomposed (cf. m. Sanh. 6.6, "when the flesh had wasted away they gathered together the bones and buried them in their own place"; Semahot 2.13, where there is also reference to execution by crucifixion). Only then would Jesus' followers and family be permitted to rebury his bones in an ossuary (or bone box) and inter it in the family tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

[William]

If I'm God, and I have knowledge of all things, and I know that some people wont buy this story I'm having several guys write down for me, I may take some extra measures to ensure this message is as believable to everyone as it can be - I guess what you or would do doesn't mean that everyone or everything would do the same...

if I'm out of line for trying to reason what an all powerful God might do, why wouldnt it be out of line to suggest that fallible people couldn't make mistakes?

and the guards may have done as you say. they may have even reported that the body was gone. They may have even been the ones who moved the body. all we know is that matthew says they were there, and arrived sometime after the body was said to have arrived. The story then goes that an angel knocked the guards out and rolled away the stone to reveal that the prior occupant was not there because he came back to life, and that sometime later he flew into heaven.

maybe it happened just like that, but for some reason, something about that story just doesn't seem to hold water to me, so I cant seem to resist thinking of other possibilities.

and according to matthew, the guards were told to tell everyone that the body had been stolen. maybe it had been, and instead of saying "nuh-uh" matthew just says that they were paid to say that. which to me still makes much more rational sense than to take the story at face value.

[William]

Yeah, both Raymond Brown and William L. Craig agree that the story serves some sort of apologetic purpose, but as Brown puts it,

Source: Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 by Raymond Brown

In my judgment the possibility or plausibility of this story must be discussed on the same basis as that of any other Gospel story. Other a priori principles have been invoked to deny historicity. For example, the observation that this is a late and popular story (found only in Matt, not in Mark), or that it has an apologetic bent, would cause many to dismiss it out of hand as a fabrication. I argued above that apologetics is not the primary thrust; and even if it were, why are apologetics and historicity incompatible?

© Copyright Original Source

And W.L. Craig makes the same point you did (the whole article is good, but here's the relevant snippet),

Source: The Guard at the Tomb by W.L. Craig, New Testament Studies 30

...perhaps the strongest consideration in favor of the historicity of the guard is the history of polemic presupposed in this story. The Jewish slander that the disciples stole the body was probably the reaction to the Christian proclamation that Jesus was risen.{14} This Jewish allegation is also mentioned in Justin Dialogue with Trypho 108. To counter this charge the Christians would need only point out that the guard at the tomb would have prevented such a theft and that they were immobilized with fear when the angel appeared. At this stage of the controversy there is no need to mention the bribing of the guard. This arises only when the Jewish polemic answers that the guard had fallen asleep, thus allowing the disciples to steal the body. The sleeping of the guard could only have been a Jewish development, as it would serve no purpose to the Christian polemic. The Christian answer was that the Jews bribed the guard to say this, and this is where the controversy stood at Matthew's time of writing. But if this is a probable reconstruction of the history of the polemic, then it is very difficult to believe the guard is unhistorical.{15} In the first place it is unlikely that the Christians would invent a fiction like the guard, which everyone, especially their Jewish opponents, would realize never existed. Lies are the most feeble sort of apologetic there could be. Since the Jewish/ Christian controversy no doubt originated in Jerusalem, then it is hard to understand how Christians could have tried to refute their opponents' charge with a falsification which would have been plainly untrue, since there were no guards about who claimed to have been stationed at the tomb. But secondly, it is even more improbable that confronted with this palpable lie, the Jews would, instead of exposing and denouncing it as such, proceed to create another lie, even stupider, that the guard had fallen asleep while the disciples broke into the tomb and absconded with the body. If the existence of the guard were false, then the Jewish polemic would never have taken the course that it did. Rather the controversy would have stopped right there with the renunciation that any such guard had ever been set by the Jews. It would never have come to the point that the Christians had to invent a third lie, that the Jews had bribed the fictional guard. So although there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb, there are also weighty considerations in its favor. It seems best to leave it an open question. Ironically, the value of Matthew's story for the evidence for the resurrection has nothing to do with the guard at all or with his intention of refuting the allegation that the disciples had stolen the body. The conspiracy theory has been universally rejected on moral and psychological grounds, so that the guard story as such is really quite superfluous. Guard or no guard, no critic today believes that the disciples could have robbed the tomb and faked the resurrection. Rather the real value of Matthew's story is the incidental -- and for that reason all the more reliable -- information that Jewish polemic never denied that the tomb was empty, but instead tried to explain it away. Thus the early opponents of the Christians themselves bear witness to the fact of the empty tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

Craig Evans briefly explores the subject of the guard and the implausibility of tomb robbery in his commentary on Matthew,

Source: Matthew by Craig Evans

Protecting tombs was a serious matter in late antiquity, among Gentiles as well as Jews. There were stiff laws against tampering with tombs, including vandalism, unauthorized entry, theft, and removing or adding corpses without authorization. An inscription of uncertain provenance, perhaps originally erected in Galilee and probably dating to the early first century A.D., records Caesar's edict against grave robbery (SEG 8.13):

Ordinance of Caesar: It is my pleasure that graves and tombs - whoever has made them as a pious service for ancestors or children or members of their house - that these remain unmolested in perpetuity. But if any person lay information that another either has destroyed them, or has in any other way cast out the bodies which have been buried there, or with malicious deception has transferred them to other places, to the dishonor of those buried there, or has removed the headstones or other stones, in such a case I command that a trial be instituted, just as if they were concerned with the gods for the pious service of mortals. For beyond all else it shall be obligatory to honor those who have been buried. Let no one remove them for any reason. If not, however [i.e., if anyone does so], capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery I will to take place.

In all probability, Matthew's readers would have understood the story of the posting of the guard and the sealing of the stone that covered the entrance in light of the laws and values expressed in this inscription, whatever its precise date and provenance. Caesar's edict forbids the removal or transfer of bodies. If one violates the edict, the emperor wills "capital punishment on the charge of tomb robbery."

Of course, Jewish readers would also be mindful of their own laws and customs that forbade full funeral rites for condemned criminals. These rules made it unlawful to remove the corpse from the dishonorable place of burial to a family crypt (cf. 1 Kings 13:21-22; Jer 22:19; Josephus, Ant. 5.44, "he was given the dishonorable burial proper to the condemned"; m. Sanh. 6:5, "And they did not bury [the executed criminal] in the burial grounds of his fathers, but two burial places were kept in readiness for the use of the court"). Mourning was not allowed (cf. Jer 22:18, "They shall not lament for him"; m. Sanh. 6.6, "they did not go into mourning; but they observe a private grief, for grief is only in the heart"; Semahot 2.7, but mourning is allowed if the condemned person had been judged only by the Roman government; cf. Semahot 2.11). Sanctions against mourning and reburial (i.e., in an ossuary) were lifted after one year, or when the flesh had decomposed (cf. m. Sanh. 6.6, "when the flesh had wasted away they gathered together the bones and buried them in their own place"; Semahot 2.13, where there is also reference to execution by crucifixion). Only then would Jesus' followers and family be permitted to rebury his bones in an ossuary (or bone box) and inter it in the family tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

and people didnt break rules or laws back then. Certainly not jews - they were well known for following God's laws perfectly, as well as strictly adhering to their occupying oppressors without any dissent.

[psstein]

If Mary was at the cross, why didn't she ask for the body? Wouldn't custom go to the family first? Why would Mary NOT ask for the body and why would Pilate give the body to Arimathea before giving it to the mother?

Impossible to know. It's possible Mary wanted Jesus to have a proper burial and knew she couldn't provide one. It's likely Joseph of Arimathea had some clout with Pilate and might have gone in Mary's stead. Such a question requires knowledge history simply doesn't provide. Motivations are always very tricky. There is evidence the crucified, on the eve of certain holidays, were allowed to be taken down early and buried or treated to. Again, I find the story of Joseph of Arimathea extremely odd in the context of the four gospels. The tone becomes more anti-Jewish as they develop, and it seems at least strange to acknowledge a Jewish sympathizer of Jesus as late as John. It certainly does not fit the overall tone and theme of John or Matthew.

In historical Jesus research, there's a criterion called the criterion of dissimilarity, which posits if Jesus is saying something dissimilar from Second Temple Judaism or the early Church, he probably said it. The story of Joseph of Arimathea doesn't quite fit this category, but it's so dissimilar from the tones of the gospels it seems very likely.

[psstein]

I agree that the gospel authors used literary devices. AFAICT, however, that has no bearing on the historicity of the described events, though it could explain in part why the passages in question were not used by other gospel writers.

No, Matthew does not have an "anti-Jewish" tone. Nearly every single person mentioned, positively or negatively, was a Jew.

Even if it is designed to refute the Jewish polemic, that doesn't diminish its historicity. Even assuming a late date, it's highly doubtful that the Jewish polemic was new. A late refutation that introduced substantially new information would be immediately pointed out as suspect and probably false. People in the ANE were not stupid.

And as others have pointed out, there are many stories in the gospels only reported by one writer. Each writer approached the topic with different emphases in mind. Events only singly attested are most likely less important in the whole grand scheme of things, but that doesn't make them any less historical.

The guard at the tomb does make sense as an apologetic device. Of course, that doesn't eliminate its historicity. I simply think its lack of acknowledgement in Mark, Luke, and John speaks as to its nature. Of course it doesn't make it any less historical, but there are significant questions it raises. Matthew does have an anti-Jewish tone in parts. Matthew explicitly has Jesus' blood on the Jews' hands (Matthew 27:25), and Pilate washes his hands, a symbol of his innocence.