The January 17 edition of the "Unbelievable?" radio program featured a debate between two New Testament scholars, Michael Bird and James Crossley. Bird is a Christian, and Crossley is an agnostic. They debated two topics, whether Jesus viewed Himself as God and the resurrection.I would argue that the more today's Christians say the claim of a resurrected Christ would have been laughed off by 1st century people, the more likely the NT authors would have been to mention such zombie-resurrection, since ever little bit of evidence would thus be supremely important. The argument from silence is routinely allowed in American courts of law, an argument that I used against Dr. Timothy McGrew, see here (search for "omission").
Near the end of the program, Crossley brought up the common objection from Matthew 27:52-53 (start listening at the fourteenth minute of the second hour). Supposedly, the raising of the dead referred to in that passage is historically unlikely, since the other gospels don't mention it and Josephus doesn't mention it, for example.
Bird gave a poor response, referring to the passage as "tricky",That's not poor, numerous Christian scholars have admitted the problems in this zombie-resurrection story, the most prominent of which is probably Michael Licona, one of the most capable defenders of Jesus' resurrection currently on the market. The following quote is pertinent since Licona has a major agenda to prove Jesus' resurrection to be a real historical event, which means he likely started out believing the historicity of this zombie-resurrection story and was convinced by the evidence to reluctantly admit that Matthew had no trouble mixing fiction with historical truth when telling the story of Jesus' own resurrection:
To me, “special effects” is a more plausible understanding of how Matthew likely intended for his readers to interpret the saints raised at Jesus's death. (in answer to Bart Ehrman, see here)See his comment to the same effect in his "Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historigraphical Approach", here.
Two pages later Licona revealingly admits:
If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same (see here)So apparently, grouping Jesus' resurrection in with the fictional tales Matthew surrounded it with, is nowhere near "unreasonable". Licona's position is deemed by many conservative Christian scholars as consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy. See here.
William Lane Craig, an inerrantist and evangelical Christian scholar popular for making strong arguments for Jesus' resurrection, denies the historicity of this zombie-resurrection:
Dr. Miller’s interpretation of this passage strikes me as quite persuasive, and probably only a few conservative scholars would treat the story as historical.N.T. Wright, also a conservative Christian scholar, says:
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?Paul Copan, Ed., (Baker Academic, 1999) p. 164-165
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the
Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), p. 633 ff.
Perhaps we should keep in mind that because N.T. Wright is a popular Christian scholar, he has his reputation in mind as he refuses to do what normally people normally do, and scoff at such fairytale madness as fiction. By pretending the zombie resurrection story could possibly be historically literal, he avoids the otherwise inevitable inference that Matthew also used fiction to construct his story of Jesus' own resurrection.
In the Word Biblical Commentary, Evangelical D. A. Hagner quotes a lengthy bit from Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1976:
Engwer continues, saying Michael Bird was:
Yes, historians are often selective in what they do and don't mention. And it is precisely what they choose to mention and what they choose to exclude that allow us to make "reasonable" deductions about what they meant.
Perhaps this is where you suddenly discover how "unreasonable" it is for non-historians to insist on independent corroboration?
Ignatius says:
But there is a more direct reference in Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians, if one will allow that it is authentic:
Jerome in Letter 60 To Heliodorus is quoting the passage, but says "heavenly" Jerusalem (i.e., he might have meant that he took Matthew to be saying the risen saints appeared unto many in the "heavenly" Jerusalem, not the earthly Jerusalem):
I would further argue that we don't even know whether Matthew intended all that he said to be made known to non-Christians. There were, after all, "secret" teachings Jesus allegedly reserved only for his disciples.
As far as numerosity, most Christian scholars take Mark as earliest, and also think authentic Mark stops at 16:8, and also think that the later Synoptic authors borrowed extensively from Mark, hence, it is reasonable for the skeptic to conclude that the earliest form of the gospel never said a risen Christ actually appeared to anybody, justifying a further inference that the only reason the later gospels say he did, is because of legendary embellishment. That is, the later versions merely derive from and add to Mark's earlier account, they are not "independent". So Jesus rose from the dead because of 3 first-hand easily impeached witnesses and a shitload of endlessly questionable hearsay? FUCK YOU.
In the Word Biblical Commentary, Evangelical D. A. Hagner quotes a lengthy bit from Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1976:
This is a difficult and much discussed passage. A straightforward historical reading of these verses must face difficulties beyond those already mentioned. For example, there is the question of the nature of the bodies of the resurrected saints. Do these saints have what may be called new-order resurrection bodies, i.e., permanent bodies not subject to decay, or are they resuscitated bodies (like that of Lazarus) that later died again? (Could they have new-order resurrection bodies before Jesus, “the first-fruits of the dead” [1 Cor 15:20], did?) Related to this is the further question about what happened to these saints after they made their appearance in Jerusalem. (Were they raptured to heaven and, if so, when? Did they remain on the earth and, if so, where?) Furthermore, why is such a spectacular event “seen by many”—surely of great apologetic significance—referred to only here in the NT and not at all outside the NT? A further question concerns the basis on which this number of saints and these particular saints, and no others, were raised from the dead (was it arbitrary or do unknown criteria come into play?).
A surprising number of commentators sidestep the historical question altogether. Those who do raise it can be found to use terms such as “puzzling,” “strange,” “mysterious.” Stalwart commentators known for their conservatism are given to hesitance here: A. B. Bruce: “We seem here to be in the region of Christian legend” (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1897] 332); A. Plummer: “a tradition with a legendary element in it” (402); W.Grundmann: “mythic-legendary” (562). Even those disposed to accept the historicity of the passage can indicate a degree of discomfort: R. T. France: “its character as ‘sober history’ (i.e. what a cine-camera might have recorded) can only be, in the absence of corroborative evidence, a matter of faith, not of objective demonstration. It was, in any case, a unique occurrence and is not to be judged by the canons of ‘normal’ experience” (401); L. Morris: “Since there are no other records of these appearances, it appears to be impossible to say anything about them. But Matthew is surely giving expression to his conviction that Jesus is Lord over both the living and the dead” (725); C.Blomberg: “All kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about both events [the tearing of the temple curtain and the raising of the saints], but their significance clearly lies in the theology Matthew wishes to convey” (421).
The question of the historicity of the event described in the present passage remains problematic. We should not, of course, rule out a priori that Matthew may be recording historical events in these verses. If God raised Jesus from the dead, he surely can have raised a number of saints prior to the time of the general resurrection. The question here, however, is one of historical plausibility. It is not in principle that difficult for one whose view of reality permits it (i.e., who has a biblical view of reality) to believe in the historicity of this event. The problem is that the event makes little historical sense, whereas what does make sense is the theological point that is being made. The various difficulties mentioned above together with the obvious symbolic-apocalyptic character of the language (e.g., darkness, earthquake, opening of tombs, resurrection) raise the strong possibility that Matthew in these verses is making a theological point rather than simply relating history. This hardly means that the evangelist, or those before him with whom the tradition may have originated, is necessarily inventing all the exceptional events in his narrative (pace R. E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1137–40). More likely, here as in the birth narratives a historical core of events, such as the darkness and the earthquake, has given rise to a degree of elaboration in the passing on of the tradition. This elaboration extends the original events and in so doing draws out the theological significance of the death of Jesus. Theology and a historical core of events are by no means mutually exclusive. See Lange, who concludes: “We must learn the alphabet of the language in which the evangelists—and the Spirit which they promote—have tried to make the ‘kernel of the matter’ accessible to us” (54–55).
I side, therefore, with such recent commentators as Gundry, Senior (Passion of Jesus), Gnilka, Bruner, Harrington, D. R. A. Hare (Matthew, Interpretation [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993]), and R. E. Brown (Death of the Messiah) in concluding that the rising of the saints from the tombs in this passage is a piece of theology set forth as history. Sabourin is probably correct when he writes: “Matthew took for historical facts popular reports of what would have taken place at the time of Jesus. He used these stories to convey his own theological message” (919; so too R. E. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1138). It is obvious that by the inclusion of this material Matthew wanted to draw out the theological significance of the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. That significance is found in the establishing of the basis of the future resurrection of the saints. We may thus regard the passage as a piece of realized and historicized apocalyptic depending on OT motifs found in such passages as Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2; and especially Ezek 37:12–14 (though Monasterio, Riebl, Gnilka, and others probably speculate too much in concluding Matthew’s dependence on a Jewish apocalyptic text oriented to Ezek 37; contrast Maisch who opts for Matthean composition). Ezek 37:12–14 is apposite: “Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from from your graves, O my people … And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and bring you out of your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live … ” For the importance of Ezek 37:1–14 in the synagogue at Passover time, see Grassi (cf. Hill, IBS 7 [1985] 76–87).
R. E. Brown (Death of the Messiah) is probably correct when he concludes that Matthew wants to communicate that the death and resurrection of Jesus mark “the beginning of the last times” (so too Maisch; Senior, CBQ 38 [1976] 312–29; Hill, IBS 7 [1985] 76–87; pace Witherup, who, however, correctly sees that a salvation-historical turning point has been reached in Matthew’s narrative). Already in the events accompanying the death of Jesus Matthew finds the anticipation of the good news of the conquering of death itself and hence of the reality of resurrection for the people of God. The death of Jesus as well as the resurrection of Jesus is gospel, for that death is life-giving (Senior, CBQ 38 [1976] 312–29).
failing to make some good points he could have made, and concluding that the passage isn't referring to a historical event.Bird is a conservative evangelical Christian scholar who has offered rebuttal to Bart Ehrman. Bird's admissions are going to justify amateur skeptics to dismiss John's gospel and walk on, even such admissions so something less for professional skeptics who attack fundamentalism...like me.
He suggested that other scholars consider the passage difficult to explain as well, citing the example of N.T. Wright.How many conservative Christian scholar admissions to Matthew's mixing fiction and truth together in his resurrection narrative, does it take before the average skeptic can be "reasonable" to accept these admissions and conclude that Matthew's resurrection testimony is unworthy of serious historical merit? What will you do next? Scream that there is some type of conspiracy among conservative Christian scholars to lead the church into liberalism? LOL. That's YOUR problem.
In the past, I've discussed the use of this passage by other critics of Christianity, such as Richard Carrier, an atheist, and Nadir Ahmed, a Muslim. In debates on the resurrection, opponents of William Craig, such as Robert Miller and Hector Avalos, have repeatedly raised this issue in some form. Crossley refers to the objection as "classic". It shouldn't be a classic, though, and Christians shouldn't consider it as difficult as Bird does. See here.But beacuse the context is Jesus' own alleged "resurrection", we aren't violating any rules of historigraphy or hermeneutics by interpreting the rising of the saints as "resurrection". You may try to pontificate how "absurd" it would be for such risen Saints to never die again, but that's only absurd for a Christian apologist hell-bent on getting rid of as much stupid crap in the NT as he possibly an without compromising his own position. Skeptics see nothing particularly infeasible about an author like Matthew making wild assertions that lead to what modern people would consider "absurd".
Some points to keep in mind:
- The passage doesn't tell us whether resuscitation or resurrection is involved.
- As the gospel accounts of resuscitations and Jesus' resurrection illustrate, we don't have reason to expect a raised body to look significantly different from a body prior to death.You are blindly assuming the people Jesus raised from the dead were merely "resucitated" and died later. Read John 11, "resurrection" and the immorality that it allegedly implies is all over that story. OF course i could be wrong, after all, nobody ever said the historical details in the gospels were correctly supportive of all the theological beliefs Paul had. And when you say the people whom Jesus raised from the dead later died a second time, YOU are arguing from silence.
- Sometimes critics suggest that the raised individuals would have been naked, would have been wearing deteriorated clothing, would have been similar to zombies, etc.I wouldn't argue that.
But as I wrote in response to one such critic in my article linked above, "The concept that God would raise people from the dead, but leave them with no clothing or deteriorated clothing, is ridiculous. It’s consistent with the imagery somebody might get from a horror movie, but it’s absurd in a first-century Jewish context. People wouldn’t have been walking around nude,Then apparently you forgot about Isaiah's running around nude in Israel for a few years because he was such an attention-whore:
1 In the year that the commander came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him and he fought against Ashdod and captured it,Some commentators trifle that this was only partial nudity, but the immediate context (i.e., bare buttocks, v. 4) renders reasonable the "full nudity" interpretation. Indeed, when you see Egyptian reliefs of prisoners being marched around, they are usually naked.
2 at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet." And he did so, going naked and barefoot.
3 And the LORD said, "Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush,
4 so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
5 "Then they will be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and Egypt their boast.
6 "So the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, 'Behold, such is our hope, where we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria; and we, how shall we escape?'" (Isa. 20:1-6 NAU)
and assuming that bodies would be restored without restored clothing is dubious.If you are a modern day American trying desperately to reconcile everything in the bible with American notions of common sense, then yes.
Did Jesus have to travel nude for a while, looking for clothing, after His resurrection?A question obviously not directed to skeptics but only Christians.
Does God raise a person, but then leave him on his own to find some clothing to wear?Did Adam and Eve have clothing before they ate the forbidden fruit? God likes nudity even if you don't. Maybe I could give a sermon entitled "Paradise Restored: Heaven is a Nudist colony".
Did God also leave people buried in the ground or inside a sealed tomb, without any further assistance, after reviving them?A question obviously not directed to atheists or skeptics, but only to thsoe who think 'god' exists.
Did Jesus have to move the stone in front of His grave Himself?Is there anything about that theory that would contradict anything in the NT resurrection narratives?
...the gospel of Matthew was written in the context of first-century Israel. We know how other resuscitations and resurrections were viewed in that context.You also have an apostle Paul who does a rather mouthy bad job in 1st Corinthians 15 of saying "the body that dies is the same body that rises".
We know what they thought of public nudity.Which is precisely why Isaiah's nudity would have been a very effective attention-getter.
We know that angels who took on human form were clothed, for example.No, only bible-believing Christians "know" any such thing. Such tales could just as easily be fable.
The first-century Jewish context of Matthew's gospel doesn't lead us to view Matthew 27 in light of a modern horror movie.Mike Licona would agree.
What leads you to view it as something more like a horror movie is your desire to criticize the passage....Which can only mean that you don't give a fuck about Licona's scholarly justifications for viewing the passage as a zombie-resurrection. What else are you going to allege about Licona's motives?
You don't ignore the implications of a context just because the text doesn't spell out every implication.Agreed. But if the text doesn't spell out every implication, YOU stand a legitimate chance of losing a debate about what was implied, if the inference can be objectively sustained, or shown
What does a term like 'raised' mean in a first-century Jewish context? Does it imply a zombie who walks around in the nude with a partially decomposed body?You may as well pretend that 1st century Jewish views on woman were operative also for the original Christians.
If a historian refers to what Abraham Lincoln ate for dinner one day, then doesn't make any further references to meals until he's discussing a day in Lincoln's life twenty years later, do you assume that the historian thinks that no meals were eaten between those two dates?No, not if the historian excludes miracles from the accounts. But when you introduce miracles, then suddenly, a theory that somebody went without food for 25 years doesn't seem less plausible than a theory that they rose from the dead.
Or do you take into account factors such as what the historian would have known about the human need to eat more often, the fact that historians are often selective in what they do and don't mention, etc.?...Once again, what humans "need" to eat is only important to a historian who stays away from miracles. Otherwise, he can easily imply by silence that the character didn't eat for 25 years, since the believing audience would simply and automatically conclude "god did it".
Yes, historians are often selective in what they do and don't mention. And it is precisely what they choose to mention and what they choose to exclude that allow us to make "reasonable" deductions about what they meant.
Given that so many other Jewish and Christian documents imply that God provides such things [clothing] (angels in human form are clothed, the risen Jesus is clothed, etc.), and given other factors such as ancient views of public nudity, the idea that risen people would be left naked is less likely.I ultimately agree. I'm just showing the reasonableness of the skeptic, since your objections, supra, are obviously intended to be answered by Christians, not skeptics.
Why is clothing people who are without clothes, by no fault of their own, 'ridiculous'? I would say that your concept that God sends these people into first-century Israel in the nude is what's ridiculous."But God sent Isaiah nude into Israel for 3 years, see above.
- We aren't told how many people were raised or how many knew of the event.We are told "many" such bodies arose (Matthew 27:52), and its anybody's guess as to how exactly many. But even if it was merely 5, this would have been no less cause for startle and uproar than if 5 of your dead relatives came knocking on your door.
The references to "many" in these two verses don't tell us much, since different numbers can be associated with such a term in different contexts. The many of Matthew 7:13 surely is a far larger number than the many of Matthew 8:30, for example. Many in the context of the judgment of mankind would be a much larger number than many in the context of a herd of pigs. Matthew 27 is set in a local context, the general vicinity of Jerusalem, and involves an event that's unusual enough for smaller numbers to constitute "many".Except that they were rising from ground that was considered "the" cemetery (Golgatha), where we would naturally expect more than 100 bodies to be buried.
- The fact that the raised individuals appeared to many in Matthew 27:53 doesn't demonstrate that all of those many understood what they had seen at that time or later.Just like if I said I went roller-skating, that doesn't prove that I was implying that gravity continued holding me to earth the way it did before the skating.
- We aren't told whether any of the witnesses to the event were non-Christians and remained non-Christians afterward.Probably because the account is, as Licona says, fiction. The dramatic goal can be achieved without mentioning every detail.
- Historians accept many historical accounts that come from only one source.But that doesn't place the skeptic under any intellectual obligation to do the same. Historians naturally hate to lose ANY source that might possibly be historically valuable, that's why they don't just toss single accounts in the trash. But journalists usually insist on having independent corroboration before they go foward with a story, probably because more often than not, stories based on one single source have a greater tendency to prove inaccurate.
Perhaps this is where you suddenly discover how "unreasonable" it is for non-historians to insist on independent corroboration?
- The gospels refer to other individuals who were raised by Jesus. If the event of Matthew 27 is a resuscitation, then it's another manifestation of a miracle performed multiple times previously and reported by multiple sources. If the event is a resurrection, then it's not so similar to those previous events, but still has some similarity.Except that 2nd century Clement of Alexandria, in his Stomata, chapter VI, thought it "plain" that the risen bodies were 'translated to a better state':
If, then, He preached only to the Jews, who wanted the knowledge and faith of the Saviour, it is plain that, since God is no respecter of persons, the apostles also, as here, so there preached the Gospel to those of the heathen who were ready for conversion. And it is well said by the Shepherd, "They went down with them therefore into the water, and again ascended. But these descended alive, and again ascended alive. But those who had fallen asleep, descended dead, but ascended alive." Further the Gospel says, "that many bodies of those that slept arose,"--plainly as having been translated to a better state.Should we care what the early church fathers believed? Engwer continues:
- Matthew only mentions the event briefly, which undermines the critic's assumption that anybody who believed in the event would have thought so highly of it as to be sure to mention it in our extant literature.Supporting the skeptical conclusion that even somebody like Matthew recognizes the value of keeping fiction to a minimum. The fictional character of the zombie resurrection story in Matthew is very likely the reason other authors gave it no attention.
Matthew mentions it, as he mentions many other things, but he doesn't seem to have thought that it deserves as much attention as critics suggest.If you plan to lie in your testimony, best to make the lie as short as possible. Giving more and more dettails just enables the prosecutor to get lucky and find something he can positively disprove. Ambiguity is the word of the day for all professional liars, just ask any attorney.
- Some Christians writing shortly after the gospel of Matthew was composed (Clement of Rome, Polycarp, etc.) didn't comment on the event of Matthew 27, even when they were discussing the topic of resurrection.When you friend tells wild unlikely tales, you tend to avoid becoming involved.
We know that it was common for the Christians of that time to interpret the gospels in a highly historical manner (see, for example, here, here, and here), so it seems unlikely that they didn't comment upon this passage as a result of viewing it as non-historical.I don't see your point: the early fathers probably thought the zombie resurrection tale was straight history. But as yo probably know, the early church fathers provide interesting quips about this or that, but their credulity was high. And many of the surviving fathers were against gnostic forms of Christianity, requiring that they take as physical historical fact nearly everything in the gospels. One prominent exception was Origen. Papias and his talking grapes is probably another.
Apparently, these early Christians, writing shortly after the time when Matthew's gospel was composed, didn't think that mentioning the event of Matthew 27 was as important as some modern critics suggest.When you friend tells wild unlikely tales, you tend to avoid becoming involved.
- The claim that no other early Christian sources mention the event depends on the assumption that some passages referring to the raising of the dead don't have this event in mind. But there are some early passages that may refer to it (Ignatius, Letter To The Magnesians, 9; Quadratus, in Eusebius, Church History, 4:3). And both passages just cited include information not mentioned in Matthew's gospel, so neither seems to merely be repeating what he read in Matthew.You don't win a history debate with a "may" or a possibility. You have to turn that into some degree of probability. You haven't done that.
Ignatius says:
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death — whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master — how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead. Matthew 27:52This merely gets you in trouble, since he doesn't qualify how many such prophets, which makes it reasonable to interpret Ignatius as intending for ALL of the prophets, whom he thought waited for Jesus, were raised from the dead. You can thank Ignatius for expanding your "many" into about 20.
But there is a more direct reference in Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians, if one will allow that it is authentic:
He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. By those in heaven I mean such as are possessed of incorporeal natures; by those on earth, the Jews and Romans, and such persons as were present at that time when the Lord was crucified; and by those under the earth, the multitude that arose along with the Lord. For says the Scripture, “Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,” their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude; and rent asunder that means of separation which had existed from the beginning of the world, and cast down its partition-wall.Perhaps Engwer didn't give this more direct reference because it shows an early church father thinking that the zombie tale is saying those dead saints "arose along with" Jesus...which would make Jesus' resurrection a bit more susceptible to notice by other ancient authors. Or maybe Engwer would trifle that he thinks this "longer recension" is not authentically from Ignatius.
Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Jerome in Letter 60 To Heliodorus is quoting the passage, but says "heavenly" Jerusalem (i.e., he might have meant that he took Matthew to be saying the risen saints appeared unto many in the "heavenly" Jerusalem, not the earthly Jerusalem):
Even if Lazarus is seen in Abraham’s bosom and in a place of refreshment, still the lower regions cannot be compared with the kingdom of heaven. Before Christ’s coming Abraham is in the lower regions: after Christ’s coming the robber is in paradise. And therefore at His rising again “many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and were seen in the heavenly Jerusalem.”1813 Then was fulfilled the saying: “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.”1814 John the Baptist cries in the desert: “repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”1815 For “from the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.”1816 The flaming sword that keeps the way of paradise and the cherubim that are stationed at its doors1817 are alike quenched and unloosed by the blood of Christ.1818 It is not surprising that this should be promised us in the resurrection: for as many of us as living in the flesh do not live after the flesh,1819 have our citizenship in heaven,1820 and while we are still here on earth we are told that “the kingdom of heaven is within us.”1821 4. Moreover before the resurrection of Christ God was “known in Judah” only and “His name was great in Israel” alone.1822 And they who knew Him were despite their knowledge dragged down to hell. Where in those days were the inhabitants of the globe from India to Britain, from the frozen zone of the North to the burning heat of the Atlantic ocean? Where were the countless peoples of the world? Where the great multitudes?Quadratus says:
Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VI.Jerome: Letters and Select Works. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
“But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were genuine:- those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Savior was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day.” Such then was Quadratus.In the context, "Savior was on earth" seems to require that the people Quadratus had in mind were those that Jesus raised from the dead before the crucifixion. And indeed, the gospels say before Jesus died, he had gone around "healing" people and raising some from the dead.
- Non-Christian sources were writing in particular genres. To expect a Roman source to mention the event of Matthew 27, simply because he was writing around the time when the event would have occurred, doesn't make sense.Under your own theory that says the zombies consisted of two resuscitated corpses who could have simply disappeared two seconds after saying hi to some people in Jerusalem, then yes.
George Bush's presidency was historically significant, but we wouldn't expect it to be discussed in a contemporary gardening magazine or book about motorcycles.But we'd expect important scandalous events and reports of same to be found in ancient historians whose purpose was to document such things. Perhaps there's a reason why we find such things in Tacitus and Josephus.
An ancient writer who composed poetry or wrote about Roman politics shouldn't be expected to discuss Christian miracles in such a work.Sort of like "an ancient Hebrew writer who composed Psalm 16:10 shouldn't be expected to discuss Jesus' resurrection".
Ignorant skeptics sometimes make the mistake of acting as if the timing of an author is all that's relevant when considering whether he should have mentioned Jesus, Christian miracles, or something else related to Christianity, as if genre is irrelevant. As J.P. Holding put it, "Do books on public speaking today go off topic to mention Jesus?...Again, Jesus didn't lead any Roman armies, so where would he fit here [the writings of Appian]?...Pausanias -- a Greek traveler and geographer of the second century who wrote a ten-volume work called Descriptions of Greece. Check your travel guidebooks for Greece for mentions of Jewish miracle workers in a different country!"Except that the NT repeatedly says "large crowds" followed Jesus, including entire cities stampeding each other just to get near him (Mark 1:45). Stop forgetting about the extreme popularity that your own bible requires you to impart to Jesus.
As Craig Keener notes, "Without immediate political repercussions, it is not surprising that the earliest Jesus movement does not spring quickly into the purview of Rome’s historians; even Herod the Great finds little space in Dio Cassius (49.22.6; 54.9.3). Josephus happily compares Herodotus’s neglect of Judea (Apion 1.60-65) with his neglect of Rome (Apion 1.66)." (A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 64, n. 205)I don't really push the "why didn't ancient secular historians mention the zombies" anyway, so I don't really care if you have to deal with other skeptics who argue differently than I do. I'd advise the idiot skeptics to stop saying scandalous things, since the easier it is to refute, the more likely the stupid Christian will draw the hasty generalization that "skepticism" is "wrong". We need to cast off the uncertain arguments and stick solely to the best possible arguments.
Critics of Matthew 27 sometimes mention Josephus and suggest that there are other relevant sources, but don't name them. They ought to be specific about who should have mentioned this event in Matthew 27 and where they should have mentioned it. I suspect that many of these people don't have anybody specific in mind other than Josephus, and they probably haven't given much thought to their citation of that one source.Irrelevant to me, I wouldn't expect others to worry about gospel fiction.
- The idea that a non-Christian source would have a compelling desire to report such an event so favorable to Christianity is dubious and is an assumption I've never seen any critic justify. A source like Josephus might discuss such an event, but he also might prefer to avoid discussing it.Which is why skeptics are better off not pushing that argument too much. There are ways of justifying skepticism that fuck you up, it's not like all skepticism is rooted in fallacies.
- Josephus and other early non-Christian sources refer to Jesus' performance of apparent miracles. Sometimes they discuss specific miracles, and sometimes they don't. They may refer to Jesus as a sorcerer or magician or refer to Him as empowered by Satan, but not go into detail about the activity that led them to that conclusion. Why should we expect the event of Matthew 27 to be singled out for discussion?We wouldn't if Matthew's original audience took the zombie resurrection part as edifying fiction only.
I would further argue that we don't even know whether Matthew intended all that he said to be made known to non-Christians. There were, after all, "secret" teachings Jesus allegedly reserved only for his disciples.
How does the critic know that a reference to Jesus as a sorcerer or magician, for example, doesn't include an acknowledgement of the event of Matthew 27 along with other miracles? If a historical figure has a reputation as a miracle worker, then discussing individual miracles is one way to discuss his activity, but it isn't the only way. The more miracles there are associated with an individual, the less significant one miracle, such as the one of Matthew 27, may seem.Irrelevant to me.
- As an example of some of the points above, consider the apostle Paul. He doesn't say much about his miracles, and he's often vague when he does discuss them (2 Corinthians 12:12).Probably because any professional liar knows that if you go on and on about your alleged miraculous ability, you'll end up saying something that can be positively falsified. Like any lawyer will tell you, your chances of successfully convincing a jury of yoru story increase if you keep your testimony to a minimum.
Luke goes into more detail, as we'd expect in the genre and historical context in which he was writing, but he doesn't go off on a tangent to address Paul's miracles in his gospel.If you assume Luke thought Acts was something different than 'gospel'.
Rather, he discusses those miracles several chapters into Acts, in the proper chronological place, and even at that point he's selective in what he discusses. Later Christian sources who discuss Paul and accept the book of Acts often don't mention Paul's miracles or address them in a more vague manner than Luke does. Early non-Christian sources say little or nothing about Paul, even long after his letters began widely circulating. Origen makes a specific point of criticizing Celsus for ignoring Paul (Against Celsus, 1:63, 5:64).Sounds like Origen was a smart guy, whose conclusions about gospel "facts" cannot be lightly dismissed as the raving of a heretic trying to get away from "truth".
The early enemies of Christianity, especially those who were Jewish, would have had difficulty with a prominent enemy of Christianity who converted to the religion on the basis of seeing the risen Christ.Especially if that prominent enemy never converted, but only pretended to, due to his mental illness and need to be an attention-whore. Like Paul.
Even less problematic religious leaders of that time, such as Gamaliel and John the Baptist, aren't mentioned much in our extant sources. Gentiles wouldn't have had much interest in discussing Jewish religious leaders, much as Jews wouldn't have had much interest in discussing a Gentile who was reputed as a miracle worker, such as Apollonius of Tyana.
- Sometimes it's suggested that if a Christian doesn't think this passage is describing a historical event, then he shouldn't interpret the accounts of Jesus' resurrection as references to a historical event either.Mike Licona said that problem arises naturally, see above.
But the accounts of Jesus' resurrection are far more numerous,No, the only eyewitness sources are Matthew, John and Paul, everything else in the NT mentioning his resurrection is either hearsay, vision or the author is not claiming to be an eyewitness of it. The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John is easily discounted, and Paul's credibility problems would justify a 5,000 page monograph spread over a 10-volume series. If you were on trial for murder and the only witness against you was somebody claiming to having seen you pull the trigger while the witness was flying physically up into heaven by non-physical means (2nd Corinthians 12:1-4), you would not ask the judge to allow a jury instruction saying they can consider the viability of a supernatural explanation...you'd be asking the judge to drop the charges for lack of evidence, since no jury could possibly find you guilty on the basis of such obvious delusion.
As far as numerosity, most Christian scholars take Mark as earliest, and also think authentic Mark stops at 16:8, and also think that the later Synoptic authors borrowed extensively from Mark, hence, it is reasonable for the skeptic to conclude that the earliest form of the gospel never said a risen Christ actually appeared to anybody, justifying a further inference that the only reason the later gospels say he did, is because of legendary embellishment. That is, the later versions merely derive from and add to Mark's earlier account, they are not "independent". So Jesus rose from the dead because of 3 first-hand easily impeached witnesses and a shitload of endlessly questionable hearsay? FUCK YOU.
come from more sources,No, same answer. Of course you're going to get "more sources" when you start embellishing the original story. What's too bad for you is that Christianity did not deem the testimony of most of the original apostles worthy of preserving, despite the reasonable inference that as original apostles, you'd think the later generations would revere such testimony as of the greatest importance.
and are more detailed.Reasonably construed as adding legendary embellishments to Mark's earlier less detailed account. Let's just say Matthew and Luke denied Mark's "sufficiency" as scripture.
I disagree with Christians who interpret Matthew 27 as something other than a reference to a historical raising of the dead in first-century Israel. But those who hold that position are making a judgment about a brief passage in one source, a passage that isn't addressed much by other early sources. We don't have anything close to the level of evidence for the historicity of that passage as we have for the historicity of the accounts of Jesus' resurrection.Not if I have anything to say about it. Your evidence for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is so poor and likely false or embellished, skeptics are perfectly reasonable to reject the hypothesis. And I say this after having extensively reviewed the work of Licona, Habermas and W.C. Craig. You lose. Skeptics are not unreasonable.
If somebody thinks that the evidence for the historicity of Matthew 27 is insignificant enough to be overcome by other factors, it doesn't therefore follow that the same is true of the accounts of Jesus' resurrection.Agreed.
- The gospel of Matthew is just one source among others that are relevant to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. Even if we were to conclude that this passage in Matthew 27 undermines the testimony of that gospel, its testimony can be diminished without being eliminated.But in practical life, you cannot accuse as unreasonable the person who moves immediately from "diminished" to "eliminated". And if you were on trial for murder and you were only able to "diminish" but not "eliminate" testimony hostile to your alibi, you know perfectly well you'd be trying to persuade the jury to move immediately from "diminished" to "eliminated" anyway. You cannot avoid the obvious reasonableness of justifying one's rejection of testimony because it has been "diminished".
And we still have other sources that give us information relevant to the resurrection of Christ.All of which can be reasonably rejected on the basis of legend, vision, hearsay, lying and impeached credibility or contradiction.
