The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

[RedEye]

The gospel of Matthew 27:51-53 tells us what happened right after Jesus Christ died:

• Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Let's think about how monumental an event this must have been. Dead and rotting corpses rose up through the rocks and dirt of their graves and descended on the city of Jerusalem. The news of such an event (unprecedented in the history of the world) must have spread throughout the Roman Empire like wildfire. It was possible to die, rot in the ground and then return to life! Next to alien contact I can't think of a more electrifying event which could occur.

So why is there no secular record of this? No contemporary historian knows anything about it. There is no Roman record of it. Did Pontius Pilate not think it worth mentioning in his correspondence with Rome? There is no word on what happened to these zombies either. Did they live for a while and die again later? How did they walk around with ruined bodies? Did anyone bother to examine them? It's almost like the story is complete fiction. But the Bible doesn't lie, does it?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'd be interested in hearing a Jehovah's Witness explanation of the passage. Though they consider the Bible infallible, they sometimes acknowledge a given passage was not meant to be taken literally. I would ask them, is this one of those symbolic, or allegorical passages?

We dont believe it is an allegory, we simply interpret it differently to everyone else.



JW



RELATED POSTS



Were people ressurected when Jesus died?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 563#774563

- But does Matthew 27:52 refer to the dead being raised "to life"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 237#775237

[RedEye]

You seem to have done an admirable job of supporting my case. You have maintained an anti-Christian version of this story, and made it clear that this version is both separate from and different than the account found in Matthew.

I'm fairly sure that I have done exactly the opposite if you read what I wrote carefully. It's rather churlish to take someone's hard work in refuting your position and then label it "supporting my case" without attempting to explain how it does that. Btw, you could describe my position as "anti-Christianity" perhaps but I take offense at the continual categorization of me as "anti-Christian".

For instance, you are correct that modern reads readily understand the concept of cinematic zombie, but Matthew would not. The moment you apply a modern concept that was unknown to an ancient writer you are creating a new story. You objection is against your own story, not Matthews.

Not at all. My comments aren't directed to the author of Matthew. They are directed to the readers of this thread who understand full well what a zombie is in popular culture. The only criticism you could make is that "zombie" doesn't accurately depict what Matthew is describing. I don't see you making that objection. The reason you aren't is because my shorthand is perfectly apt. Therefore you are really making no complaint at all.

Perhaps even more tellingly, you say that symbolism has nothing to do with the narrative. Yet in context the symbolic meaning is obviously the most important one to Matthew.

You say "obviously" but, once again, you have no way of knowing that. I don't see you explaining this alleged "symbolism" which you can see and others can't. All you are doing is asserting it based on nothing scriptural.

In order to make the anti-Christian version of the story work you have to write the details Matthew didnt give and then assume that the things you have made up are really a part of the story Matthew was telling. You continue to make objections against your own story, but not Matthews.

These are just more assertions about what you claim I am doing without a single piece of evidence of where I am allegedly doing this. If you really do object to my use of the word "zombie" then you can mentally substitute "rotting corpse risen from the grave" wherever I have used it. That is what Matthew is indisputably telling us. You can't deny this.

Here we may have the most important aspect of our disagreement. How many is many. The word is vague; even more so in Greek, but vague enough in English that I think we can safely stay in our native language. So is 10 many? Is 20? Do we have to reach 100 before we can call it many?

I see you have backed away from your original claim that "many" meant anything more than 2. That's progress. (I think you were confusing "many" with "a few"). Yes, I would be okay with 10 or 20 being many. More likely it would have been 100, 1,000 or 10,000. Now what?

Obviously we cannot know what Matthew, now long dead, thought qualified as many. You are right that Matthew does not say that a small number of people were affected. He provides us only the vague statement of many.

How does that matter? It was you making the argument that he could have meant only a couple of people. You now acknowledge your error. Where does that leave you?

However, the context of how Matthew used the word suggests that a relatively small number was intended. He devoted less than one sentence the event.

It couldn't have been a relatively small number as I have already explained. If this event actually happened, the news of it would have spread like wildfire through Jerusalem and beyond. It would have been electrifying news you must agree, that the dead can return to life. Every man and his dog would have rushed to see it with their own eyes. As I stated before, I submit that every single resident of Jerusalem would eventually have come to check out the zombies. Wouldn't you?

Writing to a primarily Jewish audience, he did not portray this as a massive event that was well-known to his first readers. Instead, he briefly mentioned it in passing as a side note of symbolic importance but not and event he readers should know of or care deeply about.

Again you are pretending to knowledge about the motivations of the author that you don't have. You accuse me of "writing the details that Matthew didn't give" but you are the one actually doing it. You cannot know what Matthew knew about his readers or what they cared about many decades after the alleged events. You also once again appeal to a symbolism which you never explain.

Matthew did not tell us how many constitutes many, but he treats the event as minor and unimportant. The anti-Christian view has to greatly exaggerate the story, making up extra details to justify its position, instead addressing the story that Matthew wrote.

More assertions. What have I exaggerated? What extra details have I made up? You can't tell us because all I am doing is arguing from Matthew's own words. You insist that the event was minor and unimportant but it couldn't possibly have been. Dead people came back to life! That should have been the sensation of the century. The whole Roman Empire should have known about it. But you have to pretend that it was nothing at all. That's plain denial of reality and human nature.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 45 by Goose]

Well I hate to be the one to bring it up, but since this question you want to waffle on seems to be predicated on the author's intent, how exactly do you propose to find out "what Matthew meant?"

Oh. No one can ever know what "Matthew" meant? Because "Matthew" isn't returning anyone's calls?

How will you ever decide, Goose?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by Goose]

There are two important questions:
1. How did Matthew intend his readers to understand the raising of these saints?
2. Did it actually happen?

It seems to me you, Redeye, Jubal, and other sceptics want to jump straight to question (2) without adequately addressing question (1).

Hmm...I'll have to give this some thought, and get back to you on it. I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. Just I'll have to have a ponder. So let's stick a pin in this, and I'll respond to the rest of your comment.

The answer to question (1) will inform how we answer question (2). If the answer to (1) is that Matthew meant for the event to be understood as apocalyptic symbolism then the answer to question (2) is, no it did not actually happen.

Not necessarily. Someone could say, give you a poem about a soldier blowing his brains out, written by Siegfried Sassoon
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/suicide ... -trenches/
The specific soldier in the poem could be a fictional construct of Sassoon's, but we know that it spoke as to the wider reality of the first world war. Even if I were to investigate and find out Sassoon didn't know of a soldier who committed suicide while in the trenches, the conditions in the trenches spoken about in the poem are verifiable.

Matthew's risen dead...? What wider reality could there have been even if he wrote it as symbolism? What would be the symbolism in any case? The symbolism in the Sassoon poem I can understand, even if there wasn't a real soldier: life in the trenches was hard, it was either get killed by the enemy or get killed by your CO in a court martial, etc etc.

In that case, you, Redeye, and other sceptics are simply knocking down a big strawman with these juvenile zombie apocalypse mischaracterizations.

Which mischaracterisations? I in particular have even given you the possibility that these weren't shambling Romero zombies - if you carefully read my posts on this matter, I say zombies "or something else". I still give more weight to zombies though, because if it had been a real event in space-time, then either Matthew/his source saw the dead rising from their graves (which I have debunked) or the risen dead were visually distinct from living people e.g. maybe they looked like rotting corpses, but that is only one possibility. Did the risen dead look like anything else?

(i) The answer to question (2) doesnt directly impact the resurrection of Jesus or any central Christian doctrine.

It does. It's a part of a story that, if it didn't happen, we have to question why it's there regardless. I'm not seeing where the symbolism is.

(ii) Any arguments you present that argue (2) as, no, it did not happen will amount to:
(a) Vague arguments from silence.

Which work, because if it was a real event in space time, it should have been talked about by various people. The fact that we only have Gospel Matthew says much about it perhaps not being a real event in space time.

(b) Arguments from personal incredulity.

Not sure if I myself have made one of these, care to quote me on it? Off hand I can't remember doing so.

(c) Arguments by ridicule.

Such as...?
All I remember myself doing is thinking seriously about this topic and pointing out where it falls apart.

(d) Strawmen.

The Romero zombie thing again? Strictly speaking, that wouldn't be a strawman, since nothing precludes that actually being the case if this thing was a real event in space time. Sure you have your arguments that God would have restored them or what-not, but that isn't the same thing as saying that those who rise from their graves necessarily do so in pristine condition. After all, the only examples we have of such things are stories, it's not like we have real people coming back from death for us to examine and then say "See, this is what happens with grave rising!"

In other words, it's a given you will argue "no" it did not happen.

Pretty much yes.

Now, if you feel you can provide something intelligent and insightful to the question of (1) I would be very interested in discussing that.

I don't know, nor do I really much care. He could have meant it as symbolism, as an allegory, as a teaching device, he could have been hepped up on goof-balls, I dunno. What I care about is what actually happened (or not happened) 2,000 years ago. So I look to the question "Did the dead rise from their graves, hang around for a couple days and then wander into Jerusalem?" as maybe something that did happen, and then with that in mind, I notice the myriad problems with such a model. I point out that in such a model, we should expect to see reports of such an event from numerous sources. I point out that in such a model, there must have been some way to identify the risen dead as the risen dead and give the two possibilities I can think of: either seeing them leave their graves, or the dead don't look like living people, which again would have attracted attention.

[marco]

There are two important questions:

1. How did Matthew intend his readers to understand the raising of these saints?
2. Did it actually happen?

It seems to me you, Redeye, Jubal, and other sceptics want to jump straight to question (2) without adequately addressing question (1).

The answer to question (1) will inform how we answer question (2). If the answer to (1) is that Matthew meant for the event to be understood as apocalyptic symbolism then the answer to question (2) is, no it did not actually happen. In that case, you, Redeye, and other sceptics are simply knocking down a big strawman with these juvenile zombie apocalypse mischaracterizations.

Personally, Im much more interested in question (1) than question (2) on this issue

You are much exercised by the sarcastic terminology rather than the truth of Matthew's revelation. Of course an important question is whether Matthew was lying or not. If he was, his apolcalyptic symbolism or whatever one cares to call it is of little relevance. Taking a far-fetched account of resurrections and reading into them some sublime meaning, divorced from the account, is maybe a service to the good name of Christianity but avoids rather than deals with the problematic verses.


Ridicule and private astonishment may be small in the big world of theological armaments, but they certainly score direct hits. If such an acccount were given today, ridicule would deafen any other reaction, and rightly so. With some wit and willingness we can see that "walking to Jerusalem" is a figurative journey, just as "tomorrow Jerusalem" is an expression of hope. We can take "holy men rising" as the ascension of goodness as a result of the crucifixion, and even glimpse the actual Ascension. But why would we do this when the generality of Matthew's readership would read what is there? We are then rewriting Matthew's speech since there's no hint of this coded meaning in the words he employs. No, the one and only important matter is the rising from the dead of some holy individuals. We must deal with that, not Matthew's ability to write poetry.

[Goose]

[Replying to post 45 by Goose]

Well I hate to be the one to bring it up, but since this question you want to waffle on seems to be predicated on the author's intent, how exactly do you propose to find out "what Matthew meant?"

The same way we try to determine what any author meant, Inigo.

Oh. No one can ever know what "Matthew" meant? Because "Matthew" isn't returning anyone's calls?

How insightful. I guess we should all just go home now?

How will you ever decide, Goose?

I will weigh the arguments. It may take some time but I'll get there eventually.

[Goose]

The answer to question (1) will inform how we answer question (2). If the answer to (1) is that Matthew meant for the event to be understood as apocalyptic symbolism then the answer to question (2) is, no it did not actually happen.

Not necessarily. Someone could say, give you a poem about a soldier blowing his brains out, written by Siegfried Sassoon
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/suicide ... -trenches/
The specific soldier in the poem could be a fictional construct of Sassoon's, but we know that it spoke as to the wider reality of the first world war. Even if I were to investigate and find out Sassoon didn't know of a soldier who committed suicide while in the trenches, the conditions in the trenches spoken about in the poem are verifiable.

You say not necessarily but go on to use a poem as an analogy. Firstly, this is a false analogy. Poetry is an entirely different genre than ancient biography (Matthews Gospel). Matthews recording of the saints has no structure or devices that would suggest it is poetry.

Secondly, you seem to inadvertently support my point. An analogous first question might be: How did Sassoon intend his readers to understand the suicide of the soldier in the trench? How we answer this question will inform how we answer the analogous second question: Did this suicide actually happen?

If, when answering the first question, we determine Sassoon intended the suicide to be symbolic of something like the horrible effects of war on young soldiers then we can answer the second question, no, it did not happen.

On the other hand, if we think Sassoon intended his readers to understand this as an actual suicide of a particular soldier then we would answer, yes, this suicide did happen.

Its paramount to first establish the intention of the author.

Matthew's risen dead...? What wider reality could there have been even if he wrote it as symbolism? What would be the symbolism in any case?

It could be a symbolic signaling that the resurrection of Jesus has cosmic significance.

Which mischaracterisations?

This one...

I in particular have even given you the possibility that these weren't shambling Romero zombies - if you carefully read my posts on this matter, I say zombies "or something else".

(i) The answer to question (2) doesnt directly impact the resurrection of Jesus or any central Christian doctrine.

It does. It's a part of a story that, if it didn't happen, we have to question why it's there regardless. I'm not seeing where the symbolism is.

And Im not seeing how it directly impacts the resurrection of Jesus or any central Christian doctrine.

(ii) Any arguments you present that argue (2) as, no, it did not happen will amount to:
(a) Vague arguments from silence.

Which work, because if it was a real event in space time, it should have been talked about by various people. The fact that we only have Gospel Matthew says much about it perhaps not being a real event in space time.

Ive already given counter arguments to these arguments in this post. Arguments which you ignored entirely. You dont get to come back and reassert the same arguments without first addressing those rebuttals.

(b) Arguments from personal incredulity.

Not sure if I myself have made one of these, care to quote me on it? Off hand I can't remember doing so.

Youve implied it.

it's so far fetched

You're taking credulity to an art form.

(c) Arguments by ridicule.

Such as...?

Implied every time you refer to shambling Romero zombies or the like. The implied argument by ridicule runs something like this:

If you believe Matthews account of the raising of the saints, then you believe in Romero zombies.

Its not a logical argument. Its meant to illicit an emotional response in the hope that by ridiculing an opponent the opponent will abandon the argument.

Its akin to mischaracterising the belief in human evolution as a Planet of the Apes scenario.

I think you, Redeye, Jubal, and others use this zombie mischaracterisation to ridicule because you dont really have any good arguments.

Its juvenile low-level stuff. Its difficult to take that kind of argument seriously.

(d) Strawmen.

The Romero zombie thing again?

Yes, that would be an example.

Strictly speaking, that wouldn't be a strawman,...

Yes it would be, full stop. It mischaracterises the first century Jewish understanding of a resurrection, Matthews understanding of a resurrection, and the Christian understanding of a resurrection.

Sure you have your arguments that God would have restored them or what-not, but that isn't the same thing as saying that those who rise from their graves necessarily do so in pristine condition. After all, the only examples we have of such things are stories, it's not like we have real people coming back from death for us to examine and then say "See, this is what happens with grave rising!"

Right, so stay within the context of the conceptual understanding of the people telling the story in question. By characterising the raising of saints in Matthew as zombies you import foreign concepts into the story and utterly distort the Jewish understanding of a resurrection.

Paul, a former Pharisee and Jew, spends half a chapter answering the question of what will the general resurrection body look like:

• 35 But someone will say, How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?...42 It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body...we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. " 1 Corinthians 15

Josephus, another Pharisee and Jew, echoes something similar in relation to the general resurrection:

[The Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies "but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. " Wars 2.8.14

That their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies... " Wars, 3.8.5

Matthews portrayal of Jesus resurrected body also suggests that the resurrected body is not a zombie-like creature. Matthew seems to imply the resurrected body will be in at least the same condition, if not better, as before death.

9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me. " Matthew 28.

In short, the resurrected body in the Jewish conceptual understanding was one that was changed to be new, glorious, powerful, and pure. Not hint of mindless zombie like creatures with decaying flesh hanging off their bones wandering around looking for their next human victim. In fact, quite the opposite in the Jewish understanding.

Now, if you feel you can provide something intelligent and insightful to the question of (1) I would be very interested in discussing that.

I don't know, nor do I really much care...

Well if you dont even care how Matthew intended the resurrection of the saints to be understood then theres no point continuing with you.

[Goose]

Of course an important question is whether Matthew was lying or not.

Well by all means please present your evidence that Matthew's intention was to lie.

Ridicule and private astonishment may be small in the big world of theological armaments, but they certainly score direct hits.

Ridicule scores a direct hit with who? Amateur internet sceptics? Because ridicule certainly doesn't score a logical hit.

If such an acccount were given today, ridicule would deafen any other reaction, and rightly so.

It would also stifle enquiry into the truth. If that's your goal then...

No, the one and only important matter is the rising from the dead of some holy individuals.

So your view is that Matthew intended this to be literal history? What makes you think that? Can you offer something insightful here or not?

[marco]

Ridicule scores a direct hit with who? Amateur internet sceptics? Because ridicule certainly doesn't score a logical hit.

I was unaware there were amateur and professional sceptics among us. Ridicule is a gateway to criticism. If a proposition is preposterous, it merits ridicule, as Matthew's account here. There's a minute chance he might not have been lying but it is a kindness to say he was lying else if he believed what he wrote he would be an idiot.

So your view is that Matthew intended this to be literal history? What makes you think that? Can you offer something insightful here or not?

With pleasure - just examine the words the man used.

."...he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. 54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" ... "

The phrase "at that moment" identifies a spot in time. Not our time, not the future but "at that moment" time.
The temporal clause: "When the centurion... saw..." fixes the occasion and the reported events. There is no conceivable doubt that he is relating events immediately after Christ's exitus.

He was doing this to support claims of Christ's divinity. To have the centurion, played realistically by John Wayne, utter the words of confirmation may be generously called a literary device. In common parlance, he was probably lying again.
But yes, it is remotely possible that a Roman soldier endorsed Jesus. Earthquakes may not prove divinity but walking dead do. And this justifies the lie.

[Jubal]

Come on folks ...
Can't any believer here tell us -

HOW did Matthew find out about this zombie event ?

Did he eye-witness it ?
Or hear about it ?

Jubal