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?

[RedEye]

I understand that there are some translation issues with this passage, but let us assume for the moment that Redeye has given us the accurate translation.

It would seem that our acceptance or rejection of this account depends at least in part on which version of the account we are considering. There is the anti-Christian version, put forth by Redeye and various other posters in this thread, and then there is the account provided by the author of Matthew (without ignoring the debate about the Gospels authorship, Im just going to call him Matthew for this thread).

Anti-Christians talk about zombies, which were first a form of culture based and drug induced slavery in the Caribbean, and later a cinematic allegory for modern consumerism.
Matthew had no concept of zombies.

There is nothing wrong with using a modern word to convey precisely what is being described in Matthew. Everyone reading this forum will understand what a zombie is and how it aptly summarizes "a rotting corpse coming back to life from the grave".

Anti-Christians create a variety of details, such as rotting the flesh and the like, and seem to believe the things they have imagined should be taken as factual parts of the story.
Matthew provides almost no details, presenting an event that was primarily symbolic in its importance.

Corpses either rose from their grave or they did not. If they had been in the ground then they would be rotting. Symbolism has nothing to do with the reality of what Matthew is explicitly narrating.

Anti-Christians argue that everyone who heard of this event must have instantly believed it and continued to report it.
Matthew left open the (imo more reasonable) possibility that those who heard this story dismissed it as a ghost story and gave it no credence.

• Matthew 27:52-53 The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Many people saw it with their own eyes. It has nothing to do with hearsay. Anyone who heard about it could check with the eyewitness themselves. Even better they could look up these zombies and see them in person as they (presumably) took up their former lives. Matthew does not say that they quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Anti-Christians present a massive invasion.
Matthew said that there were polla (many), a Greek word that can refer to any number larger than two.

• many
  /mni/
  determiner, pronoun, & adjective
  determiner: many; pronoun: many; adjective: many; comparative adjective: more; superlative adjective: most
  
  1. a large number of.

The Greek word used is actually pollois and it has the same meaning:

https://biblehub.com/greek/4183.htm

• "4183 pols " many (high in number); multitudinous, plenteous, "much"; "great" in amount (extent).
  
  4183 /pols ("much in number") emphasizes the quantity involved. 4183 (pols) "signifies 'many, numerous'; . . . with the article it is said of a multitude as being numerous" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 113,114) " i.e. great in amount".

Anti-Christians view this as a monumental event that should have been well known and discussed.
Matthew viewed this as an event that affected so few people that it was a side note mentioned only in passing. The number of people affected was so small that the event had to share a sentence with news of a piece of cloth being torn.

You are presuming to know things that are not in the text. You can't know how Matthew viewed things. Neither do you know that the number of people affected was small. Matthew tells us that many (a large number of) people saw the zombies. I would suggest that since there is no mention in Matthew that they "disappeared" then every single person in Jerusalem would eventually have laid eyes on the zombies.

The anti-Christian version of the story seems hard to believe.
Matthews version is less so.

It's Matthew's version that we "anti-Christians" are going by.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by Goose]

Correct. The apocalyptic symbolism view holds that Matthew did not intend for his readers to understand this as an historical event which took place in space-time. This view would help explain why no previous Christian writers report the event.

If this is your position, then we're done. Not as in "I can't convince you" but because there's nothing we're in disagreement over then. Both you and I believe that Matthew's risen dead is not and was not an actual thing, although you still seem to give it some iota of a possibility of happening.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by bjs]

The anti-Christian version of the story seems hard to believe.
Matthews version is less so.

What version do you think I and others are giving, that is separate from and distinct to what's in Gospel Matthew?
When I've talked about it, I've allowed for both shambling corpses a la Romero movies...and something else. Thing is, there would have to be some way the author of Gospel Matthew "knew" that these quote unquote people came from graves, so either he/his source saw them rising from their graves (and I've explained up above why that's unlikely, re: hanging around a graveyard during Passover) or these risen dead were somehow visually distinct from other living people.

[bjs]

I understand that there are some translation issues with this passage, but let us assume for the moment that Redeye has given us the accurate translation.

It would seem that our acceptance or rejection of this account depends at least in part on which version of the account we are considering. There is the anti-Christian version, put forth by Redeye and various other posters in this thread, and then there is the account provided by the author of Matthew (without ignoring the debate about the Gospels authorship, Im just going to call him Matthew for this thread).

Anti-Christians talk about zombies, which were first a form of culture based and drug induced slavery in the Caribbean, and later a cinematic allegory for modern consumerism.
Matthew had no concept of zombies.

There is nothing wrong with using a modern word to convey precisely what is being described in Matthew. Everyone reading this forum will understand what a zombie is and how it aptly summarizes "a rotting corpse coming back to life from the grave".

Anti-Christians create a variety of details, such as rotting the flesh and the like, and seem to believe the things they have imagined should be taken as factual parts of the story.
Matthew provides almost no details, presenting an event that was primarily symbolic in its importance.

Corpses either rose from their grave or they did not. If they had been in the ground then they would be rotting. Symbolism has nothing to do with the reality of what Matthew is explicitly narrating.

Anti-Christians argue that everyone who heard of this event must have instantly believed it and continued to report it.
Matthew left open the (imo more reasonable) possibility that those who heard this story dismissed it as a ghost story and gave it no credence.

• Matthew 27:52-53 The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Many people saw it with their own eyes. It has nothing to do with hearsay. Anyone who heard about it could check with the eyewitness themselves. Even better they could look up these zombies and see them in person as they (presumably) took up their former lives. Matthew does not say that they quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Anti-Christians present a massive invasion.
Matthew said that there were polla (many), a Greek word that can refer to any number larger than two.

• many
  /mni/
  determiner, pronoun, & adjective
  determiner: many; pronoun: many; adjective: many; comparative adjective: more; superlative adjective: most
  
  1. a large number of.

The Greek word used is actually pollois and it has the same meaning:

https://biblehub.com/greek/4183.htm

• "4183 pols " many (high in number); multitudinous, plenteous, "much"; "great" in amount (extent).
  
  4183 /pols ("much in number") emphasizes the quantity involved. 4183 (pols) "signifies 'many, numerous'; . . . with the article it is said of a multitude as being numerous" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 113,114) " i.e. great in amount".

Anti-Christians view this as a monumental event that should have been well known and discussed.
Matthew viewed this as an event that affected so few people that it was a side note mentioned only in passing. The number of people affected was so small that the event had to share a sentence with news of a piece of cloth being torn.

You are presuming to know things that are not in the text. You can't know how Matthew viewed things. Neither do you know that the number of people affected was small. Matthew tells us that many (a large number of) people saw the zombies. I would suggest that since there is no mention in Matthew that they "disappeared" then every single person in Jerusalem would eventually have laid eyes on the zombies.

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Jubal]

Please tell us bjs -

How did Matthew find out about the zombie invasion ?

Was Matthew an eye-witness to the zombie event ?

Or did he hear about it from someone in Jerusalem ?

Jubal

[Goose]

If this is your position, then we're done. Not as in "I can't convince you" but because there's nothing we're in disagreement over then. Both you and I believe that Matthew's risen dead is not and was not an actual thing, although you still seem to give it some iota of a possibility of happening.

Its not my position per se. Its one of two possible positions that I think both have valid arguments. Which is why I said I was undecided on whether to adopt the apocalyptic symbolic view or the historical view.

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 since:

(i) The answer to question (2) doesnt directly impact 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.
  (b) Arguments from personal incredulity.
  (c) Arguments by ridicule.
  (d) Strawmen.

I dont find (a) to (b) to be compelling arguments. (c) shows intellectual weakness in the one making the argument. (d) doesnt require a response.

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

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

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 45 by Goose]

Even if Matthew meant the account in a symbolic way, do you see this passage as a problem for Bible literalists? And Fundamentalists?

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?

[Goose]

[Replying to post 45 by Goose]

Even if Matthew meant the account in a symbolic way, do you see this passage as a problem for Bible literalists? And Fundamentalists?

I don't see how interpreting a passage as symbolic is a problem if that was what the author meant by it. Surely even the most literal readers of the Bible recognize at least some passages are metaphorical etc.

If you mean to ask the general question, is this passage a problem then I think the honest answer is yes. It's difficult to discern the intended meaning by Matthew. Did he mean it be taken literally or did he mean it to be taken symbolically? There are valid arguments on both sides.

Perhaps you mean to ask would a symbolic interpretation violate the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy? If that is what you mean then I refer to this link where the Southern Theological Review discussed that very question in detail.

[marco]

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.

Matthew is reporting not composing poetry. People can make religious deductions from the reporting that buried people came alive. The simple truth, in modern terms or in ancient, is that Matthew was lying.

Matthew viewed this as an event that affected so few people that it was a side note mentioned only in passing.

If that was Matthew's view he was thick. To no one on earth would dead people rising up and walking to the city be anything but world shattering.

Here we may have the most important aspect of our disagreement. How many is many.

The discussion becomes surreal now. Corpses leave their graves but the important thing is: did five corpses rise or was it a round dozen? That the word "many" is of indeterminate size in whatever language you want to use, is of minute importance compared to the reported event.

I can understand Christian embarrassment over Matthew. But in the end a lie is a lie.

[Goose]

The simple truth, in modern terms or in ancient, is that Matthew was lying.

You bear the burden to show Matthew was lying as opposed to say using apocalyptic symbolism.

To no one on earth would dead people rising up and walking to the city be anything but world shattering.

I think you may be projecting your modern sceptical views upon ancient Jews. The Jewish audience Matthew was writing to was a culture that held a belief in the general resurrection of the dead (at least those Jews sympathetic to the Pharisaical doctrines). So this idea youve suggested here that dead people rising up would be world shattering, to ancient Jews at least, is simply misplaced. Now, certainly there may have been some shock/fear at the idea the general resurrection may have begun. But the idea of dead people rising was well within the Jewish expectation.

The discussion becomes surreal now. Corpses leave their graves but the important thing is: did five corpses rise or was it a round dozen? That the word "many" is of indeterminate size in whatever language you want to use, is of minute importance compared to the reported event.

Again, to Jews the idea of the dead rising was expected. So as far as Matthews audience was concerned the claim that some Jews were resurrected wouldnt be particularly surprising and likely wouldnt take precedence over the context of how Matthew mentions the resurrections of the saints.

bjs point is that many sceptics, such as Redeye, ignore the context of how Matthew refers to the resurrected saints and import ideas into the story by making many mean something like an invasion.