The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
RedEye
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:23 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #1

Post by 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.â€�
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?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #71

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 46 by Elijah John]

Matthew 27:51-53New International Version (NIV)

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
QUESTION : Were people ressurected when Jesus died?
  • It is true this is a perplexing verse and quite ambiguious. Firstly, however it should be noted that the verse speaks not of the "dead" being raised but of the 'bodies of the saints' being raised. The original text does not say that the “bodiesâ€� came to life (see below), it merely says that they were raised up or alternatively "thrown out". The Greek verb e‧gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,â€� does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift outâ€� from a pit or to “get upâ€� from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69).

    Also the “they� (that that went into the holy city) could not refer to the “bodies,� because “they� is in the masculine, whereas “bodies� (somata: σώματα) is in the neuter gender.

QUESTION: But does Matthew 27:52 refer to the dead being raised "to life"?
  • The New International Version (NIV) speaks about bodies "raised to life." and the New Living Translation (NLT) speaks of bodies being "raised from the dead". However, by far the majority of translators do NOT refer to being raised "to life" but only refer to "raised".
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-52.htm

    The greek word for life (zoe) does not appear in the Greek text neither does the word that is frequently used in the Christian Greek Scriptures with reference to a resurrection (anastasis). The word employed at Matthew 27:52 "egeiro". The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon lists its meanings as follows:
    Definition
    1. to arouse, cause to rise a. to arouse from sleep, to awake
    b. to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
    c. to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
    d. to raise up, produce, cause to appear

    1. to cause to appear, bring before the public
    2. to raise up, stir up, against one
    3. to raise up i.e. cause to be born
    4. of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
    The translators of the NIV and NLT have decided that the context implies from death to life (see 1B above) so they decided to add "to life" to clarify their reading but one could just as legitimately have read it to be 1D (above) and translated the clause "bodies appeared" .
Alternative renderings thus can read:
“Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city.�
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people. �
All of which conveys the thought that when Jesus died the accompanying earthquake broke open tombs near Jerusalem and thus exposed corpses (bodies). And that it was individuals that had seen the event (not the corpes) that brought news of it to Jerusalem.


=======================================...

The Sinaitic omits the words “and the memorial tombs were opened� and “entered.�



CONTINUED in post #71 below
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #72

Post by JehovahsWitness »

CONTINUED from post # 70 by JehovahsWitness ....
Matthew 27:51-53New International Version (NIV)

The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
# QUESTION But doesn't the the participle �ξελθόντες [exelthontes] "coming out" (of verse 53) refer to "the saints" ?

The most one can say is this is a possibility but not the only possible reading. Let's look at the sequence of events:
  • 1. Earthquake
    2. Bodies [of "saints" who had "Fallen asleep"] were "raised"/ exposed/thrown up (see above)

    verse 53 >>

    3. Plural masculines coming out/forth
    4. Plural masculines going to Jérusalem.

    Firstly, the fact that the the masculine plural "saints" agrees with the the participle κεκοιμημένων [ kekoimēmen�n] [had fallen asleep] is of no help in identifying the subject of the verb "came out" which occurs in the following verse [53] ? Lets illustrate this, look at the sentences below:

    The dog (of the women that had recently been divorced) barked.
    The bodies (of the saints who had Fallen asleep in death) were raised

NOTE: If we were speaking in a language where the subject had to agree with the verb, then naturally we would expect the noun "the women" to agree with the verb "divorced" (While "barked" would agree with "dog"). But is this of any real help if a second sentence is added.? Let's see first in English staying with the illustration. Our new (illustrative) sentence is:
They chased the postman down the street.
They went into Jérusalem.
Now this is the million dollar question. WHO chased the postman? The dog? The Women? Other people that were neither dog nor the women?

WHO WENT INTO JERUSALEM?
Firstly, we can eliminate "the bodies" because the verb and the subject do not agree in Greek (just as in English (in our example sentence) we can eliminate "the dog" because dog is singular and "they chased" is plural; so because of the grammer we know.

- The dog didn't chase the postman
- The bodies didn't go into Jerusalem.
>> Okay, so wouldn't we naturally assume it would be "the women"?

That might seem like a reasonable assumption but not a forgone conclusion.

>> But, if neither the dog or the women could it have been other people?

Technically yes. There is nothing in the two sentences that eliminates that possibility.

So lets put all our examples together

The dog (of the women that had recently been divorced) barked.
They chased the postman down the street

The bodies (of the saints who had fellen asleep) were raised
They went forth ... into Jérusalem.

All we can really say (for certain) is

a) bodies were "raised" (see my earlier post for what this could mean) and
b) that SOMEBODY ("people") went into Jerusalem.
  • No more, no less. We cannot say for sure that those "people" where individuals that had previously been dead or whether they were people that simply had been present to witness the event. What then would be the most reasonable rendition for a translator? Leave the verse "neutral". (refering back to the illustration, don't say "the women chased the postman", certainly don't say "the dog chased the postman" don't even say "the previously divorced individuals" ... just (in English) conjugate the verb in plural "they" or refer to "people" and leave the reader to understand the verse has he so wishes. This is in fact was by far the majority of translations actually do, refering to "they' and NOT saying who "they" ARE since the writer of Matthew himself is not specific.
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-53.htm
CONCLUSION: The verses in Matthew 27:52-53 is one of the most enigmatic in the Greek scriptures and by itself its not clear who went into Jérusalem. While it is unreasonable to be dogmatic about what the verse means , the language certainly allows for witnesses (they) of the exposed corpses of dead saints, to have carried the story of what they had seen into the city; avoiding some of the more scripturally probelmatic reading.




JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #73

Post by marco »

JehovahsWitness wrote:

It is true this is a perplexing verse and quite ambiguious. Firstly, however it should be noted that the verse speaks not of the "dead" being raised but of the 'bodies of the saints' being raised. The original text does not say that the “bodies� came to life (see below), it merely says that they were raised up or alternatively "thrown out". The Greek verb e‧gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,� does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out� from a pit or to “get up� from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69).

Also the “they� (that that went into the holy city) could not refer to the “bodies,� because “they� is in the masculine, whereas “bodies� (somata: σώματα) is in the neuter gender. [/list]

I agree it is nearly impossible to get round the absurdity but this explanation won't do. The difficulty is not through ambiguity, but embarrassing clarity. Of course a Greek verb has several meanings and the one that makes sense here is "rose from the dead." You want to choose something else, which makes less sense.

The quibble over gender of a noun is a wrong quibble. Bodies would be a neuter noun....in Latin it would be corpora, also neuter. The bodies came to life and were recognisable as saints, and clearly the risen saints went to town. It would be a poor translator who didn't see this.

JehovahsWitness wrote:

QUESTION: But does Matthew 27:52 refer to the dead being raised "to life"?
  • The New International Version (NIV) speaks about bodies "raised to life." and the New Living Translation (NLT) speaks of bodies being "raised from the dead". However, by far the majority of translators do NOT refer to being raised "to life" but only refer to "raised".
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-52.htm

    The greek word for life (zoe) does not appear in the Greek text neither does the word that is frequently used in the Christian Greek Scriptures with reference to a resurrection (anastasis). The word employed at Matthew 27:52 "egeiro". The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon lists its meanings as follows:

    Definition
    1. to arouse, cause to rise a. to arouse from sleep, to awake
    b. to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
    c. to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
    d. to raise up, produce, cause to appear

    1. to cause to appear, bring before the public
    2. to raise up, stir up, against one
    3. to raise up i.e. cause to be born
    4. of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect


    The translators of the NIV and NLT have decided that the context implies from death to life (see 1B above) so they decided to add "to life" to clarify their reading but one could just as legitimately have read it to be 1D (above) and translated the clause "bodies appeared" .
Alternative renderings thus can read:
“Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city.�
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people. �
Forgive my saying so but this is one of the silliest explanations. So much explanatory, extraneous stuff has been added that it's obviously a wrong translation. Whoever did this "translation" chose definition 1d which is a transitive meaning and the "translation" gives a passive, to accommodate the desired change.
If other translators take such extreme liberties, then we needn't expect anything to be true. The explanation of visitors to the graves walking into the city would shame a schoolboy. The sole merit is it removes a huge absurdity and replaces it with a piece of nonsense.

User avatar
StuartJ
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
Location: Australia
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #74

Post by StuartJ »

[Replying to post 72 by marco]
If other translators take such extreme liberties, then we needn't expect anything to be true.
Certainly worth keeping at the forefront od one's mind when reading any biblical "scripture".

I've pointed out in earlier posts what translators have done with "virgin" and "giving up the ghost" for example.

Given the total absence of evidence for "God" in the Jewish writings ...

And given the examples of how the faithful in recent times will distort the "Word of God" to suit their beliefs ...

We may consider the lengths the original writers, and subsequent translators and redactors, will have gone to to construct and reconstruct the propaganda to suit their purposes ...

Before the propaganda was selectively compiled by much, much later humans and declared to be the unchangeable (yet human-produced) "Word of God" ....

I rather think needn't EXPECT anything to be true of the fantastical or politically slanderous tales in the Yahweh cult propaganda, and the Jesus cult propaganda.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #75

Post by JehovahsWitness »

marco wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:

QUESTION: But does Matthew 27:52 refer to the dead being raised "to life"?
  • The New International Version (NIV) speaks about bodies "raised to life." and the New Living Translation (NLT) speaks of bodies being "raised from the dead". However, by far the majority of translators do NOT refer to being raised "to life" but only refer to "raised".
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-52.htm

    The greek word for life (zoe) does not appear in the Greek text neither does the word that is frequently used in the Christian Greek Scriptures with reference to a resurrection (anastasis). The word employed at Matthew 27:52 "egeiro". The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon lists its meanings as follows:

    Definition
    1. to arouse, cause to rise a. to arouse from sleep, to awake
    b. to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
    c. to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
    d. to raise up, produce, cause to appear

    1. to cause to appear, bring before the public
    2. to raise up, stir up, against one
    3. to raise up i.e. cause to be born
    4. of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect


    The translators of the NIV and NLT have decided that the context implies from death to life (see 1B above) so they decided to add "to life" to clarify their reading but one could just as legitimately have read it to be 1D (above) and translated the clause "bodies appeared" .
Alternative renderings thus can read:
“Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city.�
NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people. �
So much explanatory, extraneous stuff ....
Yes, I have indeed explained a lot of... "stuff" in my post. The nature of the discussion really demands you be extremely specific in your criticism:
marco wrote: ... it's obviously a wrong translation.
Emphasis MINE


[1] Which specific word(s) are you claiming have been mistanslated and which inconsistencies in Greek/English grammar are you basing this conclusion on.
marco wrote: ... 1d which is a transitive meaning and the "translation" gives a passive, to accommodate the desired change.
[1] What linguistic / grammatical rule render the above unacceptable (can you be specific in your reference to the particular rule and include a reference* if possibe).

I am not a Greek scholar and will stand corrected if there is anything I have written that is grammatically inaccurate. I have no aversion to reading the findings of other posters research.


JW


* By reference I am mean a scholarly source / peer reviewed work.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #76

Post by marco »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
I am not a Greek scholar and will stand corrected if there is anything I have written ….


Then my comments apply to the translator not the messenger. Some verbs can be both transitive (requiring an object) and intransitive. There's nothing wrong with selecting a transitive meaning provided our translation respects that, otherwise we choose a more appropriate meaning.


The translation given about dead saints rising may clash with reality, but it makes sense whereas the alternative translation has been done specifically to avoid the problem of Matthew's dead men walking. The incidental reference to some people going to Jerusalem, made in order to avoid a grammatical difficulty that is no difficulty at all - neuter bodies become masculine saints - borders on being silly.

Yep, Marco may be wrong but I think sense is on my side. The setting among tombs and mention of bodies and rising begs for the obvious meaning of the verb, and presenting extraneous people that Matthew incomprehensibly is supposed to mention in his list of astonishing events is wandering off into error.


Go well.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #77

Post by JehovahsWitness »

marco wrote:
The translation given about dead saints rising may clash with reality,

I'm only interested in that which clashes with the reality of the grammatical structure of the source or target language. Was there a linguistic or grammatical rule that has been violated? If so could you specifically refer to the Greek word in question, explain said violation and provide some scholarly reference to support this claim.


Thanks,

JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #78

Post by marco »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
I'm only interested in that which clashes with the reality of the grammatical structure of the source or target language. Was there a linguistic or grammatical rule that has been violated? If so could you specifically refer to the Greek word in question and provide some scholarly reference to support this claim.
I commented on what you provided. It is ludicrous for us to pretend to discuss Greek syntax. However: you correctly said that in Greek "bodies" is a neuter noun. Correctly you pointed out a masculine pronoun, so that "they" cannot grammatically refer to bodies. However, it is perfectly clear that the buried bodies are said to have come to life, and as such the writer would be attracted into using a masculine pronoun. One of my degrees is in Latin, not Greek, but the languages bow to similar grammatical rules.


I am not going to change your mind, nor you mine, so further explanations are superfluous. From my understanding of a variety of inflected languages, my position is solid. You will of course respect those you respect. Go well.

showme
Sage
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:04 pm

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #79

Post by showme »

RedEye wrote: 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.â€�
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?
It takes two witnesses of an event to "establish" "every matter" (Matthew 18:16) & (Dt 19:15). Matthew 27:52 had only one witness statement, and therefore has not established such an event ever happened.

User avatar
RedEye
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:23 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

Post #80

Post by RedEye »

showme wrote:
RedEye wrote: 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.â€�
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?
It takes two witnesses of an event to "establish" "every matter" (Matthew 18:16) & (Dt 19:15). Matthew 27:52 had only one witness statement, and therefore has not established such an event ever happened.
See bolding above. Or was the author of Matthew lying?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Post Reply