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?

[Goose]

The next step is to be able to tell the difference between ridicule and argument from ridicule.

Well clearly you are able to tell the difference since youve explicitly endorsed the zombie invasion argument and affirmed it is a perfectly good description of Matthew's scenario. Which of course it isnt. I said the following to Rikuoamero:

You are not staying 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. No 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.

You mention two people who are unaffected by ridicule, or indeed logical fallacy. Then from two you generalise. Bad move.

Lets talk about fallaciously generalizing shall we? You said ridicule scores hits with ...anyone interested in starting a discussion. I pointed out that at least two members, myself and bjs, dont see this argument as scoring a hit yet we are interested in a discussion.

You claim that I am wrongly supposing future equals fiction.

Well you are wrong if you suppose that.

No, the point that seems to be your stumbling block is that when I talk about time-specific events I am saying Matthew places events in a specific period we know about, the crucifixion, in the past. There are no dates but that's the way with the NT. I call this fact, at least as Matthew reports it. You find another passage where Matthew speculates (fiction) what will happen in a distant future. You can't see the difference and so you wronly think I don't know the difference between future and fiction.

Weve been over this. The problem is you are projecting your view of apocalyptic genre onto Matthew. He did not view this as speculation about the future or fiction or anything of the sort. So you project onto Matthew your view that the prophetic equals fiction. Thats not attempting to understand Matthews meaning. Thats imposing your view on Matthew.

You wonder how a "logical fallacy" (how you love that phrase! There are others, you know, but maybe that's for another time) can do things, like score a hit. Ah, the joys of English. The speaker scores the hit, Goose, and by a processs of transferring, the abstract noun is made the subject. It's called hypallage and it can make pillows sleepless when prisoners sleep on them.

In other words a logical fallacy does not score a logical hit.

To simplify matters: Matthew's verse has a perfectly good, if absurd, literal meaning. Because it is far fetched some might go off and seek other meanings beneath the words chosen by Matthew.

This is incorrect, at least as it applies to Christians. Im not looking for other meanings because I find the account of the rising saints in Matthew 27 farfetched. Why would I? I already accept the supernatural and resurrections. Im simply trying to ascertain Matthews intended meaning. You on the other hand seem to argue for a literal view of Matthew 27 so that you can fallaciously attempt to knock it down with an argument by ridicule referring to zombie invasions and the like.

Then, despite the fact that Matthew relates a sequence of events at the time of the specific event, the crucifixion, with no hint he's in symbolism, some want to extract a new meaning.

But there are hints its symbolic.

[marco]

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.

You give the impression that you are not comfortable with metaphor. Richard was a lion, but that doesn't send people wondering if Richard had a tail. It's not a hard concept to suggest Matthew's risen saints are zombies, without Hollywood. They are simply walking dead, which is a rough description of zombie.

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

Paul isn't Matthew. Paul has Paul's idea of things. But you are wandering off into dislaiming Matthew's corpses are literally zombies. They are walking dead - we can deal with that. It is close to embarrassing that we are now identifying the corporeal uniform these dead men had. And you rebuke people for laughing!

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.

Not so - it was deformed by the wounds it had received. Christ invited Thomas to put his fingers into the sores, as one does. If he still displayed wounds, then he was more like a zombie than you want to admit. I think if we concede Matthew is talking about corpses walking, with whatever body the Jewish religion prescribed, then we sit back quietly and restrain our laughter lest we commit a logical fallacy.

. The problem is you are projecting your view of apocalyptic genre onto Matthew. He did not view this as speculation about the future or fiction or anything of the sort. So you project onto Matthew your view that the prophetic equals fiction. Thats not attempting to understand Matthews meaning. Thats imposing your view on Matthew.

I am not searching Matthew's soul for understanding; I look at what he's written and I am judging that, regardless of what he himself thought. I imagine he thought his ideas were good; he had the blanket called faith, but when viewed in the light of a less ignorant age his ideas can be called fictional. He didn't see himself as a fiction writer, but in places he strays into that. Or he was simply lying.

Im simply trying to ascertain Matthews intended meaning.

By substituting your own? Is that wise? Just read the words: The holy men rose up and walked to the Holy City. Why deform this remarkable story with modern notions?
But since you admit that you believe people can rise out of graveyards and travel around freely, then our discussion is rather pointless. Faith doesn't argue which is probably astute.

[JehovahsWitness]

JW, we have had interesting discussions in the past. I have translated thousands of documents in lots of languages and at no point did my brain suggest to me that one verb has one meaning.

Well if you are not suggesting that the verb has one meaning and translators have chosen another of said verb's legitmate meanings, then I take you are not suggesting a grammatical or lexical error has been made, which is all I asked about.




JW

[marco]

JW, we have had interesting discussions in the past. I have translated thousands of documents in lots of languages and at no point did my brain suggest to me that one verb has one meaning.

Well if you are not suggesting that the verb has one meaning and translators have chosen another of said verbs legitmate meanings, then I take you are not suggesting a grammatical or lexical error has been made, which is all I asked about.

Tranlators of moderate ability aren't going to make errors of a glaring kind. It is certainly possible to extract wildly different meanings from a sentence, so it is imperaative that the surrounding context be taken into account.In hieroglyphs there are things called determinatives that point to king or priest. The Latin sentence


"Sus est mala" can mean The pig is bad or The pig is eating apples. Both are possible, so we cannot choose a meaning until we see the rest of the text. My quibble is that the translation that was offered seems to disregard the background features.

I would choose, on these considerations, the resurrection with holy men walking to the holy city. That is what it says. Go well.

[Goose]

It's not a hard concept to suggest Matthew's risen saints are zombies, without Hollywood.

You wouldnt have the concept of zombie without modern pop culture and Hollywood. There is no such concept in ancient Jewish thought.

They are simply walking dead, which is a rough description of zombie.

Jews didnt have the concept of walking dead. Thats a modern pop culture concept imposed on ancient Jews.

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

Paul isn't Matthew.

Yes that much is obvious and you are missing the point. Paul, however, was a Jew like Matthew and Mathew was writing to a Jewish audience. So we can glean from Pauls material what Jews thought about the resurrection body. Nothing in that material suggests walking dead. Far from it.

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.

Not so - it was deformed by the wounds it had received. Christ invited Thomas to put his fingers into the sores, as one does. If he still displayed wounds, then he was more like a zombie than you want to admit. I think if we concede Matthew is talking about corpses walking...

Firstly, the story of Thomas is found in John not Matthew. Theres nothing in Matthew that implies a walking corpse. As for the account of Thomas in John suggesting Jesus was more zombie like than I want to admit. What is zombie like about Jesus showing where he was wounded? What makes you think these were still open "sores" like what we might expect on a zombie? Notice Thomas response is to declares Jesus as his Lord and his God. Hardly the response we would expect if Thomas viewed Jesus as a walking corpse with open wounds and flesh hanging off his bones. And of course youve said nothing about the aspects of the risen Jesus recorded in the Gospels that are very far from anything zombie like.

. The problem is you are projecting your view of apocalyptic genre onto Matthew. He did not view this as speculation about the future or fiction or anything of the sort. So you project onto Matthew your view that the prophetic equals fiction. Thats not attempting to understand Matthews meaning. Thats imposing your view on Matthew.

I am not searching Matthew's soul for understanding;

Neither am I searching his soul.

I look at what he's written and I am judging that,

Im doing the same thing. I just happen to be looking at a broader sampling of Matthews writing.

regardless of what he himself thought.

We can get a broader idea of what an author thought by looking at the entirety of his material. We can potentially ascertain further context by taking into account the material of his peers. We run into potential trouble when we take a single sentence and try to impose meaning on it without looking to a larger contextual backdrop. I shouldnt have to explain this.

Im simply trying to ascertain Matthews intended meaning.

By substituting your own? Is that wise? Just read the words: The holy men rose up and walked to the Holy City.

Exactly the problem. It is precarious to simply just read the words without trying to ascertain the meaning behind those words. We may end up literalizing things never meant to be taken literally.

Why deform this remarkable story with modern notions?

Precisely! Yet you argue for the zombie mischaracterisation.

But since you admit that you believe people can rise out of graveyards and travel around freely, then our discussion is rather pointless.

Thats never been the point of the discussion as far as Im concerned.

[JehovahsWitness]

My quibble is that the translation that was offered seems to disregard the background features.

On the contrary, it seems reasonale if we take into account everything the author says and respect the implications of the words chosen, to consider an alternative reading. The author specifically doesn't say the saints were resurrected, (which would have been the usual way of speaking about people coming back to life), he says the BODIES were "raised" (and doesn't even take the time to add.. "to life"). Nowhere in scripture do we read of bodies being resurrected, even if these were bodies that belonged to saints it is not a usual construction.

Given that the author is specifically saying something happened to the bodies (rather than the saints) the translators look to see if alternative meanings of the verb might be more suitable. It turns out the verb ( to raise) is actually extremely versitile.

I would choose, on these considerations, the resurrection ...

I'm happy for you...except for the tiny inconvenient problem that that is not what the text says. Indeed I cannot find any translations that speak of "a resurrection" in Matthew 27:52 (although there might be some)

... with holy men walking to the holy city. That is what it says.

That is not what it says. Verse 53 doesn't refer to the holy men walking into the city. And it certainly doesn't say "the recently resurrected holy men walking into the city" (And we know it wasnt the bodies that walking into the city). But someone walked into the city, it's reasonable that they were people not canalopes, so they came out ("They left the cemetery" NLT) or "people coming out from among the tombs" is perfectly acceptable and nearly all translations I have seen say something along those lines, see various translations: https://biblehub.com/matthew/27-53.htm

After a translation respects the grammatical and lexical constraints, all that is left is to make interpretational choices, and for that, to each his own. Given the ambiguity of the verse one does well to avoid being dogmatic about them.



JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 104 by Goose]


I can hardly believe you are assessing the detailed appropriateness of the amusing word zombie by pointing out what Matthew, as a Jew, would have thought. I take "zombie invasion" as no more than walking dead come to life. That suffices. I'm not interested in a discussion that deepens the metaphor into zombie territory; it would be fatuous. As I pointed out, metaphor emphasises an aspect and does not apply in others. I thought that was common knowledge.


Your disclaimer of Thomas is interesting: when something in the NT runs counter to one's argument, just dismiss it. And of course point out, as usual, that Jesus was speaking figuratively. They say the devil has all the best tunes but Christianity's composers do well in preserving fictions.

If you are not contesting that dead bodies rose and walked to Jerusalem, whether in glorified, scented skins or in some properly Judaic attire then there is little more to argue about.


I can see no justification for squeezing symbolism from crude superstition.

Have a good day.

[marco]

On the contrary, it seems reasonale if we take into account everything the author says and respect the implications of the words chosen, to consider an alternative reading. The author specifically doesn't say the saints were resurrected, (which would have been the usual way of speaking about people coming back to life), he says the BODIES were "raised" (and doesn't even take the time to add.. "to life"). Nowhere in scripture do we read of bodies being resurrected, even if these were bodies that belonged to saints it is not a usual construction.

What is "the usual way of speaking of people coming back to life"? Did this happen so often we can form a grammatical rule?


To add "to life" is an addendum in English. The verb suffices to mean "raised to life from the dead." The word "resurrection" carries that meaning too, without reference to life.

It says the bodies of saints were raised. The buried bodies were raised to life, and we have the additional snippet that the bodies so raised were "saintly". That seems to imply that selectively and miraculously saints were resurrected.

The "nowhere in Scripture" is a pointless appeal, given the uniqueness of the event. How many times did people rise up from the ground and walk? Not too often, I guess, so why appeal to custom and usage?

Given that the author is specifically saying something happened to the bodies (rather than the saints) the translators look to see if alternative meanings of the verb might be more suitable. It turns out the verb ( to raise) is actually extremely versatile.

Then the translators are just being silly. The verbal action was performed on bodies, which THEN took on the previous format of saintly people. The bones and bits were the objects of transformation, not sleeping humans. Thus it is perfectly correct to say that the miracle was worked on the buried bodies of holy people. The versatility of the verb is possibly an unfortunate convenience that led the translator astray.


If we reduce Matthew's miracle to the results of an earthquake, we would then be pondering another miracle in the earthquake's selectivity of clients.

I would choose, on these considerations, the resurrection ...

I'm happy for you...except for the tiny inconvenient problem that that is not what the text says.

Thanks for your delight; I'm also happy with my translation. It is EXACTLY what the text says if one's false impression about bodies being resurrected is put aside.

Indeed I cannot find any translations that speak of "a resurrection" in Matthew 27:52 (although there might be some)

I assume this is facetious. Are resurrections as common as rain?

That is not what it says. Verse 53 doesn't refer to the holy men walking into the city. And it certainly doesn't say "the recently resurrected holy men walking into the city"

O.K. We have a verb in 3rd person plural with no subject. That means the subject is understood from a previous phrase. The minute problem here is whether we take "bodies" as subject or "holy men". Another form of the same sentence is:

Raised up were the bodies of holy men, who walked to Jerusalem.

Do we choose:

a} The bodies of holy men were raised. They walked to Jerusalem.
b} The bodies of holy men were thrown up. Other people walked to Jerusalem.

The only reason anybody would choose b is because they couldn't see that bodies BECOME holy humans who THEN have the ability to walk.


Here is what you say:

(And we know it wasn't the bodies that were walking into the city). But someone walked into the city, it's reasonable that they were people not canalopes,

I don't know what canalopes are. You say "we know it was not the bodies" - well now you know that it was the bodies, fitted with brand new brains, and they were called saints. There is NO grammatical objection to this but there's plenty to object to in your offering where a verb is introduced whose subject is imagined. That would be a flaw in writing. It conjures up people from nowhere and makes them play a part that is of no consequence to anything in the story.

After a translation respects the grammatical and lexical constraints, all that is left is to make interpretational choices, and for that, to each his own.

Well your translation disrespects the rule that a verb has to have a known subject, which is found from a previous phrase.


"Raised from the dead were bodies of saints, who then walked to the Holy City." That makes perfect sense and has the added virtue of being what the words of Matthew spell out.

Given the ambiguity of the verse one does well to avoid being dogmatic about them.

Well you didn't manage to clear that hurdle, JW. Here's what you say - dogmatically:

"Verse 53 doesn't refer to the holy men walking into the city.
And it certainly doesn't say ..... "


It is a question of settling for a sensible translation or for one that is inventive. Have a fine day.

[JehovahsWitness]

On the contrary, it seems reasonale if we take into account everything the author says and respect the implications of the words chosen, to consider an alternative reading. The author specifically doesn't say the saints were resurrected, (which would have been the usual way of speaking about people coming back to life), he says the BODIES were "raised" (and doesn't even take the time to add.. "to life"). Nowhere in scripture do we read of bodies being resurrected, even if these were bodies that belonged to saints it is not a usual construction.

What is "the usual way of speaking of people coming back to life"? Did this happen so often we can form a grammatical rule?.

It's a simple statement of fact. I haven't presented a rule I hav3 merely stated a fact. There are 9 ressurectiond described in scripture and numerous references to them. The the reference in Greek to the raising of a body (rather than the person) is unique to Mat 27: 52.

[JehovahsWitness]

Then the translators are just being silly.

I am uninterested in your assessment of "silliness" however I would be interested in a claim that any translation I have refered to has violated the words accepted meaning. Is that what you are claiming? If so, feel free to stipulate which word and provide a reference if possible.


JW




I have made my points. They are in post #70 and post #71