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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 111 by Goat]

Where is the outside verification that it is nothing more than a story that Matthew told to convey on how important the alleged event of the resurrection was?

This is an odd question to ask, in my eyes. I don't need a third party to verify for me that a particular claim or story is just that, a story. For example, I don't need a third party to say for me that Kim Jong Un scored many holes in one in a single round of golf.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 105 by JehovahsWitness]

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

So who are these mysterious people then JW? What group of people was hanging around a graveyard during the Jewish people's holiest holiday, to then wander into the city and into the temple, and why was this recorded in Gospel Matthew by its author?

[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.

Your disbelief in what I might argue is irrelevant. The simple fact is that the word zombie isnt appropriate for Matthew. End of story.

I take "zombie invasion" as no more than walking dead come to life.

But thats a misrepresentation of Jewish thought. Jews didnt think of resurrections as walking dead.

It would be like me saying I take human evolution as no more than apes learning how to talk, Planet of the Apes scenario.

I'm not interested in a discussion that deepens the metaphor into zombie territory; it would be fatuous.

Then why use the term zombie? A word which intentionally distorts the conceptual understanding of the very people reporting the event?

As I pointed out, metaphor emphasises an aspect and does not apply in others. I thought that was common knowledge.

Its also common knowledge that one can choose to use a metaphor that intentionally distorts and mischaracterizes another persons view.

Your disclaimer of Thomas is interesting: when something in the NT runs counter to one's argument, just dismiss it.

Why on earth would you accuse of me of merely dismissing it? I provided an argument for why the story of Thomas doesnt support your contention that Jesus was more zombie like than I care to admit.

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.

You were the one who replied to my post 45 where I made it clear why I was more interested in discussing (1) How did Matthew intend his readers to understand the raising of these saints? than I was in discussing (2) Did it actually happen?

I thought you were interested in discussing (1) as well. Now you seem not to be, which is fine. But please dont leave the conversion by tossing at me some unjustified accusations of dismissing things.

[marco]

The simple fact is that the word zombie isnt appropriate for Matthew. End of story.

Neither is telephone. It is used ironically and correctly. You may object to its use, but that's you expressing an opinion - " I don't quite like that word"- which you are entitled to do.

It captures the situation concisely, and dare I say cleverly.

I take "zombie invasion" as no more than walking dead come to life.

But thats a misrepresentation of Jewish thought. Jews didnt think of resurrections as walking dead.

I can see why you strongly oppose ridicule. So Jews didn't think, when they saw some dead person walking, that it was a zombie. Well we learn a little every day. If Matthew was told corpses rose, was he supposed to say: "But they can't. It's not in our religion."

It would be like me saying I take human evolution as no more than apes learning how to talk, Planet of the Apes scenario.

That would lack the laconic beauty of "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" and would be an expression of opinion rather than an ironic description.

I'm not interested in a discussion that deepens the metaphor into zombie territory; it would be fatuous.

Then why use the term zombie? A word which intentionally distorts the conceptual understanding of the very people reporting the event?

I didn't coin the phrase but given the amusing stir it has caused I am rather envious of its author. It distorts nothing: it simply says that revivified corpses shuffled to Jerusalem. Zombie invasion isn't a bad summary. I don't know if you are being serious about how Jews regarded the posture of walking corpses, but it seems as though you are. If you are simply exchanging ironies, I apologise for taking you seriously.

[/quote]

As I pointed out, metaphor emphasises an aspect and does not apply in others. I thought that was common knowledge. [/quote]

Its also common knowledge that one can choose to use a metaphor that intentionally distorts and mischaracterizes another persons view.

Ah, now you're getting close. That's called irony, though the "mischaracterizing" assumes you know Matthew's view. You don't. For my taste I think enough has been said about the science of walking corpses and how they are seen in Judaic tradition. Fascinating. And all this from a simple phrase, "zombie invasion."

[marco]

So who are these mysterious people then JW? What group of people was hanging around a graveyard during the Jewish people's holiest holiday, to then wander into the city and into the temple, and why was this recorded in Gospel Matthew by its author?

I feel you are not approaching this in the proper spirit of enquiry. Jewish custom, during earthquakes, may have been to go to graveyards in anticipation of the end. Those people who wandered back to Jerusalem were probably relieved that their end was not yet come. Dead bodies raised to life is a minor side issue. Happens all the time.

[JehovahsWitness]

What group of people was hanging around a graveyard during the Jewish people's holiest holiday, to then wander into the city and into the temple...?

What makes you think there were group of people was hanging around a graveyard during the Jewish people's holiest holiday?

[Goose]

The simple fact is that the word zombie isnt appropriate for Matthew. End of story.

Neither is telephone. It is used ironically and correctly.

Now you are just making utterly irrational arguments. The term Zombie is no more appropriate for Matthew than the term telephone. Unless of course you believe first century Jews had telephones?

So Jews didn't think, when they saw some dead person walking, that it was a zombie.

Correct. There is no concept of a dead person walking in Jewish thought. Nor would they have thought anyone was a zombie. How could they when that term didnt exist.

If Matthew was told corpses rose, was he supposed to say: "But they can't. It's not in our religion."

Hold on, now you are saying something different it appears. Jews definitely believed a dead person could return to life and rise from the dead as a new creation. They just didnt believe dead people walked around.

That would lack the laconic beauty of "zombie invasion of Jerusalem" and would be an expression of opinion rather than an ironic description.

Consider this argument:

If you believe in human evolution then you believe in the talking apes of Planet of the Apes.

Now, once you understand why this argument is fallacious you will understand why the references to zombies is a fallacious argument by ridicule.

I didn't coin the phrase but given the amusing stir it has caused I am rather envious of its author.

Here's what I find amusing. The continual defence of the use of a blatant fallacy post after post.

It distorts nothing: it simply says that revivified corpses shuffled to Jerusalem.

But now it doesnt appear you are describing a zombie if by revivified corpses you mean revived back to life as in a resurrection. Zombies, by definition, arent brought back to life. They are commonly depicted as the undead or the walking dead. There is no such concept in Jewish thought.

That's called irony, though the "mischaracterizing" assumes you know Matthew's view. You don't.

I know that Matthew had no concept of zombies. I know for a fact Matthew had no concept of zombie for the same reason I know Matthew had no concept of telephone. Further, I can infer Matthews view on the nature of the resurrected body from not only his own words but the words of other contemporary Jews. And I provided extensive argumentation and evidence for it here. You ignored most of it.

[marco]

Now you are just making utterly irrational arguments.

I was imitating to convey the original irrationality.

Hold on, now you are saying something different it appears. Jews definitely believed a dead person could return to life and rise from the dead as a new creation. They just didnt believe dead people walked around.

Is there a reason why I should hold on to something? Is the potency of your revelation enough to cause vertigo? So Jews felt that dead people could return to life, but the format of revivification was subject to certain restrictions. Fine, let's pretend this is sensible and examine Matthew. He is actually reporting walking corpses, so presumably he goes off to his synagogue and gets the rules changed. What have preconceptions got to do with observation, or reported observation? I don't believe in the dead rising up but if I saw one doing so I would amend my prejudice. Matthew is reporting the unexpected.

Now, once you understand why this argument is fallacious you will understand why the references to zombies is a fallacious argument by ridicule.

Are you attempting to teach me basic logic via a ludicrous example that has nothing to do with the present discussion? In the "example" an argument is given with a false conclusion, a silly conclusion.


However, we are discussing a title - zombie invasion, which presents no hypothesis and extracts no conclusion. It is a good summary of Matthew and it has produced some amusing attempts at rebuttal. As I said, I am not the author but I think it's an inspired piece of commentary. It's not an argument, of course, as you keep erroneously saying. But then why miss a chance to shout: "logical fallacy"?

Zombies, by definition, arent brought back to life. They are commonly depicted as the undead or the walking dead. There is no such concept in Jewish thought.

Well that is useful information. Do you really suppose that when someone refers to Matthew's risen dead as zombies, he is taking into account the superstitions of Jews at that time, or needs to? It is completely irrelevant what they thought about risen corpses. The irony is aimed at the tale, regardless of its author's expectations of risen dead. It is pertfectly admissible.... and appropriate, from the point of view of a modern commentary on a superstitious, ancient writer.

Your speculation about Matthew's opinion of zombie's is - to put it generously - irrelevant.

Given this fascinating digression into what constitutes a zombie and what Jews prescribed for their dead, I assume the main points of the argument have been deserted. So we can say that Matthew's account was meant literally.... regardless of what he thought about how corpses should behave.

But let's part on a smile of appreciation for an interesting dissection of poor Matthew's mind. Go well.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 127 by marco]

However, we are discussing a title - zombie invasion, which presents no hypothesis and extracts no conclusion. It is a good summary of Matthew and it has produced some amusing attempts at rebuttal.

Very amusing attempts indeed, bordering on desperation to protect a very dodgy account.

[Goose]

I was imitating to convey the original irrationality.

Well you conveyed and utterly irrational argument. I'll give you that.

So Jews felt that dead people could return to life, but the format of revivification was subject to certain restrictions.

Now youre catching on. Finally, we are making some progress.

Fine, let's pretend this is sensible and examine Matthew. He is actually reporting walking corpses...

*SIGH* And here I thought we were making some progress and you go and misrepresent Matthew in the very next sentence.

Are you attempting to teach me basic logic...

Yes, that is exactly what Im doing. Evidently it has come to that.

In the "example" an argument is given with a false conclusion, a silly conclusion.

Yes, of course. But explain in logical terms why it is a false conclusion. I mean you do believe in human evolution dont you? If you do you must believe in the talking apes of Planet of the Apes.

If you believe in human evolution then you believe in the talking apes of Planet of the Apes.

Tell me whats logically wrong with that argument because Im pretty sure you believe in human evolution.

However, we are discussing a title...

Well so what? Im discussing a title as well " talking apes and The Planet of the Apes.

...zombie invasion, which presents no hypothesis and extracts no conclusion

The conclusion is implied. The implied argument runs like this:

If you believe in Matthews account of the risen saints then you believe in the zombie invasions of Romero zombie movies.

(Incidentally, one poster in this thread has explicitly used references to Romero zombie movies)

It is a good summary of Matthew...

Likewise talking apes and Planet of the Apes is a good summary of human evolution.

Do you really suppose that when someone refers to Matthew's risen dead as zombies, he is taking into account the superstitions of Jews at that time...

No he is not. Thats my whole point.

...or needs to?

Yes he does. Well, he does if he wishes to argue logically. If arguing by fallacy is acceptable for him then no he doesnt. He can talk about zombie invasions if thats the case.

It is completely irrelevant what they thought about risen corpses.

Of course its relevant. Its their story.

The irony is aimed at the tale, regardless of its author's expectations of risen dead.

Irony is irrelevant here.

It is pertfectly admissible.... and appropriate, from the point of view of a modern commentary on a superstitious, ancient writer.

Not if one wishes to argue logically.

Your speculation about Matthew's opinion of zombie's is - to put it generously - irrelevant.

Im not speculating about Matthews opinion of zombies, you are. Dont assign that illogical argument to me.

Given this fascinating digression into what constitutes a zombie and what Jews prescribed for their dead, I assume the main points of the argument have been deserted.

Well Ive said more than once Im more than happy to discuss Matthews intended meaning of the risen saints in chapter 27. You seemed to want to abandon that discussion here and have instead chosen to focus on defending the zombie fallacy.