Dubious passage

[Elijah John]

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Mathew 27.52-53

If this mass resurrection had actually happened, why was such a remarkable event only recorded by Matthew?

Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?

Why didn't any record such a remarkable event?

How come no Roman historian wrote about it?

Does this verse add to, or detract from Matthew's credibility?

Did Matthew lie or did he take "poetic license"?

Is this verse problematic for Bible literalists?

[AdHoc]

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Mathew 27.52-53

If this mass resurrection had actually happened, why was such a remarkable event only recorded by Matthew?

Good question.

There's at least two ways to look at this: 1) The account is untrue.

From that perspective Matthew either made it up or he was crazy. I'm going to assume based on the style and structure of his writing that he wasn't crazy. Then what would be the reason for making up something as incredible as this? Why would he take that risk? It would be like some historian today writing that many sasquatches appeared to many people in New York City. To do that he would have to be crazy.

The other way to look at it is the account is true. Then the question becomes why didn't Mark, Luke and John record it?

I think they didn't include it because while its extraordinary its not important to the gospel like the resurrection of Christ or the rending of the temple veil. There were many miracles that happened that weren't recorded.

So if its not important then why did Matthew include it?

The best reason I can think of is that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience and maybe he included it as evidence to the Jews living in Jerusalem. Because if they didn't see one of the people who were raised from the dead they certainly would've known someone who had.

Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?

People in Jerusalem.

Why didn't any record such a remarkable event?

I'm sure they talked about it.

How come no Roman historian wrote about it?

Like who?

Does this verse add to, or detract from Matthew's credibility?

Neither. I imagine it would've had a huge effect on his credibility at the time of his writing however.

Did Matthew lie or did he take "poetic license"?

No

Is this verse problematic for Bible literalists?

If it is then so is the resurrection of Christ not to mention 90% of the rest of the bible. But to be honest I think its a bigger problem for the bible figurativist (or whatever the opposite of a literalist is). They have to constantly either explain every account or discard it as false. Whereas the literalist accepts the Word of God as true.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Mathew 27.52-53

If this mass resurrection had actually happened, why was such a remarkable event only recorded by Matthew?

Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?

Why didn't any record such a remarkable event?

How come no Roman historian wrote about it?

Does this verse add to, or detract from Matthew's credibility?

Did Matthew lie or did he take "poetic license"?

Is this verse problematic for Bible literalists?

Not only did no Roman historian mention this "event," no Jewish historian mentioned it either. No one mentioned it or even seemed to know about it except the author of Gospel Matthew. Where did these "many" reanimated dead people go? Did they return to their families? Did they crawl back into their graves? No one mentions any of it.

So is it fair to infer that the author of Gospel Matthew was a liar, or that he simply "made stuff up?"

Matthew 2:
[16] Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

Here is another "event" found only in Gospel Matthew. The so called "Massacre of the Innocents." The other Gospels don't mention it. Historians generally deny that it occurred because there is absolutely no mention of it anywhere anywhere outside of Gospel Matthew.

Matthew 27:
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

The guard at the tomb. Like the "Massacre of the Innocents," and the "Resurrection of the Saints," this is only found in Gospel Matthew. How could all three of the other Gospels have failed to mention something this spectacularly important to Christian doctrine? If the tomb wasn't even guarded, then the claim that the tomb was empty because Jesus was resurrected, a wholly unrealistic claim, is a good deal less than flimsy.

So is Gospel Matthew reliable? Does it represent undeniable historical proof that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Or does it represent the flights of fancy, rumor and propaganda, of its author and nothing more?

Additional claims found only in Gospel Matthew:

The healing of the two blind men - Mt 9:27-31
The promise of the primacy to Peter - Mt 16:17-19
The tax paid by Jesus - Mt 17:24-27
The story of Judas’ suicide - Mt 27: 3-10

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 2 by AdHoc]

Elijah John wrote:
Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?

Adhoc wrote:
People in Jerusalem.

Elijah John wrote:
Why didn't any record such a remarkable event?

Adhoc wrote:
I'm sure they talked about it.

Elijah John wrote:
How come no Roman historian wrote about it?

Adhoc wrote:
Like who?

Are you aware that Rome had instituted a postal system, and it was reputed to be very efficient? If your long dead aunt Miriam or grandfather Enoch suddenly returned home, is there no one you know who might find this "event" interesting enough for you to mention it to in a letter? But you see, not a word of this "event" seemed to have escaped Jerusalem. In fact, there is no indication that anyone IN Jerusalem knew of it. Outside of what the author of Gospel Matthew, writing decades later, says occurred.

Elijah John wrote:
Did Matthew lie or did he take "poetic license"?

No

Hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets is the most realistic claim in the world? Do you watch the "Walking Dead," and if you do, do you consider it a documentary?

Elijah John wrote:
Is this verse problematic for Bible literalists?

If it is then so is the resurrection of Christ not to mention 90% of the rest of the bible. But to be honest I think its a bigger problem for the bible figurativist (or whatever the opposite of a literalist is). They have to constantly either explain every account or discard it as false. Whereas the literalist accepts the Word of God as true.

It's interesting that you recognize the nature of the problem without apparently understanding that it is a problem. But you are correct. These accounts are either believable, or they are not.

Can you explain the difference between a "literalist" and someone who has simply chosen not to question? And what difference is there between someone who has simply chosen not to question, and someone who has simply chosen to be abjectly gullible? You are effectively saying "This is what I choose to believe therefore it is necessarily true." Which effectively explains your position. But even you must see that "it's true because I choose to believe it" is not an effective argument.

[1213]

...
Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?...

I would assume it means for example David, Moses, Solomon…

Can we find their tombs empty or not empty?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 2 by AdHoc]

Elijah John wrote:
Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?

Adhoc wrote:
People in Jerusalem.

Elijah John wrote:
Why didn't any record such a remarkable event?

Adhoc wrote:
I'm sure they talked about it.

Elijah John wrote:
How come no Roman historian wrote about it?

Adhoc wrote:
Like who?

Are you aware that Rome had instituted a postal system, and it was reputed to be very efficient? If your long dead aunt Miriam or grandfather Enoch suddenly returned home, is there no one you know who might find this "event" interesting enough for you to mention it to in a letter? But you see, not a word of this "event" seemed to have escaped Jerusalem. In fact, there is no indication that anyone IN Jerusalem knew of it. Outside of what the author of Gospel Matthew, writing decades later, says occurred.

Well I knew there was some sort of system in the ancient world because clearly some people sent letters but thank you for educating me about this because I just read an interesting Wikipedia article about it. So do you have in your possession all or even most of the letters? And if so have you gone through them all yourself and verified that there's no mention of the event? Or have simply chosen not to question what others have told you?

Elijah John wrote:
Did Matthew lie or did he take "poetic license"?

No

Hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets is the most realistic claim in the world?

When did I say that?

Do you watch the "Walking Dead," and if you do, do you consider it a documentary?

I have not seen that program.

Elijah John wrote:
Is this verse problematic for Bible literalists?

If it is then so is the resurrection of Christ not to mention 90% of the rest of the bible. But to be honest I think its a bigger problem for the bible figurativist (or whatever the opposite of a literalist is). They have to constantly either explain every account or discard it as false. Whereas the literalist accepts the Word of God as true.

It's interesting that you recognize the nature of the problem without apparently understanding that it is a problem. But you are correct. These accounts are either believable, or they are not.

Can you explain the difference between a "literalist" and someone who has simply chosen not to question? And what difference is there between someone who has simply chosen not to question, and someone who has simply chosen to be abjectly gullible?

You are likely describing subsets of the set of all literalists. To answer your question a different way... Are there literalists who question? For sure. but in the end even if they don't understand the answer they still accept it as a matter of faith.

You are effectively saying "This is what I choose to believe therefore it is necessarily true." Which effectively explains your position. But even you must see that "it's true because I choose to believe it" is not an effective argument.

Absolutely.

[ttruscott]

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Mathew 27.52-53

If this mass resurrection had actually happened, why was such a remarkable event only recorded by Matthew?

Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?

Why didn't any record such a remarkable event?

How come no Roman historian wrote about it?

Does this verse add to, or detract from Matthew's credibility?

Did Matthew lie or did he take "poetic license"?

Is this verse problematic for Bible literalists?

I hold answers to this in abeyance as to the meaning as immaterial. I base no faith upon it being true. I lose no faith speculating it might be false. Why a false story might be allowed into the Bible by GOD may confuse me but a lot does and I can wait to find out what happened here.

[rikuoamero]

...
Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?...

I would assume it means for example David, Moses, Solomon…

Can we find their tombs empty or not empty?

Wait...so you're saying the resurrected saints appeared to David, Moses and Solomon...two out of three of which were long dead by then and the other is more than likely a mythological person?

[alwayson]

No rabbi living at the time would have taken Matthew literally, as Matthew is intentionally symbolic at every level.


It is only with Luke-Acts that people started to take the Gospels literally.

[1213]

...
Who are the "many" that the resurrected saints appeared to?...

I would assume it means for example David, Moses, Solomon…

Can we find their tombs empty or not empty?

Wait...so you're saying the resurrected saints appeared to David, Moses and Solomon...two out of three of which were long dead by then and the other is more than likely a mythological person?

Sorry, I understood earlier wrongly what Elijah John said. I thought it was asked who were the resurrected saints. They may have been Moses… …But those people who saw the resurrected saints, I believe they were the disciples of Jesus. But I don’t think Bible defines accurately who they were, so I don’t really know who they were.