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?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

I was suggesting that corpses rising from the grave and walking around is so remarkable that it would certainly be included.

"Certainly" is lending an enormous amount of objectivity to a clearly subjective situation.

Matthew himself was obviously not terribly impressed with the event: compare the number of words used to describe it with, say, the number of words used in describing any other miracle in his gospel. Two clauses only.

Likewise, we would think that the actual encounter of Jesus with his disciples would be pretty important to any gospel writer: but Mark leaves it out.

I suggest your innate skepticism is getting the better of your literary judgment. (you may take that as a compliment; given some of your more obscure references, I assume you are a reader, and not of Harry Potter).

[marco]

Matthew himself was obviously not terribly impressed with the event: compare the number of words used to describe it with, say, the number of words used in describing any other miracle in his gospel. Two clauses only.

Fair enough. My own reading of the lack of reportage is that the event did not happen. The healing of blindness and deafness is of lesser weight than the restoration of life to a corpse, whether Matthew thinks so or not.

I suspect that this claim was a step too far. It was therefore sensibly omitted, or quickly passed over.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

I also am suspicious of the historicity of the event. Whether Matthew made it up, or whether it was a piece of free-floating tradition which Matthew chose to include, but other authors either had not heard of or chose not to include, is all speculative. The resurrection of the dead was supposed (according to Jewish belief) to have occurred at the end of days, to all people, coinciding with the restoration of Israel to glory. Nearly the opposite occurred with Jesus. It seems to me that Matthew wished to link the anomaly of Jesus' resurrection with a foretaste of the general resurrection. I enjoy the literary maneuver; I have nothing really to say of the historicity. There is simply not enough to go on.

(Edit: that was probably a rather pedantic way of saying it seems we both at least agree on one thing).

[marco]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]


(Edit: that was probably a rather pedantic way of saying it seems we both at least agree on one thing).

O, I am sure we might both enjoy a glass of fine wine or an afternoon tea provided we left the history books at home. Jesus, you will remember, wasn't the only human to rise before the final bell. His good friend Lazarus achieved resurrection too, though we have no comments from the man himself. It is a matter of some regret to me that risen corpses did not leave some written documentation for future sceptics to examine.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by marco]

O, I am sure we might both enjoy a glass of fine wine or an afternoon tea provided we left the history books at home. Jesus, you will remember, wasn't the only human to rise before the final bell. His good friend Lazarus achieved resurrection too, though we have no comments from the man himself. It is a matter of some regret to me that risen corpses did not leave some written documentation for future sceptics to examine.

I think I would very much enjoy hearing your thoughts on non-polemical historical subjects.

But a correction: Lazarus was not 'resurrected'. He was 'raised'. There is a linguistic difficulty here in that Jesus is described as both being raised and resurrected. But a resurrection is not a mere raising.

When the disciples proclaimed Jesus as 'resurrected' they believed something that had never happened before in history had occurred--not to the widow's son in 1 Ki; nor to Jairus' daughter; nor to Laz. Even intertextually, is it not odd that they had less difficulty believing in Laz' 'raising', or Jairus' daughter's, than with Jesus'?

Here is the chief difference as indicated in Jewish literature: A raising restores the body to its previous health--still corruptible and vulnerable. Laz would taste death again. A resurrection first, restored the corpse to previous health, then transformed that body into a glorified state (i.e., immune to death and corruption). Most Jews believed God would perform both operations on all Jews at the end of time; the disciples believed Jesus enjoyed both phases of this process, though the consequent restoration of Israel and creation were strangely postponed.

It is a matter of some regret to me that risen corpses did not leave some written documentation for future sceptics to examine.

A matter of great regret on my part. But not at all conspicuous. Did the two beneficiaries of Vespasian's healing write anything themselves?

[Travellingwagon]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

One interesting point to note is that this raising of many saints (not all, why?) took place AFTER the resurrection of Jesus (vs. 53), maybe even after the ascension, it is unclear, but the verse almost reads as if it took place when Jesus yielded up his spirit and an earthquake split the curtain (vs. 50-51), but it wasn't, so it is slightly odd that it was just inserted in there, completely out of context and timeline of events being described (interpolation for those who denied the resurrection of the dead, like the Sadducees?) unless Matthew was recording some second-hand experiences that were relayed to him, though he had not experienced seeing these resurrected people himself, but the stories could have been so many he felt the need to record the event...

[marco]

But a correction: Lazarus was not 'resurrected'. He was 'raised'. There is a linguistic difficulty here in that Jesus is described as both being raised and resurrected. But a resurrection is not a mere raising.

Well I don't adhere to that distinction. Resurrection (from resurgere -to rise again) is simply rising from the dead which is the same as being raised from the dead. I will continue to observe no linguistic difference.

I can see why religious people want to make a distinction.

Luke 20:35–36,

“But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.�

People raised from the dead presumably can die again but linguistically, there's no difference. Lactantius, writing about 300 AD uses it to mean "to raise oneself from the grave."

I look forward to that coffee.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

One can ignore the data gleaned from the Pseudapigrapha, the N.t. and Rabbinic literature.

One can consult latin when the term first appears in Greek, anastasis.

It is a free site.

[marco]

[Replying to post 27 by marco]

One can consult latin when the term first appears in Greek, anastasis.

I have no idea what you mean.

Anastasis is raising up and has a specific meaning as applied to the Resurrection. Your confusion arises from believing that resurrection has to refer to Resurrection. You used the word "linguistic" which allowed me to explain the derivation of the word, resurrection. It is derived from Latin and means raising oneself up. Introducing a Greek word of synonymous meaning doesn't do much.