rikuoamero wrote:Are you inferring that a bunch of previously dead people leaving their graves was of little to no interest to people back then?
The apocalyptic claims that some Jews rose from the dead would have been of little to no interest to Roman historians like Tacitus.
Good question. So...why didn't they?
We can only speculate. My answer to this question would be because other Christian sources recognized this was apocalyptic symbolism used by Matthew intended to make a theological point to his audience.
Mike Licona has argued along these lines.
Why would Romans go out of their way to debunk something that apparently only a single gospel mentions?
Well I dont think the Romans cared much at all about the miracle claims of trouble making Jews in a backwater region like Judea. But your question here seems to run against what you said a moment ago. You seemed to be suggesting that a bunch of previously dead people leaving their graves would be of great interest to people back then. And by people, presumably, you mean Romans among others. Indeed if the event were tied to Jesus wouldnt we expect Roman sources to deny the raising of the Saints if they had reason to doubt it? Where are all the Roman sources denying this event? My point here is not that this is a good argument but on the contrary this type of argument from silence is quite weak and easy to assert.
Anyone in the city?
What do you mean by anyone in the city? You do realize there was a very low literacy rate back then, right? There would have been few people with the ability to write about the event.
Come on, it's a number of dead people who are no longer dead!
Okay, and? We have numerous events from antiquity that strike us today as quite noteworthy yet for some reason no eyewitness account has come down to us.
Surely in your mind, this ought to form the thought "People would have talked about it!"?
Talked about it sure. But would they have written about it? And this all depends upon how many Saints were raised and who they appeared to. If it was only a handful of resurrections and they appeared to a relatively small number of people Im not sure there would be many people talking about it. I think on the contrary anyone who had seen the resurrected Saints would have kept quiet about it perhaps only speaking of it in trusted sympathetic circles. Think of the ridicule that might follow if one just ran through the streets of Jerusalem declaring the Saints had risen.
Do bodies typically stay pristine in graves and tombs?
I think the assumption these were zombie-like bodies roaming around Jerusalem is a particularly unsophisticated view. It fails to take into account the context of the nature of Jesus resurrected body and the Jewish understanding of the resurrection of the dead.
What makes you think this is a historical event, something that happened in the real world, when it's so far fetched and only a single gospel mentions it, and then only a scant few lines at that?
Although I think there are good reasons for holding the view Matthew meant this to be understood as historical, Im not absolutely sure that was Matthews intended meaning. I merely meant that is one possible understanding.
You're taking credulity to an art form.
Not for someone like me who already accepts the existence of God and resurrections. What else can you argue aside from your personal incredulity?
