rikuoamero wrote:Now please explain why, in this scene...ONLY the author of Gospel Matthew writes about it. No-one else.
The fact that someone (Matthew) wrote about it
at all is quite remarkable when we consider the paltry amount of sources that wrote in detail about events from the time of Christ and region of Judea. Look at it this way, twenty-five percent of the ancient biographies which narrate events of the time and region report on this particular event. Its all a matter of perspective.
Explain why Romans, who are not all patriots who don't want to embarrass the empire (I have already pointed out to you Roman/Greek historians like Polybius who were willing to write about defeats of the Roman military), would have either taken no notice of a crowd of previously dead people, or taken notice and yet decided not to write about it.
Which Romans would have written about it? The only Roman historian Im aware of who says much at all about anything that happened in first century Judea is Tacitus. Why would he write about such a claim?
There is no way for something like this to have gone unnoticed.
Assuming the historical position for a moment, it didnt go unnoticed. Matthew records it.
So then it's not a historical event, like say JFK's assassination, or the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the Iraq War or the election of Trump? It's not something that actually happened in space-time, like any other event you or I could care to name?
Correct. The apocalyptic symbolism view holds that Matthew did not intend for his readers to understand this as an historical event which took place in space-time. This view would help explain why no previous Christian writers report the event. It also explains why subsequent Christian writers familiar with Matthew do not repeat the event. Assuming of course later writers familiar with Matthew recognized Matthews intent to reveal a theological point here rather than an attempt to record actual history.
Well I dont think the Romans cared much at all about the miracle claims of trouble making Jews in a backwater region like Judea.
Precisely my stance, so therefore your attempt to claim that Romans would have debunked it for not being true is a red herring from you.
Well if that is precisely your stance then why on earth would you expect Roman historians like Tacitus to write about it?
Yes, if it had actually happened. If it had NOT happened, no Roman would have cared to try to debunk it, seeing as how the only mention of it would have been Gospel Matthew, written decades after the 'event' in question. Do you know any modern historians who go out of their way to debunk magical claims of small, fringe, newly formed cults that exist out in the backwaters?
Im not sure why you think a Roman wouldnt want to debunk a resurrection claim made by Jews. Tacitus seems fairly eager to discredit Christianity and clearly he did not endorse the miracle claims made by Christians.
Why would they deny it? I've already pointed out to you that Romans and Greeks had no problem talking about things that are embarrassing to them and to their nations. Do you think Romans existed as a monolith, all of one mind?
Romans might want to deny it for the same reason they crucified Jesus. The Christian movement represented a potential threat to Roman rule.
What you now have to explain is this seeming conspiracy by all those who would have noticed the risen dead, and then chosen not to write about it. You've made your position that much harder.
Im not assuming a Roman would have noticed the risen dead. Im only assuming some Roman may have heard about it.
Precisely my point. Why are you adopting a denial of the naysayer argument? That's my position, not yours.
Your missing the point of my argument from silence here. Im attempting to show you how poor an argument from silence is and how it can cut both ways.
If you're on my side, if you're now saying there's no reason for (Roman) historians to have cared about the risen dead claims, then an argument from silence works.
How on earth do you figure the argument from silence works if we have no reason to expect Roman historians to report the resurrection claims made by Jews in the first place? Youve undermined your whole argument.
So what is the problem for you re: argument of silence?
The main problem with an argument from silence is that there are any number of reasons why an author would fail to mention something. The argument is strengthened by when it can be shown which author should have mentioned the event/person, in which work it should have been mentioned, and why it should have been mentioned there. Simply saying, Well golly gee whiz it was such an amazing event more people should have written about it isnt a particularly compelling argument.
Either the Romans heard about the risen dead wandering into a major temple (Jerusalem was not a backwater by the way, Tacitus estimated a population of about 600,000 while Josephus says as many as a million were killed during the rebellions of 70 AD) and didn't witness it themselves, which doesn't make sense, as how do the rulers of a major city not notice something like this; or the Romans did see the risen dead but didn't write about it because of some conspiracy to hide the 'truth'.
First, Ill take your minor contention that Jerusalem was not a backwater by the way. I argued
Judea was a backwater province.
Judaea was a third-class province, which meant that it was so unimportant in terms of revenue, that it was not necessary to have it governed by a man of the senatorial order. A man from the order of the knights was sufficient. It was also unimportant in terms of extent: when it was created, it measured only 150 km north to south and 70 km east to west. "
source
Rome was not interested in Judea... "
source
To your main point. Probably the former, the Saints did not show themselves to the Roman authorities, just as Jesus didnt. I mean why would they? And which Romans living in Jerusalem at the time are you suggesting as potential authors anyway? And why then, would that Roman
only write about some allegedly risen Jews? Because thats what your argument entails, that some unknown Roman would decide to write an account of resurrected Jews.
But the number is not zero.
No the number of literate people in Jerusalem would not have been zero. It would, however, have been prohibitively low enough to prevent you from making your argument that anyone in the city could have written about the resurrected Jews.
This would have been a major event, something on par with Jesus himself rising from the dead.
You are once again assuming a grand scale resurrection. A zombie-like invasion overtaking the entire city of Jerusalem. There is no reason to assume this large scale. It could have been merely a handful of resurrected Jews who appeared to a handful of select Jews. Something like Jesus resurrection appearances.
Are you comparing these events with people leaving their graves?
In terms of these events being noteworthy? Yes. You dont think, for example, the assassination of Julius Caesar was noteworthy? It happened in plain view of the entire senate and yet no one thought to write a firsthand account.
What reason would the author of Gospel Matthew have for including it as a supposed historical event in space time, if it was something small, easily missed, unnoticeable and not written about?
Because it carried a theological significance in Matthews view.
If you're thinking of the ridicule that would have occurred, need I remind you that the fledgling Christian sect was around then, making plenty of other tall claims? The risen dead would have been just one among many, no reason to feel particularly embarrassed about that one as opposed to any of the others, like their leader had conjured food or walked through walls or healed the sick.
Yes but notice the claim regarding the risen Saints reported by Matthew is absent from the preaching of the early disciples. I think that is a good reason to think the early Christians did not hold to a historical resurrection of these Saints.
How about you pick any other religion or cult that makes tall claims that you personally think are ridiculous, and then come back and explain why those people made those claims anyway even when facing mocking?
No thanks. I dont play go fetch a Red Herring.
What the claim itself fails to take into account is the real world, where bodies that go into tombs and graves typically end up rotting.
Granted. But this Zombie apocalypse characterization fails to take into account how the ancient Jews understood the nature of the resurrected body. At the general resurrection a miracle occurred where the dead wear given new supernatural bodies. The Jews did not envision a night of the living dead scenario.
If you're now arguing that these bodies didn't look like shambling mindless corpses a la Romero movies, what did they look like?
In Matthews view, probably something like the risen Jesus.
Were they indistinguishable from living people?
Probably not.
How would the author of Gospel Matthew or his unknown sources (if any) have been able to tell that these people had left their graves?
The tombs would have been empty. The resurrected Saints could have identified themselves to those they appeared to as Jesus did.
Why even argue it is historical at all, when it's so far fetched and so poorly sourced?
Well like I said, I think there are good reasons to think Matthew meant this to be historical such as his statement that the saints were seen. But I also think there are good reasons to accept the apocalyptic symbolism view as well. Im personally undecided. And you dont seem to be able to shed any insightful light on the issue aside from stating your personal incredulity.
