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.â€�

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?

[marco]

The reference in Greek to the raising of a body (rather than the person) is unique to Mat 27: 52.

That's as it should be. We DO have a unique situation. In other instances we might know the name of the person raised, so we would say: "Joshua was raised" not the bones of Joshua. In this case unknown bodies (of saints) were raised. Is that so hard to follow?

[Goat]

I understand that there are some translation issues with this passage, but let us assume for the moment that Redeye has given us the accurate translation.

It would seem that our acceptance or rejection of this account depends at least in part on which version of the account we are considering. There is the anti-Christian version, put forth by Redeye and various other posters in this thread, and then there is the account provided by the author of Matthew (without ignoring the debate about the Gospel’s authorship, I’m just going to call him Matthew for this thread).

Anti-Christians talk about zombies, which were first a form of culture based and drug induced slavery in the Caribbean, and later a cinematic allegory for modern consumerism.
Matthew had no concept of zombies.

There is nothing wrong with using a modern word to convey precisely what is being described in Matthew. Everyone reading this forum will understand what a zombie is and how it aptly summarizes "a rotting corpse coming back to life from the grave".

Anti-Christians create a variety of details, such as rotting the flesh and the like, and seem to believe the things they have imagined should be taken as factual parts of the story.
Matthew provides almost no details, presenting an event that was primarily symbolic in its importance.

Corpses either rose from their grave or they did not. If they had been in the ground then they would be rotting. Symbolism has nothing to do with the reality of what Matthew is explicitly narrating.

Anti-Christians argue that everyone who heard of this event must have instantly believed it and continued to report it.
Matthew left open the (imo more reasonable) possibility that those who heard this story dismissed it as a ghost story and gave it no credence.

• Matthew 27:52-53 The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Many people saw it with their own eyes. It has nothing to do with hearsay. Anyone who heard about it could check with the eyewitness themselves. Even better they could look up these zombies and see them in person as they (presumably) took up their former lives. Matthew does not say that they quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Anti-Christians present a massive “invasion.�
Matthew said that there were polla (many), a Greek word that can refer to any number larger than two.

• many
  /ˈmɛni/
  determiner, pronoun, & adjective
  determiner: many; pronoun: many; adjective: many; comparative adjective: more; superlative adjective: most
  
  1. a large number of.

The Greek word used is actually pollois and it has the same meaning:

https://biblehub.com/greek/4183.htm

• "4183 polýs – many (high in number); multitudinous, plenteous, "much"; "great" in amount (extent).
  
  4183 /polýs ("much in number") emphasizes the quantity involved. 4183 (polýs) "signifies 'many, numerous'; . . . with the article it is said of a multitude as being numerous" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 113,114) – i.e. great in amount".

Anti-Christians view this as a monumental event that should have been well known and discussed.
Matthew viewed this as an event that affected so few people that it was a side note mentioned only in passing. The number of people affected was so small that the event had to share a sentence with news of a piece of cloth being torn.

You are presuming to know things that are not in the text. You can't know how Matthew viewed things. Neither do you know that the number of people affected was small. Matthew tells us that many (a large number of) people saw the zombies. I would suggest that since there is no mention in Matthew that they "disappeared" then every single person in Jerusalem would eventually have laid eyes on the zombies.

The anti-Christian version of the story seems hard to believe.
Matthew’s version is less so.

It's Matthew's version that we "anti-Christians" are going by.

Where did many people see the dead people walking around Jerusalem?? Where are their accounts? Arre there ve any other account other than the passage in Matthew? 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?

The claim from the writer of Matthew was there were many people who saw it. It seems to me that if that was true, at least some of those accounts would have been relayed outside of the Gospel of Matthew.

[marco]

Then the translators are just being silly.

I am uninterested in your assessment of "silliness" however I would be interested in a claim that they have violated the words accepted meaning. Is that what you are claiming?

Why don't you read what I have said from start to finish and extract the answer to your question. I have presented a perfectly good rendition of Matthew. Nowhere in my post have I said the translator "violated" meanings of words. Another, less obvious, meaning was chosen for spurious reasons. My objection is to the reasons given for seeking a new subject of the plural verb - they are invalid.

[JehovahsWitness]

The reference in Greek to the raising of a body (rather than the person) is unique to Mat 27: 52.

That's as it should be. We DO have a unique situation. In other instances we might know the name of the person raised, so we would say: "Joshua was raised" not the bones of Joshua. In this case unknown bodies (of saints) were raised. Is that so hard to follow?

I didn't say I was finding something "hard to follow" you asked me if my factual statement could be made to make a rule and I answered your question. Did you ask me the question because you were finding something in the text hard to follow? If so feel free to share it.


JW

[marco]

Did you ask me the question because you were finding something in the text hard to follow? If so feel free to share it.

Well JW when we make this sort of statement, a pointless and unworthy ad hominem, there's nothing more to add. Read again what I have written about Matthew's text and alter your version to accommodate a better one.


I have painstakingly, against my better judgment, involved myself in the details of grammar. I would have expected a reply that addresses these issues.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is that so hard to follow?

Did you ask me the question because you were finding something in the text hard to follow?

Well JW when we make this sort of statement, a pointless and unworthy ad hominem,

I made no ad hominem , I simply asked you a question. I recognise however, that I should have asked "is that so hard to follow" instead of " ... hard to follow?".


Is asking someone if they are finding something "hard to follow" Ad hominem?

Is that so hard to follow?

If so I will certainly refrain from asking the above in future.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 112 by marco]

Another, less obvious, meaning was chosen ....

That may well be the case, however unless you have an objection based on a violation of a grammatical or lexical rule of language, your personal assessment any given choice is "silly" "invalid" is of no interest to me.

There is NO grammatical objection to this ....

Good then it can be viewed as grammatically sound.

.. but there's plenty to object to in your offering where a verb is introduced whose subject is imagined.

You will need to clarify this, as I cannot see which translation this statement is refering to. Please be specific.


JW

[marco]

You will need to clarify this, as I cannot see which translation this statement applies to.

I have no further interest in playing games. I thought the object was to analyse and conclude, not staunchly support some third person's ponderings. I can understand that you uphold Scripture and I respect that. In this case you are clinging to somebody else's translation, for whatever reason, and this person presumably does not fall under the aegis of Spiritual inspiration.

I have made myself abundantly clear to anyone who is interested in the nuances of translation. That, as far as I am concerned, is that.

[JehovahsWitness]

I have made myself abundantly clear to anyone who is interested in the nuances of translation. That, as far as I am concerned, is that.

Duly noted. I can only presume, in view of your suggestion that someone has presented a verb with no subject, you are referring to someone else's POSTS since none of the translations I have presented refered do this.

The verbal action was performed on bodies, ....The bones and bits were the objects of transformation, not sleeping humans. Thus it is perfectly correct to say that the miracle was worked on the buried bodies of holy people. The versatility of the verb is possibly an unfortunate convenience that led the translator astray.

If you are refering to the verb "to raise" then I would point out that at no point did I say otherwise. The bodies were raised by a miraculous event.

The versatility of the verb is possibly an unfortunate convenience that led the translator astray.

I take it, given your admission that you are not claiming the Greek has only one meaning and that no grammatical error has been made, when you say "astray" you mean "astray" from your particular interpretation. What YOU personally believe the verse is communicating. As long as you have no objection to people disagreeing with your interpretation I'm sure the translators can continue to live with that. I certainly can.


JW

[RedEye]

Where did many people see the dead people walking around Jerusalem?? Where are their accounts?

Very good questions. I have no answers.

Arre there ve any other account other than the passage in Matthew?

Not that I know of.

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?

There is no outside verification. That is the whole point. The author of Matthew made it up.

The claim from the writer of Matthew was there were many people who saw it. It seems to me that if that was true, at least some of those accounts would have been relayed outside of the Gospel of Matthew.

Yep. So the author of Matthew was lying. Now if lied about this, what else was he lying about ...?