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?

[Goose]

Hold on a minute. It isn’t merely a matter of differing opinion. It is a fact that an argument by ridicule is a fallacy, implied or explicit. Therefore, ridicule is not justified because arguing by a fallacy is never justified.

I think you've simply misunderstood. We are not presenting laughter as proof in the course of an argument; we are laughing primarily at the absurdity of a tale.

Hold on. Who said anything about laughter? I sure didn’t. So either you are simply misunderstanding what’s going on here or you do understand but are introducing a Red Herring to distract from the fact that arguments by ridicule are fallacious.

The record will show you attempted to defend the use of ridicule as a viable form of “scoring a direct hit.� In responding to my post 45, where I was specifically referring to (ii)(c). Arguments by ridicule in relation to the zombie invasion mischaracterisation, you asserted in
post 54, “Ridicule and private astonishment may be small in the big world of theological armaments, but they certainly score direct hits.�

I’m asking you who do you think your ridicule scores a direct hit with? Because it doesn’t score a hit with anyone who has a even a basic grasp of logic since arguing by ridicule is a fallacy. So who else do you think it scores a hit with?

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that apocalyptic symbolism can only refer to prophetic events of the future. That’s not necessarily the case at all. Surely if Matthew believed he was near the end times he could very easily be using apocalyptic references in a past tense to symbolism the significance of Jesus’ resurrection. That’s exactly what we see in Acts 2.

I'm assuming no such thing.

Then why have you been making such a fuss about chapter 24 referring to future events? It seem then there’s no meaningful distinction between Matthew 24 and 27.

You brought up an entirely different passage with clear symbolic content and you want to illustrate that if Matthew could use symbolism there, then the dead saints could be symbolic.

Matthew 24 was brought up to address the argument you made that in Matthew 27 “The phrase "at that moment" identifies a spot in time.� As though identifying a spot in time was sufficient to solidify an historical interpretation of Matthew 27. I pointed out that Matthew 24:29, a clear apocalyptic verse, also “ identifies a spot in time.� This counter argument has gone unrefuted.

Nothing you have said gives the slightest indication of how Matthew is being symbolic about the risen dead.

Well I don’t think that’s the case. I’ve provided numerous arguments. But I’m less interested in convincing you than I am in seeing if you can offer any knock down counter arguments to the symbolic view or arguments that seem to solidify the historical view of Matthew 27. I don’t think you have so far. That’s not to say it can’t be done or such arguments don’t exist. It’s just to say that I don’t think you’ve managed to produce them. But thanks for trying. That’s certainly more than I can say for most of the participants in this thread.

[JehovahsWitness]

... it is WRONGLY thought that the subject of the verb should be neuter, to agree with "bodies" OR the subject must be other people. This is the principal translational flaw.

Bold MINE


Perhaps I missed your point because you were not specific enough, would you be so kind as to actually say which verb you are refering to? Upon what grammatical error do you base your conclusion that a "translational flaw" is in evidence?




Thank you


JW

[marco]

Hold on. Who said anything about laughter? I sure didn’t. So either you are simply misunderstanding what’s going on here or you do understand but are introducing a Red Herring to distract from the fact that arguments by ridicule are fallacious.

It's an interesting methodology to pick some options, classify them as completeness, and then ask the adversary to pick one of them. Objecting to "laughter" instead of "ridicule" is indeed a red herring. I am not attacking a literal view of events, by ridicule or anything else; I'm actually defending the literal view.

The record will show you attempted to defend the use of ridicule as a viable form of “scoring a direct hit.�

This sounds like an accusation when in fact it's perfectly true. First of all, using argument from ridicule is considered a poor rhetorical device, but the ridicule here is against the tale, not the argument about the text. I've already - unsuccessfully - explained to you that one may ridicule a tale. That's not argument. When the other party argues a defence, then one engages in proper argument. You're simply misunderstanding "argument from ridicule as a logical fallacy." You ask "with who" (sic) ridicule scores hits. It scores hits against the source of the absurdity and with anyone interested in starting a discussion. One of the greatest orators, Cicero, used ridicule and sarcasm in brilliant ways. His "cum rosam viderat" passage when he was opposing Verres is a fine example of reducing someone by using ridicule. So rightly or wrongly, ridicule scores hits - BUT Marco isn't using ridicule himself. I am saying that in some cases it wins points. So when you say:


" I’m asking you who do you think your ridicule scores a direct hit with? Because it doesn’t score a hit with anyone who has a even a basic grasp of logic since arguing by ridicule is a fallacy. So who else do you think it scores a hit with? "

I have now replied. Incidentally "the basic grasp" phrase is itself an example of an attempt to ridicule an opponent. Thankfully I haven't employed ridicule; I have simply pointed out that it can be very effective, even if Plato shakes his head. But we are not, I assume, Platos here and some of us are more impressionable than others.

Then why have you been making such a fuss about chapter 24 referring to future events? It seem then there’s no meaningful distinction between Matthew 24 and 27.

If you admit that you see no difference between reporting what has happened and inventing a story of a future scenario we can move on. It's the difference between fact and fiction, but I accept that with the Bible people might have problems deciding which is which.

Matthew 24 was brought up to address the argument you made that in Matthew 27 “The phrase "at that moment" identifies a spot in time.� As though identifying a spot in time was sufficient to solidify an historical interpretation of Matthew 27. I pointed out that Matthew 24:29, a clear apocalyptic verse, also “ identifies a spot in time.� This counter argument has gone unrefuted.

Sufficient is your own making; I never claimed nor thought that presenting the time aspect was "sufficient." It may be necessary. I offered other details to back up my point - note: without ridicule. So you are taking " sufficient" from nowhere and arguing against a point I don't uphold. Yes, you get points for taking another passage that has a verb in it and so a tense, as if the requirement is to show both passages deal with some time zone. This is a complete misunderstanding of what is being argued. It explains why you write:

But I’m less interested in convincing you than I am in seeing if you can offer any knock down counter arguments to the symbolic view or arguments that seem to solidify the historical view of Matthew 27. I don’t think you have so far.

It isn't clear to me how you come to a decision, given the mistakes you make on the way. But I like your robust style of arguing against what I don't believe. The mouse gnawing may achieve more than the lion. Enjoyable argumentation. Go well.

[marco]

Perhaps I missed your point because you were not specific enough, would you be so kind as to actually say which verb you are refering to? Upon what grammatical error do you base your conclusion that a "translational flaw" is in evidence?

That's one possible reason why you missed the point.

I was commenting on the analysis you provided. The relevant Greek words are:


egeir� and Egersis : this verb and noun refer to rising from the dead but your translation prefers to treat them differently. There's no good reason for this.

exerchomai ek ho mnēmeion eiserchomai ho hagios polis kai emphaniz� polys.


The bodies have now turned into recognisable saints, having been resurrected. It is these resurrected people(THEY) who go out to the holy city and appear to many. Your translation invites strangers in.

[JehovahsWitness]

The relevant Greek words are:


egeir� and Egersis : this verb and noun refer to rising from the dead but your translation prefers to treat them differently.

Are you suggesting that these words are used only (exclusively) in relation to raising from death? Is that what you are suggesting as the basis for a perceived "translational error"?

[Goose]

Objecting to "laughter" instead of "ridicule" is indeed a red herring.

Huh? You changed the topic from an argument by ridicule to laughter when I pointed out that the former is a fallacy. Laughter is irrelevant. Laughter isn’t an argument.

I am not attacking a literal view of events, by ridicule or anything else; I'm actually defending the literal view.

Irrelevant. You have been explicitly defending the use of the argument by ridicule fallacy starting way back in post 54.

The record will show you attempted to defend the use of ridicule as a viable form of “scoring a direct hit.�

This sounds like an accusation when in fact it's perfectly true. First of all, using argument from ridicule is considered a poor rhetorical device, but the ridicule here is against the tale, not the argument about the text.

Now you are doubling down on defending the use of the argument by ridicule fallacy. First of all, the use of a logical fallacy in argumentation is not merely “a poor rhetorical device.� It is considered an explicit error in reasoning. It does not matter that the argument by ridicule is against the tale rather than the text itself – it is still a fallacy. There’s no getting around this. There’s no defending it logically. If you want to defend the use of a logical fallacy there’s not much more I can do here.

I've already - unsuccessfully - explained to you that one may ridicule a tale.

Of course it’s unsuccessful because an argument by ridicule is a fallacy. Therefore, you may not do it if you wish to argue logically. However, if arguing logically means nothing to you then by all means argue by ridicule.

That's not argument.

The zombie invasion mischaracterisation is an argument by ridicule.

You're simply misunderstanding "argument from ridicule as a logical fallacy."

What is it I’m misunderstanding? An argument by ridicule is a fallacy.

You ask "with who" (sic) ridicule scores hits. It scores hits against the source of the absurdity and with anyone interested in starting a discussion.

Please explain how a logical fallacy “scores hits against the source of the absurdity.� How can a fallacy score a hit? As for scoring hits with interested parties. Bjs and myself are interested parties and the argument by ridicule doesn’t score hits with us. So once again I’m left presuming you think the ridicule must score hits with sceptics.

So rightly or wrongly, ridicule scores hits - BUT Marco isn't using ridicule himself. I am saying that in some cases it wins points.

A fallacy should never win points in any case. It might win points with those who have a poor grasp of logic though.

Incidentally "the basic grasp" phrase is itself an example of an attempt to ridicule an opponent.

The fact you think my reference to not scoring hits with someone with even a basic grasp of logic is an argument by ridicule shows me you don’t seem to understand what an argument by ridicule is. Here’s an argument by ridicule:

If you believe the saints mentioned in Matthew 27 rose from dead, then you believe in zombies.

That has been the implied reoccurring argument in this thread made by Redeye, Rikuoamero, Jubal etc. You have been defending the use of this fallacious argument by defending the use of an argument by ridicule. Either that or you do not understand what an argument by ridicule is and have mistakenly responded with an irrelevancy.

Thankfully I haven't employed ridicule;

Although I haven’t seen you explicitly refer to zombies yourself, you have explicitly defended the use of that argument by defending the use of an argument by ridicule.

I have simply pointed out that it can be very effective,

Effective at what? What is a logical fallacy effective at? Surely you don’t mean effective at ensuring we arrive at sound conclusions.

If you admit that you see no difference between reporting what has happened and inventing a story of a future scenario we can move on.

Why would I admit that?

It's the difference between fact and fiction, but I accept that with the Bible people might have problems deciding which is which.

Look what you are doing here. You have made the difference between the past and future equal to the difference between the past and fiction. That’s false. The future does not equal fiction.

Matthew 24 was brought up to address the argument you made that in Matthew 27 “The phrase "at that moment" identifies a spot in time.� As though identifying a spot in time was sufficient to solidify an historical interpretation of Matthew 27. I pointed out that Matthew 24:29, a clear apocalyptic verse, also “ identifies a spot in time.� This counter argument has gone unrefuted.

Sufficient is your own making; I never claimed nor thought that presenting the time aspect was "sufficient."

Well the temporal argument you made here was your first and only argument for the historical view. You made it sound as though it was sufficient. Are there other arguments then?

I offered other details to back up my point

Sure, but they were subsequent details backing up the same argument, not making new ones.

So you are taking " sufficient" from nowhere and arguing against a point I don't uphold.

So you have other arguments then? What are they?

Yes, you get points for taking another passage that has a verb in it and so a tense, as if the requirement is to show both passages deal with some time zone.

Right because that shows simply pointing out a temporal point doesn’t establish that Matthew intended the raising of the saints in 27 to be understood as literal history.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what is being argued.

Well what was it you were arguing then?

[marco]

Are you suggesting that these words are used only (exclusively) in relation to raising from death? Is that what you are suggesting as the basis for a perceived "translational error"?

Well if this is the level of our discussion I think what I have wriiten, as Pilate said, I have written. Thanks for the involvement.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting that these words are used only (exclusively) in relation to raising from death? Is that what you are suggesting as the basis for a perceived "translational error"?

Well if this is the level of our discussion I think what I have wriiten, as Pilate said, I have written. Thanks for the involvement.

Fair enough. I don't think my question is unreasonable, given every biblical dictionary I have looked up uses the words in an incredibly wide range of ways (from rising from a chair to awakening from a nap), and absolutely no expert I have come across indicates egeir� refers uniqely to rising from death.

egeir� and Egersis : this verb and noun refer to rising from the dead but your translation prefers to treat them differently.

If you have come across a reference that supports exclusivity of meaning, feel free to present it, if you so wish. If not, forgive me if I dismiss the observation as being an inaccurate.


JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 95 by Goose]


It is clear that logical fallacy is a warm favourite. The next step is to be able to tell the difference between ridicule and argument from ridicule.


You mention two people who are unaffected by ridicule, or indeed logical fallacy. Then from two you generalise. Bad move.


You claim that I am wrongly supposing future equals fiction. They both start with the letter F, certainly. No, the point that seems to be your stumbling block is that when I talk about time-specific events I am saying Matthew places events in a specific period we know about, the crucifixion, in the past. There are no dates but that's the way with the NT. I call this fact, at least as Matthew reports it. You find another passage where Matthew speculates (fiction) what will happen in a distant future. You can't see the difference and so you wronly think I don't know the difference between future and fiction. Any port in a storm, I suppose.

You wonder how a "logical fallacy" (how you love that phrase! There are others, you know, but maybe that's for another time) can do things, like score a hit. Ah, the joys of English. The speaker scores the hit, Goose, and by a processs of transferring, the abstract noun is made the subject. It's called hypallage and it can make pillows sleepless when prisoners sleep on them.

The term zombie invasion is perhaps an anachronism, but it is a perfectly good description of Matthew's scenario. Nobody (well, almost nobody) can call a simple title an argument. That would be employing another figure of speech called prolepsis, anticipating what's to be when the actual discussion starts.


To simplify matters: Matthew's verse has a perfectly good, if absurd, literal meaning. Because it is far fetched some might go off and seek other meanings beneath the words chosen by Matthew. Then, despite the fact that Matthew relates a sequence of events at the time of the specific event, the crucifixion, with no hint he's in symbolism, some want to extract a new meaning. That in itself is a feat as big as getting out of one's grave. On balance then it would appeaar we should take Matthew at his word, rather than refashion his words.

Entertaining discussion.

[marco]

If you have come across a reference that supports exclusivity of meaning, feel free to present it, if you so wish. If not, forgive me if I dismiss the observation as being an inaccurate.

JW, we have had interesting discussions in the past. I have translated thousands of documents in lots of languages and at no point did my brain suggest to me that one verb has one meaning. One of the difficulties in translating is to choose an appropriate meaning. I mentioned the two words placed in proximity. Of course the verb has a variety of meanings. Were I translating I would be attracted to the meaning"rise from the dead" simply because a word of the same stem is used nearby, which tells us that "rising from the dead" is not a taboo meaning; and we are in a place of tombs. Other translations seem to ignore the setting.

Let's disagree. I am growing tired of Matthew. Best wishes.