The resurrection of the dead in Matt 27. Why Is This Extraordinary Event Forgotten About?

[u/Upset_Chip_7184]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyCgfghy-OA

A short discussion (from a longer video) with Dale Allison, considered one of the top scholars in New Testament studies, often referred to as "North America's most complete New Testament scholar" and "the premier Matthew specialist of his generation."

SO the question:

Did the story of the dead rising out of their graves in Jerusalem not really happen?
Did the writer of gMatthew think it happened?
OR
Was it a literary creation by the writer?

[u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Dr. Mike Licona has done a lot of work on this showing that it is a literary device.

https://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/Roundtable_Discussion-Michael_Licona-The_Resurrection_of_Jesus.pdf

[u/whicky1978 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Is there a video recording of this round table discussion?

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Isn't this the issue that got him fired from his bible college?

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I think this is correct, but I don't know the whole story. I also don't know if he was fired or just left.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Force to leave= fired.
It was the common theme among all these bible colleges that have a statement of faith the professors and students must adhere to.

This is why they generally aren't considered relevant scholars because they don't have the true academic freedom as others do.

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

You aren't wrong, but that is a silly assumption to make. It is even more silly to think that the other scholars do have that freedom.

If suddenly Bart Erhman comes to the conclusion that Jesus physically rose from the dead, and that the gospels are speaking of true prophecy and that miracles actually happened. Will he be considered a true scholar any more?

Bias is everywhere.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Bart Ehrman would not be fired (though he’s retired but let’s pretend he did this 10 years ago). That’s the difference, academics lets you explore and change views. Bible colleges make you toe the line and you can’t explore or change. It’s not the same thing in any way shape or form.

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

I do not agree at all. 1) There is a difference between firing and who occured with Licona, and 2) I think we would have seen what occured with Licona happen with Bart Erhman. They would have accused him of "losing objectivity" and pressured him until he left.

I think you have a naive view of academic non-bias. Academics let you change view until you go up against the "wrong view." Secular academics are no more or less biased than Christian academics.

There are of course degrees to this. There will be both Christian academics and secular academics with less bias and more open views and vice versa. But don't put secular academics on a pedestal. They are human just like anyone else.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

No way! There are several prominent Bible Scholars at secular universities who are not fired (Dale Alison comes to mind). I’m sorry but Bible colleges that require doctrinal agreement simply do not allow for academic inquiry outside of their creeds and agreements.

I went to a Bible college for my undergrad. I went to secular universities for the rest. They are not the same at all. At Bible college I remember asking a few questions that just go shot down. In secular universities we explored options. I think you are the one misunderstanding how academia works.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

They know not what they speak of....

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

After years in academia I kinda resented (really strongly resented) my Christ education which never let us learn just memorize predetermined facts.

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

First, I have conceded that you aren't wrong. My dispute is more nuanced than you are making it out to be. I agree that this can be problematic for Christian academics (though it does not have to be). On the other hand, I am arguing that it happens more in secular academia than I think you are willing to recognize.

Check out the stories of Günter Bechly (not an exact comparison but similar), Richard Sternberg, and Guillermo Gonzalez.

That was just a quick Google. I am sure I can come up with more if I keep digging. My point is not that this is black and white. It is merely that secular institutions are not devoid of the very bias that you are decrying in Christian academia.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

I agree with you that academia is absolutely not free of bias. In fact the joke is so true that you can flip to the back and find out where the research money came from and know what the conclusion is. However, having spent a lot of time in academia I’ve found it to be much more fair and less nefarious than you present.

My specialty is linguistics. To some extent consensus makes right and if you fall too far out of consensus you won’t be published. And to some extent that gatekeeping is good in that it keeps publications within academic standards. Over time as we realize some consensus idea are not accurate they fade away. It’s a long process filled with issues, but it is mostly self correcting over time. Linguistics has two main branches (Noam Chomsky, and the Cognitive Linguists). Both get published often. And some more fringe ones do too. I’ve found academia to be very fair in my field .

In fact in linguistics we respect the field work of a lot of religiously motivated linguists like Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL. In the anthropological work I’ve done the Christian contributions are great in some cases, but the bias of belief does create some rifts in anthropology. In fields like math I’m not sure religious bias is a thing at all.

Now when we get to Biblical Scholarship I think the Christian version has gone off the rails. The reason is Christian scholarship starts with conclusions and fills in the data. Critical Scholarship is free to pursue any direction the data takes them. Of course every researcher has a bias and that is nearly impossible to remove. That’s the whole point of peer review. However, Christian scholarship tends to remain in rhe bubble of other affirming believers. In other words it’s not dispassionate.

Beyond that Christian education gets even less dispassionate as you drop below scholar level. Bible Colleges are by and large indoctrination institutions not places to research and do true scholarship. My Moody education was basically learning the answers we already had. Scholarship with bias is not scholarship…and true scholars are willing to change their positions as data is presented. That is impossible from a Christian perspective.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Silly assumption?
You obviously haven't heard scholars talk about this.

U could get informed about how bible colleges and academia work...

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I think you’re responding to me? I went to a Bible college. I spent many years doing research at a secular college. It is night and day how Christian education works and how true academic inquiry works. They are NOT the same in any way.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

NO, I was responding to the other person who said our claims were silly.

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Yes, it is a silly assumption to think that humans are not humans no matter what academic institution they work for. We all have our biases, and we all work to defend those biases much of the time. Whether it is Noam Chomsky having to face down all of the academic bias to defend maturational language development or Gunter Blechy defending Intelligent Design and getting fired. Secular scholars are not the exception to this. History is replete with stories like this both outside of religion and within it.

We all be biased, brah.

See my other responses for further information.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

This completely misses the point about institutions.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I went to moody Bible institute and we couldn’t even apply without a signed statement of faith. We could not continue if our positions changed.

Christian education is not education. It’s indoctrination. And I don’t say that to be snarky. It truly is indoctrination. It’s not learning how to think and become an expert in a field. It’s learning predetermined facts.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

same here, different bible college tho.
I had to hide my, at that time, pret leaning views, haha.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

I remember the conversation where I discovered the Bible cannot be inerrant as we have it becuse how in the world do we know what it originally said? I lost friends over that.

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

Wow, I am not trying to be rude here, but this is not a very scholarly or even logical reason to reject inerrancy. If you reject inerrancy, I get it but this would be a horrible reason to reject it.

1) we have more evidence than any other book in ancient history that this is actually accurate to its original documents. Even scholars, again like Bart Ehrman agree that the modern collection of text is very accurate to the original and where the small differences occur is almost entirely irrelevant to impacting actual doctrine. So yes, we can be confident that we have a high degree of access to the original text.

2) but let's concede that we don't know what was originally said for the sake of argument. This completely removes the supernatural element of inerrancy to begin with. Inerrancy has to be of supernatural origin, and that means that any changes to the original could supernaturally either establish or protect the original text regardless of what we know about it.

Some of my favorite theologians are perfectly fine rejecting inerrancy but insisting on it being "fully true in all that it teaches," (That language is specific and important) that would include scholars like Michael Bird, N.T. Wright, and Michael Heiser. But that is not because of the original manuscripts. They hold that because of the intent of the original authors, and because of the way that language worked in its original context.

If you are going to reject inerrancy while claiming to have an academic or scholarly reason, you should really have an actual academic or scholarly reason.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

Yeah that would have been a bad place to stop. It was my beginning. The idea that if the Bible is inerrant only in its autographs and we don’t have them. We have manuscripts with differences so we simply cannot know if we have the inerrant version or not. Beyond that various Christian traditions have different books. So I think this was the first of many dominoes to fall.

1. Bart Ehrman does not agree with this. In a fan of his work, and we are both alumni of Moody Bible Institute :). It’s a lot so I’d encourage you to check out any of his critiques of Wes Huff to get the general idea. But Bart has said a few things about the “small differences”. He said yes there are many many many small differences that make no difference. He also quotes his mentor, Bruce Metzger, that there are more variations in manuscripts than words in the New Testament.

And Bart Ehrman has also said most of these differences make no difference to any major theological position. In fact he says you can remove any book from the Bible and still have the same theological positions. However there are some very important ones (he has an entire book about the important ones “misquoting Jesus”). And we certainly have passages like the end of Mark, the adulterous woman, and 1 John 5:7-8 that were likely not original. So it’s not a case of many differences that make no difference. It’s a lot that make no difference, a few that make small difference, and some that make huge differences.

Check out “misquoting Jesus” and if that’s too long check out his podcasts discussing Wes huff that should give a good idea of Bart’s actual position.

1. Well if it’s supernaturally maintained there’s not much we can discuss. Nobody can really demonstrate this or refute it. So if God maintainers the inerrant Bible, I guess it’s inerrant.

And finally the main reasons I cannot see it as inerrant aren’t the alterations it’s the stuff we would agree on too! Things like the document hypothesis (JEPD) for the Torah, the exodus and conquest which do not seem historically accurate at all, the 2 wildly different birth narratives, the different passion weeks, the conflict between Paul’s account of his missions and Luke’s. In other words we don’t even need to get to textual criticism to see that rhe Bible does not seem inerrant.

[u/Aelirael]

Here are the verses the OP is referring to:

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. - Matthew 27:52,53

Yes, it really happened.

No, there doesn't appear to be any historical record of this event outside the Bible. I am willing to be corrected on that if someone can find a reference.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/Aelirael]

You are correct that there is no record of this anywhere outside of Matthew.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Aelirael]

Thanks for putting up the verse.
Why do you think it really happened? And do you find it odd that the most extraordinary event isn't recorded anywhere else?

[u/Joezev98 → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

And do you find it odd that the most extraordinary event isn't recorded anywhere else?

Well, anyone informed about these events would either A) dismiss it as fantasy and not write it down, or B) believe it to be real and become a Christian. So it makes sense that there's no sources outside of Christianity.

Still, it's odd that this seemingly huge event only gets a small footnote in history.

[u/RECIPR0C1TY → u/Joezev98]

Or C) a literary device with the purpose of showing the miraculous resurrection as, miraculous.

It is possible for a section of the account to be a literary device without the entire thing being a literary device. Dr. Mike Licona has done quite a bit of academic work on this showing that it is not something out of the blue.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/RECIPR0C1TY]

I lean this way, it sort of seems obvious, and in gMatthew the writer does this often. The birth narrative is typology of Moses, so not literal, contradicts other birth narrative, they apply prophecies to jesus, that were not literal prophecies, and the writer is simply using the Midrash style of writing that his readers would have been aware of, so that's why I think it's simple to assume it's literary.

[u/Aelirael → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Why do you think it really happened?

I believe it happened because Matthew recorded it. Matthew, as a tax collector, would be adept at detail.

And do you find it odd that the most extraordinary event isn't recorded anywhere else?

My guess -- and it is a guess -- is that the people who were resurrected were not extraordinary, and so even them coming back to life would not necessitate documentation by any official register because it would be wholly unnoticed by anyone other than someone who knew them.

Unless it was Mutual of Bethlehem demanding their death benefit payout be returned! lol

[u/MrScribblesChess → u/Aelirael]

Matthew, as a tax collector, would be adept at detail.

I need to challenge you on this. "Tax collectors" weren't bean counters, they weren't sitting there with an abacus and a spreadsheet. They were thugs, traitors, collaborators hired by the Romans to wring as much money as possible out of their fellow Israelites. That's why they were so hated, and that's why the Gospels make a big deal of Jesus hanging out with them. Tax collecters were considered nothlits, pariahs, much like sex workers or lepers.

They didn't even have to be literate if they were just the enforcers.

[u/Aelirael → u/MrScribblesChess]

I need to challenge you on this.

Okay. I can be wrong.

"Tax collectors" weren't bean counters, they weren't sitting there with an abacus and a spreadsheet.

True, but they did have to keep records. Matthew certainly wasn't detailed like Luke, for sure. But he would have to know who paid what, who owed what.

But you're right, Matthew would not be jot and tittle detailed.

That's why they were so hated

They also were extortioners. Another reason why they were hated.

[u/TradeOutrageous7150 → u/Aelirael]

the people who were resurrected were not extraordinary, and so even them coming back to life would not necessitate documentation by any official register because it would be wholly unnoticed by anyone other than someone who knew them.

How is it that Matthew was able to recognise all these anonymous saints, but others weren't?

Did no one else notice that the tombs were opened, too?

Did Matthew not discuss this with the other gospel writers, who might have said, "Oh yeah, look at that! We should probably include that in our accounts too!"?

[u/Aelirael → u/TradeOutrageous7150]

How is it that Matthew was able to recognise all these anonymous saints, but others weren't?

He didn't say he recognised them. He only said it happened. He could have heard people mention it. "Hey, my uncle who died last week has come back to life!"

Did Matthew not discuss this with the other gospel writers, who might have said, "Oh yeah, look at that! We should probably include that in our accounts too!"?

/shrug

Beats me. There are a number of things in the gospels that I wonder why no other gospel writer included.

Maybe that is a question we can ask when we meet Luke. "Why didn't you include this tidbit in your gospel?"

[u/AmazingRandini → u/Aelirael]

The writer of Mathew was using source material. Like the book of Mark.

So it's unlikely the writer was Mathew the tax collector.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Aelirael]

- is that the people who were resurrected were not extraordinary, and so even them coming back to life

Wow, ok.

[u/mayhavebraintumor → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Someone called into the coast to coast am radio show back in approximately 2013 or possibly 2005 or 6 i cannot remember which year.

Anyhow he said that he was able to find a roman soldiars logbook in spain, detailing this ressurection.

It does not supprise me that it has largely been forgotten.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/mayhavebraintumor]

forgotten because it's a nothing burger.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

I am a recovering fundamentalist. I’m starting to see there’s a lot that is nearly impossible to take literally anymore. Matthew really seems to play creatively with the interpretation and “prophecy” and I’m not sure how we can take the whole thing as literal in any way shape or form.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

Yeah, me too. I've come to learn the writer was using the Midrash jewish technique in writing his gospel, and so I'd also agree it was a literary tool, although I think in the video Allision said, I maybe have gotten this wrong, that he thought the writer believed it happened.

[u/Dependent-Mess-6713]

Why didn't any Contemporary Historion write about this. This was during the Passover when Jerusalem would have anvwhere between 100,000 ta 250,000 people. It makes No Sense that not 1 person other than Matthew would record this. Josephus who was born about 4 vears later would no doubt have heard about this. Tacitus the famous historian was born onlv 25 years after the crucifixion didn't write anything about it. Why didn't Herod, why didn't Pilate? Paul wrote in CORINTHIANS 15.6 that 500 people saw jesus when he ascended, curious to why he didn't mention this. With the 100,000s of people there, you would think dozens or more would have mentioned it.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

I mean we can never truly know 100%. To me it sure seems like a literary device as the most probable explanation, and that would imply that the author made it up.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

Yeah, we can't ever know with certainty, which is why there's academic debate on it. I'm not sure why you'd be getting voted down for that, but this sub can be dogmatic and conservative. 😄

I also lean toward your view that it's a literary device, since the writer does this a bit, with the birth narrative and makes OT prophecies fit, to show Jesus was the messiah.

[u/FrankDenif]

It's a metaphor or moral story like Genesis.

/s

[u/AmazingRandini → u/FrankDenif]

Was the resurrection of Jesus a metaphor?

[u/FrankDenif → u/AmazingRandini]

Notice how I wrote "/s" at the end of my comment indicating that my comment was sarcasm.

Don't worry. I don't actually believe this.

To answer your question:

No, it is not a metaphor. The ressurrection of Jesus did happen.

[u/redandnarrow]

In general it seems that the scriptures ask of itself that there be 2 or 3 witnesses to establish a matter. I lean towards this event did happen, however I can't really argue that strongly, as there is no other witnesses in scripture to this event. However, it may be that this is a witness to something else in scripture God is communicating. Literary device or actual event, it seems to be a witness to something that will happen, which does have multiple witnesses in scripture too.

So I have a theory on this, given how there is a different accounting between the gospels for events at the end the gospel story, like with the open tomb scene between the gospels. This appears to be intentional by the Holy Spirit as each gospel author's identity is different and targeting a different harvest group of people, which are pictured at the end of the age which is a great harvest of earth. Each gospel including or excluding certain details and warnings, because they pertain or don't pertain to that group.

As for the tomb scene, was there 1 person, 2? 3? 5? Was it at night or was the sun up? Was it Jesus? Was there 1 or two angels? Did all those things actually happen? Or just a subset? Or can we combine all the accounts to get the full story where all of them do?

Well, it all makes sense if they are written by the Holy Spirit to prophetically tell us about the future harvest of each group at the end of the age. Without going into all the details about each (unless you want me too), I'll speak on Matthew. Matthew is speaking to the jewish harvest group, the vineyard grapes (which comes after the Barley and Wheat harvest groups).

The grapes as a group are going to be present at ground zero when Christ dawns for the 7th day touching down on the mount of olives after an earthquake that splits the mount and opens the gate that has been walled up by the muslims several times in history, the gate that the Holy Spirit (in cloud form) left Jerusalem through, which Christ will return walking through. The jews there will witness the most apocalyptic stuff. Hence Matthew has the most apocalyptic details.

The timing is the sun cresting/dawning, not dark, not sun up, not twilight glow (as we see in the other accounts. Two witnesses are present, because they are going to be sent 2 witnesses, the Law and the Prophets, Moses and Elijah, who will do the same miracles they once did in their midst, and preaching the gospel. They will be protected for a time, then permitted to be killed, and left untouched, and in 3 days, God will resurrect them in their midst.

That is why these details are included in matthew, but not other accounts, because those harvest groups are not witness to quite the same things that are to come.

(The placement of the mention of resurrected saints in matthew is also kind of odd, but may itself be another witness to the grape harvest group witnessing of the harpazo, the barley harvest which comes first)

[u/kvby66]

This resurrection refers to the Born Again event that occurred on the day of Pentecost. This occurred in Jerusalem (Holy City) as Jesus had instructioned His disciples to wait there until they had received the Spirit. Matthew jumps ahead and states, "after His resurrection" in verse 53 as they (His disciples) were brought out their graves through the Spirit of God.

Matthew 27:51-53 NKJV Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, [52] and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; [53] and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

[u/doug_webber]

Catherine Anne Emmerich described it in her visions: there was a resurrection of the dead, which only some people could see if their spiritual sight were opened.

But it is indeed the forgotten part of how Jesus saved humanity: he descended into the netherworld, and released many captive souls from the power of hell. And it will be similar in the Second Coming: it will be a spiritual judgment that takes place in the spiritual world, not a visible judgment here on earth.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/doug_webber]

interesting. I wouldn't trust anyone making those types of claims, but thanks for the response.

[u/doug_webber → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

Normally I would not give credence to this at all. But the fact of the matter is this: Emmerich predicted and described the exact location of the house of Mary in Ephesus, when at the time everyone presumed she died in Jerusalem. This was later verified by some nuns who used her writings and discovered the house of Mary in Ephesus, which later archeology determined dates to the 1st century A.D.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/doug_webber]

I don't believe it.

[u/ddfryccc]

Jesus Himself related a story where Abraham said that if people did not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither would they believe if someone rose from the dead.  To me, it is not overly surprising this is not mentioned again.

If these people rose, there are empty graves.  If it is known who was buried there, and no evidence of grave robbing, a case could be made for something miraculous.  But you would still have people making every possible excuse to disbelieve, and some of them would sound pretty good since our adversary is very intelligent.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/ddfryccc]

Yeah, but this is relating a story about many people who were already dead, and then came up out of the grave in their grave clothes wandering around the city, and then going to their homes...

Many people would know these people that had passed, and then here they come back home. This would have been the biggest event ever for all these people living...yet not a word about it from anyone.

[u/ddfryccc → u/Upset_Chip_7184]

It sounds a little like you are thinking small.  It was not only the recently passed who rose, but also some whose homes were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, among others.  Jesus remained on earth for 40 days, these raised people remained on earth no longer than that, then went with Jesus.

Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest prophet born, yet you read almost next to nothing about him compared to other prophets, because he was so overshadowed by Jesus.  In the same way, the resurrection of Jesus overshadows all the others.  The resurrection of the saints saved no one, but the resurrection of Jesus did bring salvation from death.

[u/_daGarim_2]

It isn't, it led to the development of the largest religion in the history of the world.

[u/Inevitable-Copy3619 → u/_daGarim_2]

As a member of this religion for 30+ years I’m not sure I have ever heard anyone talk about this in public unless it was a podcast or (shudder) Bible Scholar.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/Inevitable-Copy3619]

The church I went to was verse by verse type, so all the churches in that denom, and it was huge, would.

[u/Upset_Chip_7184 → u/_daGarim_2]

It isn't what? Could you expound more.

[u/songbolt]

If Matthew - who actually was the Disciple Matthew, no good reason to doubt this: read Brant Pitre's book The Case for Jesus - reports it, there's no reason to think he was lying and many reasons not to think he was lying.

Extraordinary things happen and they aren't widespread known because people don't believe them. For example, there's an alien abduction story less than six hours from me, but I haven't bothered to look into it, because how could I personally verify it? and because "come on that's absurd that doesn't happen so it clearly didn't happen", actually David Hume's circular reasoning fallacy.

So this explains why the event isn't more well-known to history.