“Does anything in the text of Matthew 27 suggest that the people who were raised would look any different from other people? No.”
Um, yes actually. The part about them coming out of graves after being dead and buried suggests this.
“What significance does the use of a term like "zombie" have, then?”
You mean, other than that we are essentially speaking of revived corpses here?
“Ahmed claims that the dead who had been raised were seen by non-Christians. Does Matthew 27 say that they were seen, and were recognized as people who had risen from the dead, by people who remained non-Christians afterward? No.”
I guess these risen corpses must have just blended in?
”He asks why other sources don't report the event, but do we have any reason to expect any particular source to report it? No.”
If it’s fictional? No, of course not.
“The idea that a non-Christian source would have a compelling desire to report such an event so favorable to Christianity is dubious and is an assumption I've never seen any critic justify.“
Indeed, I see no compelling reason for anyone to repeat a fiction in the first place. But if it did happen and the other evangelists knew of it, I guess they deliberately chose not to mention it. I wonder why. You say other writers would have had no compelling reason to mention it. What was Matthew’s compelling reason to mention it?
“Matthew only gives the event a brief mention. It doesn't seem to have had much prominence even in his mind.”
So why did he bother mentioning it then?
“The skeptical appeal to Matthew 27 should be abandoned. It's a bad argument. It relies on dubious assumptions.”
I’m not sure what exactly is being argued by the critics who bring it up – it’s so bizarre and so obviously fictional that it doesn’t even need an argument. It seems that just a few questions are enough to bring this out, which is all the critics probably think they need to do. How about this, Jason: can you think of any *good* reason why one should believe this event actually happened?
************
First Paul Manata:
“Right, so you've just undercut the request for the report to have been collaborated.”
I think the question about corroboration for such a bizarre report comes in response to the urgency that we take it seriously as history. If someone asks someone to believe what Matthew reports in the passage in question, the request for corroboration is natural if that request is going to be entertained. Of course, some will just believe it regardless of whether it is corroborated or verifiable. Perhaps the absence of this kind of disposition is what bothers many Christians.
”If other people back then reported it, you'd consign the reports to the rantings of ancient, superstitious people who *must* be wrong since the event is "so obviously fictional."
I do have that right of course. What are you going to do about it? Bitch and moan?
“What if they had died that week?”
What if? Does the passage indicate this? I don’t see that it does.
”What if they had been given a renovated body?”
Where does the passage say anything about the reanimated corpses having “renovated bodies”? What exactly is a “renovated body” anyway? What about their clothing? If they had been buried even for a few days, it’s possible that their clothing would have been soiled, perhaps even stained and stinking from decomposition. These are things that we know happens to dead bodies. Would a “renovated body” walk around nude, or would it wear its burial clothes, or a whole new wardrobe?
”Why didn't Jesus come out after three days all beaten and bloodied?”
I don’t know that Jesus did “come out after three days.” This is a faith-based belief that I never found persuasive whatsoever.
”So, what you're saying is that since you *a priori* deny any supernatural work done to the body, then they'd "obviously" have to come out of the grave like Night of the Living Dead.”
I don’t believe I said this. Can you show where I did?
“Terrorizing villagers, I'm sure. Perhaps some had eye balls hanging out, capped off with the classic raven pecking at it. What you're saying, if I'm reading you right, is that you're letting the grid of horror movies interpret your reading of the passage. That's a good hermeneutical device, I must say.”
I don’t think anything I stated ever suggested “the grid of horror movies” as my interpretive reference.
[Skip Manata’s groping speculations on what I think makes an event “historical” as it did not speak to my point.]
”Thanks for sharing with all of us your biases.”
And thanks for sharing yours.
Now Jason Engwer had something to say:
Me “The part about them coming out of graves after being dead and buried suggests this.”
”I asked whether the people who were raised would look different, not whether their surroundings, such as gravesites, would look different.”
Here’s what you asked:
“Does anything in the text of Matthew 27 suggest that the people who were raised would look any different from other people?”My answer was that the part about them coming out of their graves after being dead and buried suggests this. I didn’t say anything about “disturbed gravesites.”
”The passage doesn’t tell us that the people looked different from the general population.”
The passage says precious little, which in itself is noteworthy to me. But I would say that the assumption that someone crawling out of a grave after being dead and buried for a while might look different from the average Joe who had never been dead and buried, is a reasonable inference.
“There’s a lot that the passage leaves unsaid.”
That’s an understatement if I ever saw one.
“You can make some assumptions that would render the passage’s historicity less plausible, but why make those assumptions?”
Indeed, why not simply assume that people who had been dead and buried for who knows how long, and then came out of those graves and “showed themselves unto many,” would simply blend in seamlessly with everyone else? Mmm.. okay.
”What do you mean by “revived”?”
Only the minimum necessary to fit what the passage in question actually states.
“If a person’s body had decomposed in the grave, we would expect a restoration of that body in order to enable the body to function.”
As you ask above, “why make those assumptions?” What “restoration” does Matthew indicate in the passage? As you say, “there’s a lot that the passage leaves unsaid.” If you reserve the right to insert things into the passage to fit your biases, why can’t I do the same? After all, Manata has already dismissed whatever I have to say as the product of bias. Are Christians without bias?
“That’s what we see in other contexts addressing resuscitation or resurrection, such as Ezekiel 37. Lazarus, for example, apparently didn’t continue to have the illness that led to his death.”
Then by all means, take the liberty to insert freely into the Matthean passage elements from other biblical contexts. This is how “scripture” developed over the centuries, and allusions like this make for good apologetic hiding grounds.
“The term “zombie”, as commonly used with reference to movies and in other contexts, suggests concepts that Matthew 27 doesn’t imply (bodies that remain partially decomposed, people living in a trance-like state, etc.).”
Exactly what does the Matthean passage in question imply in your mind? You yourself stated that “there’s a lot that the passage leaves unstated.”
Me “I guess these risen corpses must have just blended in?”
Jason “If their bodies were restored, why wouldn’t they?”
I have no idea what you mean by “there bodies were restored,” or where the passage suggests this. But let’s grant it for argument’s sake: if these risen corpses did just blend in, then presumably they would look pretty much just like anyone else. If that’s the case, how did Matthew know that anyone rose out of the graves in the first place? Or did Matthew never witness any of this to begin with
"There’s no indication that Lazarus looked different than the others who attended the meal in John 12, for example.”
So, if Lazarus had a ruddy, acne-scarred face before his death, his face looked just the same after he was resurrected (or resuscitated, or whatever)? Is that what a “renovated” body is like? Just curious here.
“But the people in Matthew 27 wouldn’t need to “blend in” in every context in order to have done so to some extent. If they looked different initially, such as when they were coming out of the grave, it doesn’t follow that they would look different when walking along a street later.”
So what would have changed between the time they crawled out of their graves and the time they were walking along a street later?
”If you’re going to suggest that their clothing would set them apart, why should we think so?”
Well, for one, if the clothing were in their graves with them while they were decomposing. Or did everyone’s clothes look soiled and stained and stinky already, even before they were dead and buried?
“The concept that God would raise people from the dead, but leave them with no clothing or deteriorated clothing, is ridiculous.”
If you say so. Perhaps they all got fresh linens along with “renovated” flesh? (And that’s not ridiculous?)
“It’s consistent with the imagery somebody might get from a horror movie, but it’s absurd in a first-century Jewish context.”
Again, if you say so. Of course, I don’t know where the passage says anything about the makeover you apparently read from it.
“People wouldn’t have been walking around nude, and assuming that bodies would be restored without restored clothing is dubious.”
And yet the idea of dead people rising out of their graves is… perfectly reasonable?
“Did Jesus have to travel nude for a while, looking for clothing, after His resurrection?”
If Jesus was never resurrected in the first place, then obviously not.
“Does God raise a person, but then leave him on his own to find some clothing to wear?”
God can pretty much do whatever pleases him I thought.
“Did God also leave people buried in the ground or inside a sealed tomb, without any further assistance, after reviving them?”
Maybe he made sure they were buried with picks and shovels.
“Did Jesus have to move the stone in front of His grave Himself?”
I guess Jesus could have conjured some helpers at the time he needed them. Anything’s possible when you get into fictional accounts like these.
Me “If it’s fictional? No, of course not.”
Jason “When you ignore the question I asked, and instead answer a question nobody was asking, you’re probably doing that because you’re playing with a weak hand.”
You asked a question, and I answered it as best I could understand it. It’s not my fault if you don’t like the answer.
“You know that you don’t have much of an argument.”
Argument? For what exactly am I supposed to argue? This is amusement.
”I didn’t ask why we should expect other sources to mention an event that didn’t occur. I asked why we would expect them to mention the event if it did occur. You haven’t answered that question.”
How about this: Other sources could be expected to report such an amazing event precisely because it did occur, if in fact it did occur.
Me “You say other writers would have had no compelling reason to mention it. What was Matthew’s compelling reason to mention it?”
Jason “Matthew could have had a non-compelling reason.”
So Matthew was compelled by a non-compelling reason?
“And if it was a non-compelling reason, it’s understandable that other sources, like Luke and John, wouldn’t think that they were compelled by that non-compelling reason.”
Could they have been compelled by a different non-compelling reason, and yet felt so uncompelled by that non-compelling reason, that they just said the heck with it, and leave it out of their versions, even though Matthew’s non-compelling reason was at least compelling enough to compel him to mention it (albeit ever so briefly)?
“I’ve already explained, in my initial post and in the other material I linked to, why non-Christians might not mention the event, even if they had heard of it.”
Yes, but I found your explanation rather uncompelling.
Me “So why did he bother mentioning it then?”
Jason “Because authors often mention things that are of less significance.”
Yes, they sure do, which pretty much snuffs out the need to have a compelling reason to mention something.
“Are we supposed to believe that everything an author mentions must be of an essential nature?”
That’s a good question, one I’ll keep in mind the next time a Christian apologist asks me to identify some compelling reason for a gospel writer to mention something he doesn’t mention.
Me “I’m not sure what exactly is being argued by the critics who bring it up – it’s so bizarre and so obviously fictional that it doesn’t even need an argument.”
Jason “I deny that the account is “obviously fictional”,”
I know.
“and I want you to argue for your position rather than just asserting it.”
Yes, you probably want a lot of things. But I answer to a higher authority, Jason.
“As far as being “bizarre” is concerned, supernatural events aren’t supposed to be natural.”
Right. The more bizarre, the merrier.
“Criticizing a supernatural event for being unusual doesn’t make much sense.”
Which just makes me wonder what all the fuss about something being ridiculous is. The supernatural – which is admittedly expected to be unusual – becomes normal, while the natural – which we deal with everyday – becomes ridiculous and absurd. What fun it must be to be a Christian!
“Even many natural events, such as the death of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on July 4, 1826, are unusual.”
People have to die some time.
“But we take other factors into account as well, such as the trustworthiness of the sources, rather than making a judgment based only on how common or expected an event seems.”
Right. And while you find the New Testament sources “trustworthy,” I do not. Irks you to hell and back, doesn’t it?
