The historicity of the dead rising from the tombs

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We've had a few threads recently about the historicity of Jesus, as well as many in the past. In general, the arguments for Jesus being a real historical figure have focused on support from extra-Biblical sources.

But I'm not particularly interested in that for this thread. Instead, I'd like to look at something else in the Gospels: what they say happened when Jesus died on the cross:

Matthew 27:52-54:

52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the [aa]saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was [ab]the Son of God!”

So... are there any extra-Biblical sources for this event? Should there be?

Personally, I would think that if any event would be noticed by non-Christians in Jerusalem, it would be multitudes of dead people rising from the grave and interacting with "many" of the people in the city. The execution of a rebellious itinerant rabbi, maybe not... but a zombie "invasion"? That's something to write home about, isn't it?

If there is no contemporary extra-Biblical mention of this event, what's the significance of this? Does it pose a problem for the idea that the Gospel story is true? And by that I mean not just that an itinerant preacher named "Jesus" or something like it lived, developed a following, and was executed, but that he worked miracles and was divine in some way?

 

[Father Heathen]

The brains of the non-christian witnesses were eaten.

 

[dawny0826]

Perhaps this was written about and lost in time. Or, perhaps there are other writings.

Or, maybe it's not to be taken literally at all. I don't think that it necessarily negates the entire gospel.

 

[Kathryn]

The bible is a book about spirituality - it's not a straight out history book, or science book. I look for the spiritual message when I read the bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps this was written about and lost in time. Or, perhaps there are other writings.

But we have writings from this time. For instance, Josephus: he gets pulled out in discussions of the historicity of Jesus precisely because his writings covered this period in the history of Judea. He's not quite contemporary, but he wrote during the lifetime of people who would have been alive at the time.

Or, maybe it's not to be taken literally at all.

What suggests to you that it wasn't meant to be taken literally? In my reading, there's no division in the text made between the story of Jesus' death on the cross and the events that came with it, including the verses I quoted in the OP. If this section wasn't meant to be taken literally, does this mean that Jesus' death on the cross wasn't meant to be taken literally either? From where I sit, they're presented as elements of the same story.

Also, even if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, its inclusion in the text suggests to me that the passage is meant to communicate some sort of meaning. If that meaning isn't simply "this event literally happened", what meaning do you think it is trying to communicate?

I don't think that it necessarily negates the entire gospel.

Do you mean you make allowances for this story being, say, a later insertion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The bible is a book about spirituality - it's not a straight out history book, or science book. I look for the spiritual message when I read the bible.

A similar question for you: if you don't look for historicity in this particular aspect of the story, does this mean that you don't look for historicity in the death and resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Storm]

Personally I believe the essence of the Passion was historical, BUT later mythologized. IOW, I don't assume the historicity of any individual miracle beyond the Resurrection itself.

 

[apophenia]

52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Wow. I'd never noticed or heard of that.

I guess most christians either glossed over that or prefer to not discuss it, because in all the religious debates I've heard or read on forums, this has never been mentioned.

I can see why they would leave it alone, because, as you say, this is hardly an event which would go unnoticed. Zombie saints ! Are there any other references to this in the bible ?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Wow. I'd never noticed or heard of that.

I guess most christians either glossed over that or prefer to not discuss it, because in all the religious debates I've heard or read on forums, this has never been mentioned.

I can see why they would leave it alone, because, as you say, this is hardly an event which would go unnoticed. Zombie saints ! Are there any other references to this in the bible ?

No, this is the only one.

 

[Kathryn]

A similar question for you: if you don't look for historicity in this particular aspect of the story, does this mean that you don't look for historicity in the death and resurrection of Jesus?

I'm fine with mystery when it comes to the stories in the Bible. I don't understand the whole story in the Gospels, and there are some strange stories in Acts as well. I think that Christianity in general has taken the stories in the Bible too literally, probably, especially after the Reformation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally I believe the essence of the Passion was historical, BUT later mythologized. IOW, I don't assume the historicity of any individual miracle beyond the Resurrection itself.

Whoa... wait: if you're coming into this assuming that myth has been accreted onto a historical account (an interpretation I see a fair bit of merit in generally, BTW), why would you include the Resurrection in the "historical" part and not the "mythologized" part?

 

[Storm]

Whoa... wait: if you're coming into this assuming that myth has been accreted onto a historical account (an interpretation I see a fair bit of merit in generally, BTW), why would you include the Resurrection in the "historical" part and not the "mythologized" part?

Because I'm weird.

I don't say the little things did happen, and I don't say they didn't. (And yes, in the context of the Passion, even a zombie invasion is 'little.') But I do believe Jesus rose.

Unless you want the long version.....

 

[dawny0826]

But we have writings from this time. For instance, Josephus: he gets pulled out in discussions of the historicity of Jesus precisely because his writings covered this period in the history of Judea. He's not quite contemporary, but he wrote during the lifetime of people who would have been alive at the time.?

The primary focus was on Christ, the King of the Jews, not the others. I don't really care about the others, to be honest or other writings written about them.

What suggests to you that it wasn't meant to be taken literally? In my reading, there's no division in the text made between the story of Jesus' death on the cross and the events that came with it, including the verses I quoted in the OP. If this section wasn't meant to be taken literally, does this mean that Jesus' death on the cross wasn't meant to be taken literally either? From where I sit, they're presented as elements of the same story.

I'm speaking in present tense, in terms of how one interprets biblical scripture. I either approach biblical scripture as something to be taken literally or not.

I approach scripture from a spiritual angle, seeking spiritual confirmation and guidance to decipher what I am reading. Who are these others to me? They aren't significant and do not confirm or negate my spiritual walk with Christ.

Also, even if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, its inclusion in the text suggests to me that the passage is meant to communicate some sort of meaning. If that meaning isn't simply "this event literally happened", what meaning do you think it is trying to communicate?

It merely reiterates the miracle of Christ's resurrection.

Do you mean you make allowances for this story being, say, a later insertion?

I'm honestly not concerned about it. Prior to you posting this, I never took notice of these others who were risen. It's been a non issue. They aren't of importance to me.

 

[fallingblood]

We've had a few threads recently about the historicity of Jesus, as well as many in the past. In general, the arguments for Jesus being a real historical figure have focused on support from extra-Biblical sources.

But I'm not particularly interested in that for this thread. Instead, I'd like to look at something else in the Gospels: what they say happened when Jesus died on the cross:

Matthew 27:52-54:


So... are there any extra-Biblical sources for this event? Should there be?

Personally, I would think that if any event would be noticed by non-Christians in Jerusalem, it would be multitudes of dead people rising from the grave and interacting with "many" of the people in the city. The execution of a rebellious itinerant rabbi, maybe not... but a zombie "invasion"? That's something to write home about, isn't it?

If there is no contemporary extra-Biblical mention of this event, what's the significance of this? Does it pose a problem for the idea that the Gospel story is true? And by that I mean not just that an itinerant preacher named "Jesus" or something like it lived, developed a following, and was executed, but that he worked miracles and was divine in some way?

I think this verse is not necessarily meant to be historical, but instead is meant to be an idealized history.

The author of Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience. He was a Jew himself. Many Jews at that time believed in a general resurrection. Paul is a great example of this. The idea of only one person being resurrected would have seemed ridiculous to them. Mainly because that was not how it was thought to be. Instead, and we see this in Paul, the idea was that all of the "saints" would be resurrected.

That would mean that Jesus was not the only person resurrected, but possibly the first or the beginning (Paul calls Jesus the first fruit, which symbolizes Jesus being the first or starting point of the general resurrection). So Matthew would have just been recording what was meant to happen or what started to happen with the resurrection of Jesus. It was not necessarily meant to be historic, but instead show an idealized account of history, of what should be happening.

 

[Quagmire]

We've had a few threads recently about the historicity of Jesus, as well as many in the past. In general, the arguments for Jesus being a real historical figure have focused on support from extra-Biblical sources.

But I'm not particularly interested in that for this thread. Instead, I'd like to look at something else in the Gospels: what they say happened when Jesus died on the cross:

Matthew 27:52-54:


So... are there any extra-Biblical sources for this event? Should there be?

Personally, I would think that if any event would be noticed by non-Christians in Jerusalem, it would be multitudes of dead people rising from the grave and interacting with "many" of the people in the city. The execution of a rebellious itinerant rabbi, maybe not... but a zombie "invasion"? That's something to write home about, isn't it?

If there is no contemporary extra-Biblical mention of this event, what's the significance of this? Does it pose a problem for the idea that the Gospel story is true? And by that I mean not just that an itinerant preacher named "Jesus" or something like it lived, developed a following, and was executed, but that he worked miracles and was divine in some way?

So I take it you've never heard of the Walking Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm speaking in present tense, in terms of how one interprets biblical scripture. I either approach biblical scripture as something to be taken literally or not.

I approach scripture from a spiritual angle, seeking spiritual confirmation and guidance to decipher what they are reading.

So your criteria to discern the literal from non-literal is prayer?

Who are these others to me? They aren't significant and do not confirm or negate my spiritual walk with Christ.

Why would God decide to put irrelevant material in the Bible?

There's a principle used in interpretation of contracts that I think is applicable here: that if an ambiguous clause can be interpreted two ways, but one way is redundant, irrelevant or otherwise doesn't add meaning, then it's interpreted the other way on the assumption that whoever wrote the contract intended to add some sort of meaning with the clause, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the contract.

It merely reiterates the miracle of Christ's resurrection.

... with falsehoods?

I'm honestly not concerned about it. Prior to you posting this, I never took notice of these others who were risen. It's been a non issue. They aren't of importance to me.

What the Gospels communicate isn't important to you? Really?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think this verse is not necessarily meant to be historical, but instead is meant to be an idealized history.

The author of Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience. He was a Jew himself. Many Jews at that time believed in a general resurrection. Paul is a great example of this. The idea of only one person being resurrected would have seemed ridiculous to them. Mainly because that was not how it was thought to be. Instead, and we see this in Paul, the idea was that all of the "saints" would be resurrected.

That would mean that Jesus was not the only person resurrected, but possibly the first or the beginning (Paul calls Jesus the first fruit, which symbolizes Jesus being the first or starting point of the general resurrection). So Matthew would have just been recording what was meant to happen or what started to happen with the resurrection of Jesus. It was not necessarily meant to be historic, but instead show an idealized account of history, of what should be happening.

What exactly is an "idealized history"?

You said that it showed "what should be happening"; it's presented as an account of past events. Presumably, the author would have known that the events actually happened (in which case they would be history) or didn't happen (in which case, he would have known that things didn't play out as they "should have")... no?

 

[dawny0826]

So your criteria to discern the literal from non-literal is prayer?

Yes. That and common sense.

Why would God decide to put irrelevant material in the Bible?

That's not what I meant. It's relevant in that it reiterates the miracle of Christ's resurrection. Their resurrection was miraculous. But, not having additional documentation on the additional folks doesn't place my faith in Christ in question.

There's a principle used in interpretation of contracts that I think is applicable here: that if an ambiguous clause can be interpreted two ways, but one way is redundant, irrelevant or otherwise doesn't add meaning, then it's interpreted the other way on the assumption that whoever wrote the contract intended to add some sort of meaning with the clause, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the contract.

This isn't a contract. This is a holy book and it isn't intended to be read as a contract. It's okay if you totally disagree with me or think me odd. I'm not concerned by these other risen folks. I don't need additional proof of their resurrection to confirm my faith in Christ.

... with falsehoods?

Sure. If that piece is a complete falsehood...my faith is secure. Think of me what you will.

What the Gospels communicate isn't important to you? Really?

That's not fair, and I think you know it. I was referencing the part about those other risen folks.

 

[blackout]

In light of total deconstruction
and re'construction
people see/imagine
all kinds of strange and 'impossible' things.
(think: loosened PsychoLogical state, 'melting' of one's psyco'logical glue.) ??

I can only read any of this as mythology,
symbolic of other things.

Still, I wonder more and more
if this jesus mythology is really very cohesive/useful
as a WHOLE at all.

 

[YmirGF]

So... are there any extra-Biblical sources for this event? Should there be?

Aren't you presupposing that people would recognize these risen "saints" AS being newly risen - that somehow they would look different from normal? Perhaps, they seemed perfectly ordinary and so no one outside the original witnesses would have thought to write about it.

New International Version (©1984) - Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
New Living Translation (©2007) - Don't forget to show hospitality to strangers, for some who have done this have entertained angels without realizing it!
English Standard Version (©2001) - Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
New American Standard Bible (©1995) - Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) - Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
International Standard Version (©2008) - Stop neglecting to show hospitality to strangers, for by showing hospitality some have had angels as their guests without being aware of it.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) - And do not forget kindness to strangers, for by this, some who, while they were unaware, were worthy to receive Angels.

Likewise, the passage does say "saints who had fallen asleep were raised". Perhaps they slept in tombs to get out of the sun.