Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[J Lord]

> scientists today are coming upon many things where no similar event has even been observed.

The things they are coming up with can be confirmed. I am saying that if we are looking at a claim of an unconfirmed past event, an explanation that occurs commonly is more likely to be true than a proposed explanation that has never been confirmed to have happened before and for which no analogous explanation has ever been confirmed.

> What available historical evidence do we have that is inconsistent with it?

The lack of any other writers mentioning this or the subsequent fallout from it.

> This is especially untrue with regard to the Gospels. Matthew has many unique events, as do Luke and John.

That is what we would expect if people with religious motivations are fabricating stories long after the fact.

> First, many miracles have actually been confirmed as having happened.

I don't think that is the case. More likely we have confirmed things as having happened that we can't explain.

> Why can't the causal continuum be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers?

Maybe they can, but there is no good reason to think they do until such a thing is demonstrated to be likely true.

> What did Matthew have to gain by making up such a story?

Probably similar to Joseph Smith, John of Leiden, Muhammad, etc. For some reason they made false statements about supernatural beings. Maybe they were self serving, maybe crazy, maybe liked attention, maybe they actually had visions. There is no way to know in each case.

> His Gospel is written in a sober and responsible style, with accurate incidental details, obvious care in the telling, and some exactitude

Like any historical fiction.

> So what if they intended to write reliably historiography

It's pretty apparent they did not. They write anonymously without citing sources, without critically examining sources, and just stating what happened as though he was an omniscient narrator in a storybook.

> Is there anything in Matthew's writing to make us think he's a loony toon or a demented or hopelessly inaccurate source?

There is if you are not indoctrinated into the religion. You can see immediately that Joseph Smith was probably a loony toon, but Mormons read about him and think there is nothing to make us think he's a loony toon or a demented or hopelessly inaccurate source.

> There was obviously no collusion among the Gospel writers.

This is contrary to almost all biblical scholars who would unanimously agree that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark. Something that you obviously wouldn't do if you witnessed these events yourself.

> Did Matthew have reason to skew the material?

Yes, he was most likely a devout follower of Christianity. Like Christians today he probably being a Christian was great and that others would benefit from also becoming Christians. So he wants to portray his religious heroes in the best light possible while telling a compelling story that would convince other to become Christians.

> Telling this story makes people look askew at his whole story.

Yes, with good reason. But at the time people were extremely gullible and stories of even crazier events than this spread like crazy.

> We only have slight corroboration of this event in the Church Fathers.

The only way any church fathers would have known about the event is through this text.

> Were others present who would contradict or refute this story?

Yes, all the people in Jerusalem at the time who would have had to witness these events if they happened, but for whom it has absolutely no impact on their lives. They don't record it, don't tell others, don't become Christians, and just go on as usual. After witnessing events that would be far more earth shattering than the resurrection of Jesus, or Jesus doing faith healing or exorcisms. This would have been the most impactful event of any described in the NT, but nobody (not even other Christians) seemed to care about it enough to even mention.

[jimwalton]

> The things they are coming up with can be confirmed.

I know there's a difference between science, that can observe new phenomena, and history, which is always dealing with the past and unrepeatable. The unrepeatable nature of history puts it in a place of different ways to decipher and apply the discipline. My point was that the uniqueness of the phenomena doesn't automatically disqualify it from being possibly historical. It's just not good historical discipline to assume that any unique event must be fictional.

> "What available historical evidence do we have that is inconsistent with it?" The lack of any other writers mentioning this or the subsequent fallout from it.

Again, lack of more than one source is somewhat common in historiography. I think what bothers you is not its uniqueness or its lack of corroboration, but only its miraculous nature. But since science can't begin to affirm that miracles are impossible, the only reason you would regard them as impossible is if you a priori refuse to consider the possibility of spiritual beings.

> "This is especially untrue with regard to the Gospels. Matthew has many unique events, as do Luke and John." That is what we would expect if people with religious motivations are fabricating stories long after the fact.

I think if we are being neutral and fair, we'd have to say that if the Gospels agreed with each other in totality, (1) we would only need one, (2) we would get a one-sided picture of Jesus, and (3) we would accuse them of fact-tampering and collusion. Lawyers who have studied the accounts say there is enough of a discrepancy to show that there was no collusion or jimmy-rigging the facts, but there is also enough agreement to show that they were all independent narrators of the same phenomena.

> "Many miracles have actually been confirmed as having happened." I don't think that is the case.

I'm gonna guess you haven't done enough research, then, and are reacting viscerally.

> Maybe they can, but there is no good reason to think they do until such a thing is demonstrated to be likely true.

There has been good demonstration. You just reject it all, I would guess, because it doesn't agree with your worldview. As I mentioned, Craig Keener published a two-volume set.

> Probably similar to Joseph Smith, John of Leiden, Muhammad, etc. For some reason they made false statements about supernatural beings

Do you presuppose that any experience with the supernatural is false? On what basis?

> "So what if they intended to write reliably historiography." It's pretty apparent they did not.

On what basis? Archaeology has corroborated the essential reliability of the NT, as has historiography. On what basis do you throw it all out? Certainly not an academic or a logical one.

> They write anonymously without citing sources, without critically examining sources

I think you'll find that 99% of ancient historiography is like this. When I read Suetonius about Julius Caesar or Plutarch's biography of Alexander the Great, they don't cite their source or their criteria regarding those sources. Why are the biblical accounts automatically discredited but not the other ancient historiographies?

> almost all biblical scholars who would unanimously agree that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark

Collusion is different from working off the same source. In the former, there is an agreement to manipulate; in the latter, an agreement to the truth of the common material.

> So he wants to portray his religious heroes in the best light possible

This is exactly my point. Matthew doesn't portray his hero in the best possible light. None of the Gospel writers do. That's what makes them more credible.

> But at the time people were extremely gullible and stories of even crazier events than this spread like crazy

Actually, contrary to what you are saying, historians tell us that this era in Palestine was radically skeptical rather than gullible, closed to crazy rumors, and seeking evidence for events.

I sense in you a deep prejudice against the biblical text.

> The only way any church fathers would have known about the event is through this text.

Not necessarily so, as I mentioned. There is quite robust debate that Clement of Rome may have known the disciples, especially Peter, and that Ignatius of Antioch may have been a disciple of the Apostle John's.

> Yes, all the people in Jerusalem at the time who would have had to witness these events if they happened, but for whom it has absolutely no impact on their lives. They don't record it

Interestingly, after the dismantling of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, the destruction of Palestine, and the dispersal of the Jewish people, there is not a single written record of how they felt about this horror. They don't record it. Should I assume they have no feelings about it, or that it's not true?

I'm not convinced you have objective standards for evaluating the validity of this pericope.

[J Lord]

> My point was that the uniqueness of the phenomena doesn't automatically disqualify it from being possibly historical.

Of course this is true. I am not suggesting otherwise. The principle of historical analogy would say that something is less likely to be true is nothing analogous to it has ever been confirmed to have happened, compared to something that we know happens routinely that could also explain the evidence we have.

> I think what bothers you is not its uniqueness or its lack of corroboration, but only its miraculous nature.

It is both the lack of other evidence where we would expect to find it, and the fact that there is an explanation for the evidence that is much more likely.

> I think if we are being neutral and fair, we'd have to say that if the Gospels agreed with each other in totality

I don't know what you mean by this. There are numerous differences between them and they also have much in common, including verbatim copying. So they agree in totality? What do you mean?

> Lawyers who have studied the accounts say there is enough of a discrepancy to show that there was no collusion or jimmy-rigging the facts

What about biblical scholar who unanimously agree otherwise? And the direct copying of parts of one gospel to another? Why would anyone care what a lawyer says about this? How do they explain the direct copying of parts of the text?

> I'm gonna guess you haven't done enough research, then, and are reacting viscerally.

Nobody can research every alleged miracle account. I can only go by what I know, which are of accounts for which no explanation is known. If you an example that doesn't fall into this category, then let me know.

> Do you presuppose that any experience with the supernatural is false? On what basis?

No, I don't presuppose that. But we know a lot of the experienced attributed to supernatural claims are false because many of them contradict each other. So we know that people falsely attribute things to the supernatural. I was just using examples where you would also agree that this is probably what happened.

> Archaeology has corroborated the essential reliability of the NT, as has historiography.

No it hasn't corroborated anything with regard to supernatural claims.

> Why are the biblical accounts automatically discredited but not the other ancient historiographies?

I don't automatically discount any of them, including the biblical accounts.

> Matthew doesn't portray his hero in the best possible light. None of the Gospel writers do. That's what makes them more credible.

If there is way to portray Jesus in a better light than "he is literally a God lived a perfect life" I'm not sure what that would be.

> Actually, contrary to what you are saying, historians tell us that this era in Palestine was radically skeptical rather than gullible, closed to crazy rumors, and seeking evidence for events.

I disagree with that. Look at all the ridiculous beliefs people had around that time. The Glycon cult gained a huge following based on a guy using hand puppet to trick people into worshiping a talking snake. There were other Messiahs who gained followings. After Jesus there were numerous others who gained followings saying they were the Christ. I judge the people of that time to be generally far more gullible than people today, and even people today can often be very gullible.

> after the dismantling of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, the destruction of Palestine, and the dispersal of the Jewish people, there is not a single written record of how they felt about this horror.

Didn't Josephus write extensively about this?

[jimwalton]

> The principle of historical analogy would say that something is less likely to be true is nothing analogous to it has ever been confirmed to have happened, compared to something that we know happens routinely that could also explain the evidence we have.

Agreed, generally speaking. Yet we all know of exceptions to this rule, so the rule can only go so far.

> It is both the lack of other evidence where we would expect to find it

This is a tricky one, because what evidence of miracles do you expect to find? Most miracles are of the nature of a pebble dropped in a pond. Beyond the first few seconds and whatever witnesses happened to be there, there is no "evidence" to study. Let's just say, for instance, to create an example, that Jesus really did walk on the water. What evidence might one expect to exist? So many miracles are like this.

> There are numerous differences between them and they also have much in common, including verbatim copying. So they agree in totality? What do you mean?

What I mean is that the discrepancies between the Gospel accounts give credence to their reliability, not a detriment to their historicity.

> What about biblical scholar who unanimously agree otherwise?

Finding biblical scholars who agree about anything is virtually unheard of. : )

> Why would anyone care what a lawyer says about this?

Because lawyers specialize in the weight of evidence and the merit of assertions.

> No it hasn't corroborated anything with regard to supernatural claims.

I said it has verified it as historically accurate. We all know archaeology can't verify supernatural claims. That's like asking science to predict the outcome of a sporting event.

> If there is way to portray Jesus in a better light than "he is literally a God lived a perfect life" I'm not sure what that would be.

Matthew writes that Jesus said, "I don't know that" (24.36). He writes that God didn't protect baby Jesus from slaughter except by telling Joseph, "Run for your life! (2.13). He wrote about the virgin birth (2.18-25), which no one was expecting, there was no prophecy of, and would only issue in ridicule. He writes about the baptism of Jesus by a guy who baptized sinners (3.13-16). Jesus praised Gentiles over Jews (8.10). He cavorted with tax collectors and drunkards (11.19). If an author is going to manufacture a hero, this is not the way to go about it.

> Didn't Josephus write extensively about this?

He wrote about the destruction, but not about the pathos or the attitudes of the Jews following it. No one wrote about that. We have no evidence, like we do for the exile (586 BC) or the Holocaust, for instance, what their feelings were. I asserting that just because there is no writing about it doesn't mean we can write it off as fictional.

The point is that the original poster seems to think it's both obvious and provable that this didn't happen, when in actuality the evidence we have leans in the opposite direction, towards historicity. Since it's compatible with other points Matthew makes, reflects the same theological stance of the rest of the book, is agreed upon by writers just one generation further down, and since Matthew seems to be a man of integrity and knowledge who purported to be writing historiography, I think the evidence weighs more in favor of its historicity than against. The only real argument against is if one a priori reject supernaturalism. History and archaeology support the historical and cultural claims of Matthew. Supernaturalism isn't evidentiary in any case—it's not that kind of reality. As far as the Glycon cult, sure there were weirdos. There always are. But as a whole the culture was not gullible and weird that way. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels shows that they weren't just fools:

- Andrew and Philip insisted on spending a whole day in conversation before they would buy into what John said about Jesus (Jn. 1.37-42).
- Nathanael was skeptical at first hearing (Jn. 1.46)
- The Jews demanded more than just a fit of prophetic rage (Jn. 2.18)
- The Jews questioned that he knew what he was talking about (Jn. 2.20)
- Nicodemus wouldn't just fall for his terminology but demanded explanation (Jn. 3.4)

And on and on it goes. Jesus was doubted, questioned, grilled, scorned, and ultimately rejected and killed. I wouldn't consider this to be a flighty and gullible response of the population.

To me the evidence still holds in favor of historicity, despite that it sounds supernatural.

[J Lord]

> because what evidence of miracles do you expect to find? Most miracles are of the nature of a pebble dropped in a pond.

I'm not talking about most miracles, I'm talking about a specific one that every person in the area would have witnessed and attributed to supernatural causes. It would have been widely discussed.

> the discrepancies between the Gospel accounts give credence to their reliability, not a detriment to their historicity.

I don't think this can be the case in areas where they directly contradict. In such situations one of them must be wrong.

> Finding biblical scholars who agree about anything is virtually unheard of.

Do you know of any biblical scholars who do not believe that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark? Any such people must surely believe then that all of the gospel authors copied from some other source. Either way they were not 4 independent accounts.

> Because lawyers specialize in the weight of evidence and the merit of assertions.

Any lawyer who thinks anonymous texts, that copy from each other, and that contain stories of supernatural events would be considered evidence in a court of law is wrong. This should go without saying.

> I said it has verified it as historically accurate. We all know archaeology can't verify supernatural claims. That's like asking science to predict the outcome of a sporting event.

So if it can't verify the supernatural claims, then it can't verify that a text containing supernatural claims is historically accurate.

> If an author is going to manufacture a hero, this is not the way to go about it.

I guess we disagree on this. Jesus is revered for showing compassion towards prostitutes and tax collectors. So I don't find it unlikely that such stories would be manufactured to show the wisdom and compassion of Jesus. But to me the fact he is portrayed as a literal perfect god supersedes any arguments that the gospel authors were not trying to portray Jesus in a positive light.

> He wrote about the destruction, but not about the pathos or the attitudes of the Jews following it. No one wrote about that. We have no evidence, like we do for the exile (586 BC) or the Holocaust, for instance, what their feelings were. I asserting that just because there is no writing about it doesn't mean we can write it off as fictional.

Don't you see the difference here? I'm not saying we don't know how anyone reacted to the events of Matthew 27. Nobody said anything to acknowledge it happened other than one author. If it was widely acknowledged by people of the time (like the destruction of the temple) then it wouldn't matter if there were no writings about the internal feelings of those who saw it.

> The only real argument against is if one a priori reject supernaturalism.

No, this is not the case. I have stated this isn't the case and stated what my reasons are. I believe it didn't happen because there is no evidence where we would expect to find it, and because there is an explanation for the evidence we have that we know happens commonly (false claims about religious figures) which means it is more likely to be the correct explanation compared to something for which no analogous events have ever been confirmed (sun going dark, zombies, etc.).

[jimwalton]

> I'm talking about a specific one that every person in the area would have witnessed and attributed to supernatural causes. It would have been widely discussed.

We've covered this ground. Matthew only says "many," so we don't know if that means 20, 200, or 2000. We are remiss to build a case based on a large number. Therefore we can't build a case on "that every person in the area would have witnessed," or that it "would have been widely discussed. It certainly would have been witnessed by some, and would have been discussed in some circles, but it's impossible to know how wide these circles would have been or whether these witnesses would have been sure to write them down for posterity.

> I don't think this can be the case in areas where they directly contradict. In such situations one of them must be wrong.

The specifics matter here. It depends to what you are referring. I'm reticent to comment in general.

> Do you know of any biblical scholars who do not believe that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark?

There is fairly widespread agreement that Mark was written first, but it's not unanimous among biblical scholars. There is a very small but growing movement of scholars who are beginning to think otherwise. Albright & Mann, in the Anchor Bible: Matthew Vol. 26, pp. CLXXXIII-CLXXXIV, say, "We do not regard Markan priority either in time or as a necessary source, historical or otherwise, of either Matthew or Luke as being in any sense proved."

> then it can't verify that a text containing supernatural claims is historically accurate.

It can verify that the historical parts of those texts are historically reliable, and if the author intended to be writing historiography, then the supernatural portions of the text at least demand a fair hearing despite the impossibility of hard historical evidence.

> But to me the fact he is portrayed as a literal perfect god supersedes any arguments that the gospel authors were not trying to portray Jesus in a positive light.

In other words, you either didn't read or you completely reject the examples I gave (I assume the latter). We have to follow the evidence where it leads, and if there are many places where Jesus is portrayed as less than heroic, we have to give some fair regard to those portions.

> Don't you see the difference here? I'm not saying we don't know how anyone reacted to the events of Matthew 27. Nobody said anything to acknowledge it happened other than one author. If it was widely acknowledged by people of the time (like the destruction of the temple) then it wouldn't matter if there were no writings about the internal feelings of those who saw it.

Of course I see the difference, but don't you? We have NO internals feelings of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, but we do have 1 text of this event at the crucifixion resurrection scene, and that by an author whose intent is historiography. And, as I have mentioned, there is no reason to believe "it was widely acknowledged by people of the time."

> I believe it didn't happen because there is no evidence where we would expect to find it, and because there is an explanation for the evidence we have that we know happens commonly (false claims about religious figures) which means it is more likely to be the correct explanation compared to something for which no analogous events have ever been confirmed (sun going dark, zombies, etc.).

In other words, you ignored the roughly 15 points of evidence that I gave to support the reading in favor of "there there is no evidence where we would expect to find it" (which I have refuted) and "there is an explanation for the evidence we have that we know happens commonly (false claims)."

Your first point, "there there is no evidence where we would expect to find it," seems to be you want corroboration from another writer. That seems to be carrying the whole case for you. If we had one other writer, you'd go for it? But probably not just another writer, because if it were in one of the other Gospels, you still wouldn't go for it. You'd want it from another source, but not just another source, but another source where we could guarantee the reliability of the author. Certainly you know people call into question Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and others. Certainly you know that some historians claim, for instance, that Nero burned Rome while others say he didn't? You must know the 4 narrative we have of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon contradict each other. I wonder what evidence you expect to find that you would accept.

Aas to the latter, do we assume that all claims about religious figures are false? You seem to make that charge since you consider it to be "more likely" the correct explanation that it's fictional. Again, because it's not confirmed. As far as the sun going dark, there are many such confirmations of that phenomenon (all it's claiming is intense cloudiness). But please don't deprecate the discussion with "zombies"—you know that's not what the text is talking about, but resurrected (meaning whole and functional) bodies. It makes me think you're not serious about getting to the truth here.

[J Lord]

> Matthew only says "many," so we don't know if that means 20, 200, or 2000.

How could anyone in the area not have noticed that the sun went dark at the same time as there was an earthquake?

>It can verify that the historical parts of those texts are historically reliable

It can only verify a very small part of them are historically reliable. Of everything in the story it is only details incidental to the main story that can be confirmed.

> If we had one other writer, you'd go for it?

I probably wouldn't, but we can only by the evidence we have. And it is highly unlikely that the one event from the story that was universally witnessed by all people in the area would be left out of other gospels, all other Christian writing prior to it, the writings of Jewish theologians of the day, or all of the other possible sources. It seems unlikely to me that we would have the evidence we do if this actually happened. Whereas on the other hand, we know that early Christians fabricated stories so why couldn't this be one of them? It is certainly more likely than this actually happening and then being left out of all but one known text.

> do we assume that all claims about religious figures are false?

I don't assume that, but I assume you believe that the most of the thousands of religions that were made up in human history were fictional.

> I wonder what evidence you expect to find that you would accept.

It isn't a matter of finding evidence that would cause me to believe this story was true. The point is that this is one of the stories where you can be fairly certain it is false. So if this story appeared in another source it might move the needle a little further away from "clearly false." So it might just be probably false or something like that. The fact there is no evidence where we would expect to find it makes even less likely than some other claim that only recorded in the 4 gospels.

[jimwalton]

> How could anyone in the area not have noticed that the sun went dark at the same time as there was an earthquake?

Oh, I was talking about the people walking around when I said that not necessarily a lot of people would have known about it. Of course they would have all noticed the cloud cover and the earthquake. But I wouldn't expect anyone to write about that. Clouds happen, and Jerusalem is near a fault line, so also earthquakes. This is not the stuff of necessary or worthy reporting.

> It can only verify a very small part of them are historically reliable. Of everything in the story it is only details incidental to the main story that can be confirmed.

Wow, this is wrong. We an confirm hundreds of things in the Gospels.

> Of everything in the story it is only details incidental to the main story that can be confirmed.

We can confirm some of the details of Jesus's life, like his crucifixion. Josephus spoke of his miracle working. But the incidental details (Herod, Pharisees, Samaritans, etc.) are part of the historicity of the narrative. You can't just set aside all the historical parts and say, "The only historical parts that matter are the ones there is no corroboration for." If there's corroboration for so much, and since the writers considered themselves to be writing historiography, we have to take and evaluate the block of writing, not just the isolated parts.

> we know that early Christians fabricated stories so why couldn't this be one of them?

We have to evaluate the writers and their works. We do have a lot of goofy stories from that era, but there's reason to evaluate them as goofy.

[J Lord]

> We an confirm hundreds of things in the Gospels.

Yes, but conveniently not any of the things that would be remarkable if true. That is my point. Of all the things that can be confirmed, none of them are anything that would give anyone a reasonable basis for thinking that Jesus is God, that he had supernatural powers, that a god exists, etc.

> We do have a lot of goofy stories from that era, but there's reason to evaluate them as goofy.

And many of those reasons are the same reasons people not raised as Christians normally evaluate the gospels as "goofy." Written anonymously well after the supposed events, containing stories of miracles and God intervening on earth, not corroborated by neutral sources, no explanation of how the author could know the things he is writing about, contradicting with other sources, and generally looking like every other made up story about gods and goddesses that have been created throughout history.

> Of course they would have all noticed the cloud cover and the earthquake.

Do you think any Jewish theologians would have noticed the veil of the temple magically tearing in half at the same time as an earthquake and the death of Jesus?

[jimwalton]

> Yes, but conveniently not any of the things that would be remarkable if true

As I mentioned, there is no way to prove Jesus walked on the water or multiplied bread. And even if there were other corroborations of it, you already admitted you wouldn't believe them. So you don't really have a point except that you a priori reject the supernatural narratives of the Bible, and even if someone came back from the dead you wouldn't believe.

Actually, speaking of the resurrection, it holds the most possibility for the confirmation you desire. As you know, massive books have been written on the event. You and I previously have had brief conversations on the subject ("Do Christians believe in ghosts?") back in 2014, but I've had this conversation with dozens of other people.

> Written anonymously well after the supposed events

They were unanimously regarded by the early writers as having been written by Mt., Mk., Lk., and Jn, and there is no indication they were ever contested until the modern era. They were written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses (contrary to the only biographies we have of Alexander the Great, which I assume you accept), and possibly 3 of them BY eyewitnesses.

> containing stories of miracles and God intervening on earth

This is only a problem if you a priori reject the possibility.

> not corroborated by neutral sources

Finding neutral sources about Jesus may have been as difficult as finding neutral source about Donald Trump. Besides, as we've discussed, most ancient histories cannot be corroborated because most ancient evidence is forever lost.

> Do you think any Jewish theologians would have noticed the veil of the temple magically tearing in half at the same time as an earthquake and the death of Jesus?

It may not have been "magical" at all. Earthquakes destroy material goods. Earthquakes were comparatively common in Jerusalem; it lies on a fault line similar to the San Andreas fault. Whether or not Jewish theologians made anything of it, it could easily have been a common, public, and noticeable event, though not necessarily one anyone would have bothered to write about except the followers of Jesus, who noticed some theological significance.