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

[Blow It Up]

Matthew 27:52-53 didn't happen, and that's a big deal for the Gospel.

Matthew 27:52-53 didn't happen, which has serious implications for Matthew and the other Gospels. I recognize that I can't prove a negative, but this passage has no claim to legitimacy. It appears in all of the earliest versions of Matthew.

Upon Jesus' death, the following is said to have happened:

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Even ignoring the sky going dark for hours, if this event was real, then it was the single biggest event in recorded history. Many people just rising from the dead and showing themselves off to many witnesses in a major city. Jesus resurrecting is small news compared with the "many."

Whole new religions should have been formed, and Judaism would have changed forever. Every current historian, poet, and fiction writer would incorporate this in their works. Presumably, these resurrected saints didn't just immediately die, either. They should have been all over the city for years after that.

And yet the only mention we have of it is a two sentence excerpt from an anonymous author with an agenda. This event would undoubtedly be the best evidence of God's power to resurrect, but not even Paul or the other Gospel/NT authors made note of this incredible miracle. There should be many stories of empty tombs, but we just got the one. The historians we do have mention much more mundane details about the same place and time. Josephus could not have really studied the era in such detail without hearing about how the city was full of the risen dead.

As far as I know, the early church doesn't even have any tradition concerning this event or any witnesses, the greatest evidence of their beliefs.

It doesn't really fit the Bible narratives. Why did the saints wait 36 hours or more to show themselves? Why did the Romans need a cover story for Jesus' resurrection if everyone was resurrecting in earthquakes that weekend? Why would the Jews circulate that story if it totally didn't matter? In Luke 24, the disciples detailed the extraordinary events taking place in Jerusalem, and totally neglected to mention this, only talking about a single empty tomb. Where were these saints during Acts, or in Paul's churches?


If this passage isn't true, it's a problem for Christianity. It means that the author of Matthew, for whatever reason, was willing to write down bad information. I won't speculate as to whether he lied, wrote down myths, or whatever because the reason doesn't matter. What does matter is that this Gospel author was willing to write about many false resurrections and many false witnesses. Can we trust that Matthew's author was honest and properly examined the evidence before writing about the other one?

[jimwalton]

First of all, you say it's a big deal for the Gospel, but it's not. If it were removed, it would be of no particular consequence to Matthew's points and purposes.

Secondly, you say "this passage has no claim to legitimacy," but then you admit "it appears in all of the earliest versions of Matthew." That would logically give it some claim to legitimacy.

Third, the text doesn't claim that "the city was full of the risen dead," but only that "many holy people were raised to life." What is "many"? 20? 80? 200? In a city whose population was approximately 10,000 at the time, "many" is quite relative.

Fourth, the early church does acknowledge the event ("As far as I know, the early church doesn't even have any tradition concerning this event or any witnesses, the greatest evidence of their beliefs."): Ignatius Mgn. 9.1-2 ( d. 117-38); T. Levi 4 (c. 150-200); Egerton Papyrus 3 (c. 225); Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13 (c. 198-206); Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions 1.41 (4th c.); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6 (c. 198-203); Julius Africanus, Chronology 18 (c. 225-250); numerous works by Origen including Cels. 2.33 (c. 248-249); Comm. Ser. Matt. 12.43 (c. 248-249); Cant. 3.13; Comm. Jo. 19.16 §103); and a Syriac document containing the Agbar legend described in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.13 (before 325).

Fifth, early interpreters (Origen and T. Levi) saw the phenomena as an expression of Jesus's deity, glory, and power, and/or an expression of judgment on the unrepentant Jews.

Sixth, Origen, along with Julius Africanus, Tertullian, the Syriac document quoted by Eusebius, and the Testament of Levi interpreted this resurrection of the saints as simultaneous with Jesus's resurrection.

So it appears in all the earliest versions of Matthew and has wide attestation in early church writings (as early as Ignatius in about AD 90-100) who considered it also historical and not merely symbolic. Ignatius was obviously a lot closer to it chronologically than we are, and is claimed by some to have been a disciple of the Apostle John.

Seventh, you say that "It doesn't really fit the Bible narratives," and yet the story of resurrection, both Jesus's and our consequent resurrection, is the primary theme of all 4 Gospels as well as Paul's writings.

The text relates directly to several of Matthew's theological themes:

- Jesus's resurrection as the fulfillment of prophecy: Ezk. 37; Dan. 12; Isaiah 26. See also t. 5.17; 1.22; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9, also cf. 13.14; 26.54 to see that this is one's of Matthew's primary points.
- New creation: Mt. 19.28, Jesus's baptism; Mt. 16.18; 26.64
- New covenant: Mt. 26.28 (Dt. 30.6; Jer. 31.31-34; Ezk. 36.24-30); Mt. 1.21 (Ezk. 36.28-29, 37.23); Mt. 2.17-18 (Jer. 31.31-34).
- The judgment of Israel, and particularly Jerusalem: Mt. 23.33-37

> Why did the saints wait 36 hours or more to show themselves?

The chronology of the text and event is uncertain. It is mentioned in conjunction with the crucifixion, but also specifically states that it was Sunday when they came out. It's difficult to take a firm stand on Matthew's timing.

> Why did the Romans need a cover story for Jesus' resurrection if everyone was resurrecting in earthquakes that weekend?

Everyone wasn't resurrection, but just "many" to serve as a sign.

> Why would the Jews circulate that story if it totally didn't matter?

It mattered if it really happened. There's all kinds of resurrection theology and symbolism in an event such as this.

> In Luke 24, the disciples detailed the extraordinary events taking place in Jerusalem, and totally neglected to mention this, only talking about a single empty tomb.

Right. Matthew is the only one to mention it. All of the Gospel writers chose events that fit their purpose in writing. Very few events appear in all 4 Gospels. As I said, this event particularly and directly relates to several Matthean theological themes.

> Where were these saints during Acts, or in Paul's churches?

Since the text gives the impression that these were believers from the Old Testament era, we can infer that their time on Earth was transitory, not permanent—that they were just a-passin’ through. Ephesians 4.8-10 seems to suggest that Jesus emptied the righteous side of Sheol after his death and led those people of faith to Paradise (Lk. 23.43). I would consider that those souls spent a little time on earth during the transition as a witness to the people of Jerusalem of the reality of the resurrection and of our future resurrection as well.

> Can we trust that Matthew's author was honest and properly examined the evidence before writing about the other one?

It's possible we can.

- Matthew is interpreting a very strange event so that people understand the meaning behind what happened.
- Matthew spoke often of the fulfillment of prophecy, and this event fits Ezk. 37 rather well (especially the LXX version). It also contains allusions to a variety of OT texts, which is very like Matthew.
- As mentioned twice already, it fits several theological themes of Matthew
- As mentioned, the early church father regraded it as history and not merely symbolic
- As mentioned, early interpreters saw the event as an expression of Jesus's deity, glory, and power.
- Apocalyptic images (which can still be historical) are not unknown in Matthew's Gospel. The splitting of the veil parallels the splitting of the rocks and tombs. The destruction of the sanctuary combined with the raising of the saints is a stunning portrayal of the eschatological reversal that is part and parcel of Jesus's death and resurrection. Also, the prophets and saints who died as martyrs come back as a testimony against the apostate Jews.
- Theologically it anticipates the final resurrection when all the dead will be raised. It displays that Jesus's resurrection has the power to raise all His saints and that He is the "first fruits" of the resurrection.

[Emperor]

It means Matthew is a liar, which makes his works, as well as the rest of the Bible, falliable. Which it already is IMO, but that's off topic.

[jimwalton]

Well, then, let's see the evidence you have that Matthew has lied here. Don't just claim it, support it. I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

[J Lord]

> First of all, you say it's a big deal for the Gospel, but it's not. If it were removed, it would be of no particular consequence to Matthew's points and purposes.

The point is that including what is most likely a fabricated event in his narrative, it calls into question the other supernatural events that he says happened. If someone is known to tell made up stories as if they were true, and he tells you about a supernatural miracle that he says happened, it would be more reasonable to conclude that he made up the story. Far more likely that such a person is telling another made up story than an actual miracle happened.

[jimwalton]

One immediate question is by what evidence do you claim it is "most likely a fabricated event"? Just because it sounds implausible to you isn't evidence. What is the foundation of your assertion? It only calls other supernatural events into question if you have some basis, again, other than opinion, that he is making up stories. You and I have had many conversations. Let's see your case. You saw mine. It's time for rebuttal.

[Emperor]

No no, that's not how this works. Matthew made the claim, Matthew has to provide the evidence. If you follow Matthew and you claim that you have the correct religion and want me to believe it, you have to show me proof.

I'm the one in the "I don't know everything so I don't have a position" boat.

[jimwalton]

Well, you didn't sound like you had no position. You said, "It means Matthew is a liar." That's a claim for which I want you to provide evidence. You must have some reason to assert he's a liar.

If you look back in the thread, you'll notice that I gave many evidences that...

- the incident was compatible with Matthew's themes
- the event fits the Gospels other narratives
- other indicators in Matthew's Gospel indicate that he was a man of character who considered himself to be writing historiography
- the event was consistent with Matthew's emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecy

As far as evidence:

- Writers in the early church, from only a short time after Matthew, affirmed the event as historical.
- The event appears in all manuscripts we have of Matthew, so there's no evidence that it's an inserted or redacted text.

But, uh, what sort of "proof" are you looking for, that you would consider "evidence"?

- Photographs or video footage? There aren't any. But we can't trust photos or videos anyway, since they can be photoshopped.
- Corroborative accounts? Matthew is the only one of the four Gospel writers who mentions it, but the Church Fathers also write about it as if it really happened (i.e., not symbolic or apocalyptic imagery).
- Archaeological artifacts? People walking around doesn't leave artifacts behind to be found 2000 years later.

What sort of evidence are you thinking there should be?

Since the evidence we have is that Matthew considered himself to be writing historiography, since he seems to be a writer of integrity and character, since the event ties in with many of his themes and emphases, and since the Church Fathers endorsed what Matthew wrote, the evidence is in his favor—that it happened. And since there is no evidence to the contrary (except the opinion that it's not normal), and if you don't have any evidence to the contrary, then I have a tendency to believe it until a better case against it is presented.

[J Lord]

> One immediate question is by what evidence do you claim it is "most likely a fabricated event"?

The fact that no similar event has ever been observed, but people making up similar events in common. And the fact that the available historical evidence is inconsistent with this actually happening. If it happened it would likely appear in more than this one source.

> It only calls other supernatural events into question if you have some basis

It is more likely that a person would make up a story (a very common event) than an actual miracle (something which has never been confirmed to have ever happened) actually happened.

[jimwalton]

> The fact that no similar event has ever been observed

This is an intriguing comment, because scientists today are coming upon many things where no similar event has even been observed. We are in an era of technology and scientific explosion that we are excitedly witnessing many "unique" events. But so it was in the days of Jesus. His time on earth, at least according to the Gospel accounts, was an explosive time of history when each day seemed to bring another thing that people had never seen before. When there is a personality like that in action, each day brings unexpected and new things.

> And the fact that the available historical evidence is inconsistent with this actually happening

What available historical evidence do we have that is inconsistent with it? I'm not aware of any contemporaneous accounts that show the inconsistency to which you seem to be referring.

> If it happened it would likely appear in more than this one source.

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

> than an actual miracle (something which has never been confirmed to have ever happened) actually happened.

There are two problems with this line of reasoning: First, many miracles have actually been confirmed as having happened. Dr. Craig Keener just published a two-volume set on miracles where he did exactly that. Second, Alvin Plantinga asks what the problem is in believing in miracles—why should anyone object to it? "Why can't the causal continuum be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers? Why are miracles necessarily incompatible with modern science? They are only incompatible if it can be proved that nature is a closed continuum of cause and effect, and closed to intervention or interference on the part of beings outside that continuum, including God himself." In no way does the predictable character of nature exclude the possibility of miraculous events. Science cannot prove that the universe is all there is, meaning that it's a closed causal system. "Natural laws offer no threat to special divine action," he proves in his book. "The only way to show that miracles are impossible is to disprove the existence of God, a task that is both logically and scientifically impossible."

> It is more likely that a person would make up a story (a very common event)

To me a deeper question is this: What did Matthew have to gain by making up such a story? Its ludicrous nature would make him a laughingstock, cause doubt to the rest of his Gospel, and possibly call into question his claims about the resurrection of Jesus. This, in my opinion, given a "criteria of embarrassment," speaks to the historicity of the event. Matthew lived in Jerusalem. He wouldn't dare manufacture such a thing if it were going to jeopardize the fledgling Christian movement.

If we examine 8 normal kinds of tests to disprove a thing, possibly we can better evaluate Matthew's story.

1. The Intention Test. Can we responsibly look at Matthew's Gospel as his attempt at historiography? Luke claims to have written what actually happened (Lk. 1.1-4), and Matthew is close to Luke in genre. It seems that his historical intent would be similar to Luke's. His Gospel is written in a sober and responsible style, with accurate incidental details, obvious care in the telling, and some exactitude. Generally speaking, you don't find outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that is common in many other ancient writings.

Remember also that Christianity was born out of Judaism, known historically as careful preservers of sacred words. Given that Jesus’s followers looked upon him as being even greater than a prophet, it seems very reasonable that they would have tried to preserve his words and actions reliably, as well as the events surrounding his life and especially his death.

There were plenty of controversies in the early church that could have been conveniently and efficiently resolved by the early Christian writers fictionalizing the account. This doesn't seem to have happened. The continuance of these controversies demonstrates that Christians were interested in distinguishing between what happened during Jesus's lifetime and what was debated later in the churches.

2. The Ability Test. So what if they intended to write reliably historiography, were they able to do so? Can't we expect faulty memories, wishful thinking, theological insertions, and the development of legend?

First of all, in a culture where almost all teaching was by word of mouth and memory rather than by books, oral tradition placed a great emphasis on accurate memorization. They took care to memorize and pass such stories along accurately, especially of a person they truly considered to be the Son of God. The community would constantly be monitoring what was said and intervening to make corrections along the way to preserve the integrity of the message.

3. The Character Test. Is there anything in Matthew's writing to make us think he's a loony toon or a demented or hopelessly inaccurate source? We don't have much information to go on here, but neither do we have any reasonable evidence to suggest they were anything but people of integrity. After all, they are reporting on Jesus, who called them to as exacting a level of integrity as any religion ever known. The records we have say many of them were willing to die for what they were claiming. In terms of honesty, truthfulness, virtue and morality, these people had a track record that should be envied.

4. The Consistency Test. There was obviously no collusion among the Gospel writers. They were unarguably independent narrators of many of the same stories, but each Gospel also contains unique stories. There is no contradictory evidence against Matthew's account.

5. The Bias Test. Did Matthew have reason to skew the material? It's obvious they weren't neutral observers, but it was part of their Christian worldview to show their love for Jesus by recording his life with integrity. Besides, they had nothing to gain except criticism, ostracism, and martyrdom. They certainly had nothing to win financially.

6. The Cover-Up Test. Might Matthew be covering up something that would be embarrassing to himself, the other disciples, or to Jesus? Just the opposite. Telling this story makes people look askew at his whole story. Telling this story is not in his self-interest. It's not even necessary to the Gospel. If it were left out, no one would know or care.

7. The Corroboration Test. We only have slight corroboration of this event in the Church Fathers.

8. The Adverse Witness Test. Were others present who would contradict or refute this story? There's no evidence of such. The early Christian movement was subjected to great persecutions, first from the Jews and later from the Romans. Critics were not shy about attacking the young faith system. We have no records of this event being contested.

Taken all together, I don't think it's likely that Matthew made up the story.