pharoah

Why should we believe this passage, when practically everything else in Matthew is provably false? His geneology is wrong, his virgin birth story is the result of distorted prophecy, he freely distorts or makes up quotes from the OT to argue his case, and he invented the ludicrous saint resurrection tale. He invented this entire pericope also. There were no Roman guards at the tomb, if there ever was a tomb.

Charles Wilson

1. Jay (Philosopher Jay, above) is correct in being interested here. The E.T. thought passed through my mind when I saw this post but I let it pass. Thnx, Jay!

2. "Why try to follow Matthew when it is "all" misplaced verbiage and etc.???" 'Cause Matthew is written in a different time from Mark and probably Luke and it is interesting to see the development of Christian thought from a possible historical description (At least a template) to an apocalyptic view of the destruction of Jerusalem over several years. If the original ("Ur-Mark" these days...) views another historical event entirely, how did it get changed to a barely coherent description of the destruction of Jerusalem?

Matthew "hides" some of the stories - "The Squall" story is my favorite. From Mark: "Are we to drown, for all you care?" to Matthew (and Luke), "Help! We are drowning!" This COMPLETELY Re-Values the point of The Squall story and totally submerges (no pun intended) what the story points to.

The stories are Re-Valued from a telling of history in symbolic (Not Mythic) form to a completely Mythologized version of a Human Sacrifice. Matthew also has some material that is not in Mark and even this is Re-Valued in Luke. Compare the Army-Captain story and also look at "The fourth Watch" story in Mark/Matthew.

3. The "real" question is the same one we find today and with the same sad results. Are the gospel writers so cynical as to totally make up the gospels to fit a "Brand New Religion", complete with Mythic Tales of transcendent Gods acting through human characters or are they trying to see how the stories they have found may fit with religion they now find themselves in.

Maybe there is nothing new under the sun.

CW

Amaleq13

Origen appears to know it:

"...belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."[97]

From e-catena by way of Kirby's website.

Julian

My understanding was that Jay was only talking about the "to this very day." Here is the MS attestation:

28:15
ἡμέρας] B D L Θ 569 pc it^a it^aur it^b it^c it^d it^e it^f it^ff1 it^g1 it^h it^l it^q it^r1 vg syr^pal arm geo slav Origen^lat Titus-Bostra Chrysostom Augustine [WH]

omit] א A E F G H K W Y Δ π Σ 074 0148^vid f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz Lect it^ff2 eth Origen^gr TR

Notice that we have no papyri of that section meaning that the first time we see this in writing is shortly after Eusebius. However, as we have no evidence at all from before that time it becomes a moot point.

Julian

PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian and Amaleq,

Thanks. Great information.

It seems the only slight difference in what Origen reports and what our current version of Matthew says is that there was money offered to the soldiers.

Origen:
But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you."

Matthew 28:
11: While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.
12: And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers
13: and said, "Tell people, `His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14: And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15: So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

My guess would be that Origen saw it in Matthew without mention of the money. Eusebius found it unbelievable that the soldiers would lie without a bribe and added to it. Here are the parts in bold that I would suggest Eusebius added:

Matthew 28:
11: While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.
12: And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers
13: and said, "Tell people, `His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14: And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15: So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.


I grant that it is not a major change, but if correctly identified as coming from Eusebius, we may be on the look-out of other small corrections of a similar nature.

Also, note that Origen does not cite Matthew as his source. It is possible that Origen got this fact from a non-canonical source and Eusebius, who specialized in Origen, liked it and put the full story in, adding the detail of the money.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Steven Carr

We have no context, so it is hard to draw any implications.

'to this day' means little without a date.

And how could Matthew know what stories were circulating 'among the Jews'? Over what area are we speaking about?

And we have no writings at all confirming that this story was circulating.

How do we know that it is not polemic - mere gain-saying of the sort religious groups used? Christians never denied that their opponents could work wonders. They just said that it was the work of demons. Should we take such stories among Christians as confirmation that others could also work wonders?

Without context, it is hard to make anything of it.

Llyricist

To put a finer point on it, you can use a recent example, to wit:

Christian: Many skepitics even claimed Pilate didn't exist until archaologists recently found proof!

Skeptic: Name them!

Christian: .....

Tis a very common rhetorical (read bullshit) technique.

seven8s

I would disagree and state that, in fact we have thousands of years of context, ‘to this very day’ (from both before and after this story), from many sources, including the sciences. From that we may draw not implications, but knowledge.

If we have no knowledge, we are left with implications; racism comes to mine, the holocaust, 9/11, the Scopes trial, stem cell research, partial birth abortion.............and I’m sure someone can add something else.

I find it unreasonable to suggest that we have no context unless one has an agenda from which they speak which, stretching the concept, is in and of itself a context. An agenda seems to be something that we all have whether we know it or not, acknowledge it or not.

Even this ‘Jesus’ (the story or the person), whether real or fictional, had an agenda. A mighty powerful one I might add given that it is still here. What was the agenda? Any value? And if so does the means justify the ends?

Equally, do the interpretations of those who set themselves up as ‘thee’ authority over the story, testify to the truth, to ignorance, to greed, foolishness, concern for mankind.............what? We each decide.

Some will reject the subject/story out of hand without desire or need to bring it to understanding. This may work to their benefit, or it may not, and that is dependent upon their individual circumstances. Equally, some will embrace the story unquestionably, which again may or may not work to our benefit, and is again dependent upon our personal circumstances.

Then there is the little detective, ever curious, working independently, inching forward today, making great strides tomorrow, and dead ends inbetween, leaving no stone unturned. I can’t help but think that they will fulfill their purpose, in this life, and know. And if not, they will have at the least enjoyed the ride, having allowed themselves the freedom of expression.