Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roland · 08-27-2007, 07:02 PM

In his book "Jesus is Dead (or via: amazon.co.uk)," Robert Price makes a point I honestly hadn't really thought of before. According to Matthew 27:51-53,

"At that moment [of Jesus' death] the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Now, if that really happened, Price points out, then Jerusalem would have been literally filled with empty tombs (pardon the oxymoron) that weekend, and people all over the city would have been experiencing the exact same thing Jesus' disciples were - which is encountering the walking corpses of their dearly departed loved ones. Not only does this utterly diminish the uniqueness of the disciples' experience with Jesus but the uniqueness of Jesus' empty tomb as well. In fact, Jesus' tomb would have been the last to open, making him rather the Johnny-come-lately of the group. Also, imagine the utter chaos taking place in the city at that time. The disciples' experience would have been just one of many similar dramas taking place concurrently throughout Jerusalem. And how could such an extraordinarily unprecedented widespread event go unremarked upon in the histories of the time (or the other gospel accounts even)?

I know this has been discussed many times on here before, but somehow Price's book really brought the absurdity of it home to me for the first time by dramatizing it so effectively.

Cege · 08-27-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Now, if that really happened, Price points out, then Jerusalem would have been literally filled with empty tombs (pardon the oxymoron) that weekend, and people all over the city would have been experiencing the exact same thing Jesus' disciples were - which is encountering the walking corpses of their dearly departed loved ones.

Price's point is one that I've been struggling with lately. The differences in the "walking corpses" and Jesus' resurrected body (as described in the gospels) are 1) we're given absolutely no other information about those "many holy people" 2) Jesus' body apparently was capable of doing things those other resurrected people's bodies weren't capable of doing (walking through walls, appearing and disappearing).

Did those "holy people" live long enough to die again and be buried again? or did they ascend into heaven as Jesus' body is described to have done?

Did they "appear" to "many people" in the same way that the gospels describe Jesus "appearing" (and disappearing)? Did those to whom they appeared have difficulty in recognizing who they were? mistake them for gardeners, strangers, ghosts? Feed them at the holy people's requests?

Who the heck were the "holy people"?

OneInFundieville · 08-27-2007, 08:48 PM

Embellishment of Mark 15:38 which just has the temple curtain torn in two.

Also of interest is...

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ~ I Corinthians 15:20

Gullwind · 08-27-2007, 08:49 PM

The big question for me is why was the writer of Matthew the only one who thought this event noteworthy enough to mention?

Cege · 08-27-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

The big question for me is why was the writer of Matthew the only one who thought this event noteworthy enough to mention?

I agree with that big question.

Mark is supposed to have been the 1st gospel written. Dead people rising and walking the streets, appearing to "many" would seem important for Mark to include, but he didn't.

Neither did anyone else--including Paul who wrote before any of the gospel writers--mention that "many" dead holy people arose from the dead and then appeared to "many" in Jerusalem immediately after the death of Jesus on the cross. Incredible!

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-27-2007, 09:24 PM

I've always thought Matthew's zombie assault on Jerusalem deserves more attention than it gets but a slight technical correction is in order. Although Matthew places that story within his passion narrative, he says that the zombies came out of their graves after Jesus' resurrection, not when he died.

Kai exelthontes ek ton mnemeion meta ten egersin autou eiselthon eis ten hagian polin kai eniphanisthesan pollois.

"And having come out of their graves after his resurrection [lit. "rising"], they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Price's essential point still stands. Jesus would have been just one more shambling corpse on Easter Sunday, his vactaed tomb just one of many. Extraordinary that not a single living witness ever thought to mention any of that.

aa5874 · 08-27-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Price's essential point still stands. Jesus would have been just one more shambling corpse on Easter Sunday, his vactaed tomb just one of many. Extraordinary that not a single living witness ever thought to mention any of that.

And in addition, the resurrection of Jesus would have been one of the least extra-ordinary, he would not have been dead three days. Perhaps some of the Saints were dead maybe over a hundred years before.

GakuseiDon · 08-27-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Now, if that really happened, Price points out, then Jerusalem would have been literally filled with empty tombs (pardon the oxymoron) that weekend, and people all over the city would have been experiencing the exact same thing Jesus' disciples were - which is encountering the walking corpses of their dearly departed loved ones. Not only does this utterly diminish the uniqueness of the disciples' experience with Jesus but the uniqueness of Jesus' empty tomb as well.

That's a good point -- very interesting. I'm not aware of any early Church Father who tried to explain this. Does anyone know?

Vorkosigan · 08-28-2007, 12:32 AM

In addition to what Don asks, I'd love to know if (1) there are any texts of Matt that don't have it and (2) what the midrashic source for it is. It stinks of interpolation.

Vorkosigan

John Kesler · 08-28-2007, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

In addition to what Don asks, I'd love to know if (1) there are any texts of Matt that don't have it...

I don't know of any manuscripts missing the entire resurrected-saints pericope, but there is is some evidence that the phrase "after his resurrection" was added later. This point was discussed by Jason Filley on the Errancy list:

Quote:

William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester's "Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (or via: amazon.co.uk)." Trinity Press International, London: 1990, pp425,426. Chapter on Tatian's 'Diatessaron.' "Supporting this conclusion [that the Diatessaron preserved an earlier reading than Matthew's gospel -JF] is another apparent Diatessaronic reading in the same passage. It is an omission, and therefore one must be careful in arguing from it, for the argument is e silentio. But in this case, the omission is an active omission, that is, it changes the meaning of the text. Therefore, it elicits greater credence than a passive omission, that is, one which does not alter the meaning of the text. In numerous Diatessaronic witnesses, both East (Ephrem, twice in his Commentary, and in three of his hymns; twice in the Commentary of Ishocdad; and twice in the hymns of Romanos) and West (twice in the Pepysian Harmony; The Heliand), the resurrection and appearance of the risen "dead" occur simultaneously with Jesus' death on the cross. In other words, the Diatessaron omitted the canonical "after his resurrection," which--most bizarrely--delays the appearance of those resurrected for three days! Rather, according to the Diatessaron, the "dead" were raised and revealed there and then as one more sign of the gravity of Jesus' death. The reading of the Pepysian Harmony gives some idea of the scene, according to Tatian:

"And with that, the veil that hung in the temple before the high altar burst in two pieces, the earth quaked, and the stones burst, and the dead men arose out of their graves. And so said the centurion..."
In the canonical account, the delay of the appearance of those resurrected for three days defeats the whole purpose of having them raised when Jesus dies on the cross; but the delay does bring the canonical account into line with Pauline theology, which proclaims Jesus the 'first fruits' of the resurrection (I Cor. 15:20). According to Pauline theology, one cannot have the 'saints' arising before Jesus himself has risen. It would appear the the Diatessaron preserves a more primitive version of the text at this point than does the canonical text, which has been revised to bring it into conformity with Pauline theology."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

...and (2) what the midrashic source for it is. It stinks of interpolation.

Matthew's source may be Daniel 12:1-2. Both speak of a resurrection of the "many."

Quote:

Daniel:
"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. 2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Matthew:
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.

08-27-2007, 07:02 PM	#1
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Jesus' empty tomb just one of many that weekend In his book "Jesus is Dead (or via: amazon.co.uk)," Robert Price makes a point I honestly hadn't really thought of before. According to Matthew 27:51-53, "At that moment [of Jesus' death] the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Now, if that really happened, Price points out, then Jerusalem would have been literally filled with empty tombs (pardon the oxymoron) that weekend, and people all over the city would have been experiencing the exact same thing Jesus' disciples were - which is encountering the walking corpses of their dearly departed loved ones. Not only does this utterly diminish the uniqueness of the disciples' experience with Jesus but the uniqueness of Jesus' empty tomb as well. In fact, Jesus' tomb would have been the last to open, making him rather the Johnny-come-lately of the group. Also, imagine the utter chaos taking place in the city at that time. The disciples' experience would have been just one of many similar dramas taking place concurrently throughout Jerusalem. And how could such an extraordinarily unprecedented widespread event go unremarked upon in the histories of the time (or the other gospel accounts even)? I know this has been discussed many times on here before, but somehow Price's book really brought the absurdity of it home to me for the first time by dramatizing it so effectively.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2007, 08:48 PM	#3
OneInFundieville Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Where I go Posts: 2,168	Embellishment of Mark 15:38 which just has the temple curtain torn in two. Also of interest is... But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ~ I Corinthians 15:20

08-27-2007, 08:49 PM	#4
Gullwind Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,037	The big question for me is why was the writer of Matthew the only one who thought this event noteworthy enough to mention?

08-27-2007, 09:24 PM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I've always thought Matthew's zombie assault on Jerusalem deserves more attention than it gets but a slight technical correction is in order. Although Matthew places that story within his passion narrative, he says that the zombies came out of their graves after Jesus' resurrection, not when he died. Kai exelthontes ek ton mnemeion meta ten egersin autou* eiselthon eis ten hagian polin kai eniphanisthesan pollois.* "And having come out of their graves after his resurrection [lit. "rising"], they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Price's essential point still stands. Jesus would have been just one more shambling corpse on Easter Sunday, his vactaed tomb just one of many. Extraordinary that not a single living witness ever thought to mention any of that.

08-28-2007, 12:32 AM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	In addition to what Don asks, I'd love to know if (1) there are any texts of Matt that don't have it and (2) what the midrashic source for it is. It stinks of interpolation. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.