Matthew 27:50-53 gives an interesting description about the resurrection of saints at the time of Jesus' death:
27:50 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. 27:51 And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; 27:52 and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; 27:53 and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. If this resurrection of saints really happened, why is it only mentioned in Matthew? Why wasn't this headline news? Does this mean we can't rely on the descriptions of Jesus' own resurrection?
These are excellent questions. And there are two ways to attack this. First, I can assess this as a historian. It is true that multiple attestation is a criterion of historical authenticity - and the more strata the statement in question appears in the better. However, it is a misuse of the criterion to suggest that because the statement in question only appears on one layer of tradition that it therefore must not be historical. But what compounds the problem here is that it is a significant event such that there should be eyewitnesses and massive converts if such a miracle actually occurred. But there is a significant silence on this in the New Testament and nobody (including extra-Biblical sources) mention this seeminly momentous occasion. Moreover, it appears at odds with not only first-century Judaism but with Christianity as well. Why should there be a resurrection of some believers and not all? It's further interesting that verse 52 uses mnemeia ("tombs" or "sepulchers") which parallels Jesus' resurrection from his tomb (mnemeion). Now the account seems suspiciously like a retrojection back into the gospel narrative to prove that the end of Jesus' life and resurrection had theological significance (keeping in mind Matthew probably wrote around 70 A.D.). The parallel becomes bolstered when we consider that after this resurrection, the saints then make subsequent appearances to people as did Jesus. From a historical standpoint, it's nearly impossible to tell whether this event was historical or not. Instead, perhaps to view this as historically literal is wrongheaded. Perhaps this is Matthew's attempt at using eschatological language to connect Jesus to the end-times figure of the Old Testament eschatological sayings. This becomes likely given the buzzwords Matthew uses in describing this event. He mentions an "earthquake" which was descriptive of end-times eschatology denoting the presence of the awesome God: 29:6 She shall be visited of Jehovah of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire. 38:19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely i n that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel; This theme is picked up by New Testament apocalyptic sayings as well: 6:12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; 11:19 And there was opened the temple of God that is in heaven; and there was seen in his temple the ark of his covenant; and there followed lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail. And it is certainly worth noting the close parallel 1 Kings 19 (which shows Israel's God to be a warrior God to the chagrin of Israel's neighbors) has with Matthew 27: 19:11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before Jehovah. And, behold, Jehovah passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before Jehovah; but Jehovah was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but Jehovah was not in the earthquake: It might likely be the case that Matthew is attempting to connect the presence of God with the events of Jesus. Note that the raising of the saints occurs, not at Jesus' resurrection, but at his crucifixion. This could be Matthew utilizing apocalyptic language to describe the significance of Jesus' death and the newness of life that springs forth from it. But this would not prima facie preclude the account from being historical; it would only suggest that Matthean redaction is interested in explaining the theological significance of such an event. If it is not historical, it neither adds nor detracts from the symbolism it is meant to represent - eternal life through Jesus' death. Secondly, I can approach this scenario as a Christian. For me this does not detract from the inspiration of Scripture since biblilcal inspiration does not entail that only one literary genre (e.g., historical) must be utilized (after all, the genre of Lamentations, Psalms, and Proverbs are not historical but poetic). The late distinguished professor of the New Testament, Raymond Brown, explains: [A]lthough the Bible is inspired, it is inexact to think that everything in it has been revealed; and so inexactness in a literary genre that does not require exactness is not an objection to the sacredness of the Bible (R. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 38).
Matthew may not intend to write a historical narrative on what happened when Jesus died. Rather, perhaps he merely means to connect the messianic figure of the apocalyptic sayings of the Old Testament with Jesus. As early as Matthew 1 we can see how he deliberately attempts to connect the messianic passages of the Old Testament with Jesus: 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 1:22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. This was part of Matthew's apologetic component in his biography of Jesus. As a Christian, I learn two things from the Matthew 27 description: (i) Jesus had in himself the authority and power of God, and (ii) Jesus' death brings newness of life for those who believe in Him. |
Follow this blog
