Given that the gospels are dated at least a few decades after the events they depict, skeptics of the Bible have long suggested that the gospels are a compilation of oral tradition compiled not from eye witness accounts, but from the retelling of events passed on through oral tradition. This would explain the variations and inconsistencies between the gospel accounts, as well as allow for the possibility that embellishments and/or myths made their way into the oral tradition.
Matt. 27:52-53 adds this great story to the resurrection account "and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
What an amazing story! An awesome footnote to the already miraculous story of the resurrection of Jesus! But hold on a sec! ... If this really happened, why does no one else - not even the other gospel writers or apostles - mention this? You mean to tell me that DEAD people showing up to their relatives and friends doesn't cause enough of a stir for historians everywhere to take note?? ... Sure smells of fiction to me!
I know it's taboo for most Christians to suggest that the Bible may not be inerrant, and my attempt at raising the question over Facebook a few months ago was met with some hostility. But let's look at this seriously: If a bunch of dead people showed up across the city, would this not have added great credibility to a movement of believers already trying hard to convince their friends and family, in a culture that didn't believe in bodily resurrections, that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead and was therefore the Messiah? Is it reasonable to accept that this story happened, only to be forgotten as a footnote of Christian history by all but the writer(s) of the account according to Matthew?
And as for the dead-now-living, where did they go? Jesus was conveniently ascended back to heaven (though 500 people are referenced as having seen him, for backup evidence), but did these formerly dead guys go back and live lives among the people? Did they ask for their old jobs back? Did they die again? Does it not strike anyone else as a little odd that there's NO mention of this abnormal occurrence but in two lines in only one of the gospels? We're just supposed to accept this as TRUTH because it's in the Bible??
Christians and theologians have answers, of course. To allow for mythology in the gospel accounts puts the entire Christian narrative into doubt and so they MUST have an answer. Some of these answers include:
- "Well the historians and gospel writers didn't always write down everything that happened." (Sure, why talk about corpses coming back to life when you can write about Jesus' fishing trip?)
- "Maybe their families weren't around anymore" (Right, cause if you don't know the dead guy walking around, you're likely to just ignore and forget about him)
- "They didn't stick around long enough to become big news" (Easy to forget, no doubt. Your neighbours wouldn't be talking about it either, let alone fellow gospel writers.)
- "It was suppressed by the authorities." (That didn't keep Jesus' resurrection under wraps. )
- "Mark, Luke and John's accounts say nothing of this because they wanted to focus on Jesus rising." Possible, and yet given how "you saw your dead friends and family, of course the dead can rise!" would've bolstered the claim of Jesus' resurrection, it's hard to believe that this interesting story would have been bypassed.
So far, I've yet to hear an answer to this puzzle that doesn't sound like an excuse. (Please enlighten me if you have a good one.) This troubles me as a would-be believer because I'm not the sort of person to blindly believe in anything just because someone tells me "The Bible is the Word of Truth!". The biggest stumbling block to my faith right right now is not "Will you believe and have faith in Jesus?" But the more important: "Do you have faith in the historical documents that tell the story of Jesus in the first place?"
The old "Liar/Lord/Lunatic" dichotomy leaves out the option of at least some degree of "LEGEND". Historical fabrication is always a possibility, and texts like Matthew 27 (among other problem texts) do suggest a certain mythological aspect to the Jesus story, passed to us through oral tradition before the various accounts were eventually penned some years later.
"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so".... So???
Before I can put my faith in Jesus, I must first find faith in these ancient texts? Even disciple Thomas who walked beside Jesus for three years needed more than someone else's say-so. And I'm supposed to believe, when all I have to go on is a questionable book and a God who's treated my life with contempt since my youth??
Do I get to roll again?
As previously we have 5 options on the table
ReplyDelete1. Matthew wrote it and he was mistaken, but Christianity is still true
2. Matthew wrote it and he was right, there's no evidence, just have faith
3. Matthew was right, there is evidence, you just don't know about it yet, you should look harder
4. Matthew was speaking allegorically about the fulfillment fo prophesy concerning the Eschatological resurrection,he meant that people were raised from damnation into salvation metaphorically speaking.
5. Matthew made it up It's all a lie so the church can steal your money.
whichdoyou think is the most reasonable?
Ryan, I'm surprised that you, with as much debating experience as you have, would post such a false dichotomy.
ReplyDelete"Matthew made it up? It's all a lie so the church can steal your money" Come on! Get real!
How about: The gospel according to Matthew wasn't written by Matthew at all. The gospel accounts were oral traditions passed from person to person for several decades before coming to be penned, and during that time mythology and exaggerations have crept into the accounts.
I'll address this in more depth in future blog entries, but scholars question the actual occurrence of many events in the New Testament including the story of the woman caught in adultery and quite possibly the famed "You must be born again" interaction between Nicodemus and Jesus, which would've relied on a play-on-words that did not exist in Aramaic, and was likely a later addition.
So for now I think the best explanation is
#6: The gospels are not inerrant. Mythology is a likely explanation for this story. It probably never happened.
(Which raises the question: what else has been recorded inaccurately And how do we know anything that we claim to know about what Jesus said and did?)