I just watched James White's videotaped comments on his debate last night with Nadir Ahmed, a Muslim apologist. There are a lot of problems with Ahmed's argumentation, but I want to single out one of them to address here.
Ahmed brought up Matthew 27:52-53. Some of you may remember that when the atheist Richard Carrier recently had an opportunity to discuss the resurrection on a radio program with two Christians who specialize in the study of the resurrection (Gary Habermas and Michael Licona), he chose to ask about that passage in Matthew 27 as one of a few issues he wanted to focus on. I've seen other critics of Christianity cite the passage as well. It seems to be a popular objection.
There are some problems with this appeal to Matthew 27, though, as we've explained previously (here and here). Nadir Ahmed refers to the people who were raised as "zombies". Does anything in the text of Matthew 27 suggest that the people who were raised would look any different from other people? No. What significance does the use of a term like "zombie" have, then? Ahmed claims that the dead who had been raised were seen by non-Christians. Does Matthew 27 say that they were seen, and were recognized as people who had risen from the dead, by people who remained non-Christians afterward? No. He asks why other sources don't report the event, but do we have any reason to expect any particular source to report it? No. The idea that a non-Christian source would have a compelling desire to report such an event so favorable to Christianity is dubious and is an assumption I've never seen any critic justify. And other Christian sources had enough material to use from other contexts, such as the resurrection appearances of Christ, to not have any compelling reason to include the event of Matthew 27 in their own accounts. Matthew only gives the event a brief mention. It doesn't seem to have had much prominence even in his mind.
The skeptical appeal to Matthew 27 should be abandoned. It's a bad argument. It relies on dubious assumptions. Even if we were to accept the argument, it wouldn't do much to undermine the historicity of something like the empty tomb or the resurrection appearances, about which we have far more information.
“Does anything in the text of Matthew 27 suggest that the people who were raised would look any different from other people? No.”
ReplyDeleteUm, yes actually. The part about them coming out of graves after being dead and buried suggests this.
“What significance does the use of a term like "zombie" have, then?”
You mean, other than that we are essentially speaking of revived corpses here?
“Ahmed claims that the dead who had been raised were seen by non-Christians. Does Matthew 27 say that they were seen, and were recognized as people who had risen from the dead, by people who remained non-Christians afterward? No.”
I guess these risen corpses must have just blended in?
”He asks why other sources don't report the event, but do we have any reason to expect any particular source to report it? No.”
If it’s fictional? No, of course not.
“The idea that a non-Christian source would have a compelling desire to report such an event so favorable to Christianity is dubious and is an assumption I've never seen any critic justify.“
Indeed, I see no compelling reason for anyone to repeat a fiction in the first place. But if it did happen and the other evangelists knew of it, I guess they deliberately chose not to mention it. I wonder why. You say other writers would have had no compelling reason to mention it. What was Matthew’s compelling reason to mention it?
“Matthew only gives the event a brief mention. It doesn't seem to have had much prominence even in his mind.”
So why did he bother mentioning it then?
“The skeptical appeal to Matthew 27 should be abandoned. It's a bad argument. It relies on dubious assumptions.”
I’m not sure what exactly is being argued by the critics who bring it up – it’s so bizarre and so obviously fictional that it doesn’t even need an argument. It seems that just a few questions are enough to bring this out, which is all the critics probably think they need to do. How about this, Jason: can you think of any *good* reason why one should believe this event actually happened?
"I’m not sure what exactly is being argued by the critics who bring it up – it’s so bizarre and so obviously fictional that it doesn’t even need an argument."
ReplyDeleteRight, so you've just undercut the request for the report to have been collaborated. If other people back then reported it, you'd consign the reports to the rantings of ancient, superstitious people who *must* be wrong since the event is "so obviously fictional." Thanks for making one of Jason's points.
"Um, yes actually. The part about them coming out of graves after being dead and buried suggests this."
What if they had died that week?
What if they had been given a renovated body?
Why didn't Jesus come out after three days all beaten and bloodied?
If you're going to take *part* of the story, why not add in the *other* details.
So, what you're saying is that since you *a priori* deny any supernatural work done to the body, then they'd "obviously" have to come out of the grave like Night of the Living Dead. Terrorizing villagers, I'm sure. Perhaps some had eye balls hanging out, capped off with the classic raven pecking at it. What you're saying, if I'm reading you right, is that you're letting the grid of horror movies interpret your reading of the passage. That's a good hermeneutical device, I must say.
"Indeed, I see no compelling reason for anyone to repeat a fiction in the first place. But if it did happen and the other evangelists knew of it, I guess they deliberately chose not to mention it. I wonder why."
One problem here, among many, is that many "scholars" (e.g., the Jesus Seminar) will take some events as "true, historical representation" of Jesus' life even though it was only mentioned by one Gospel writer. Why? Because it is so "earthly." Makes Jesus appear "just human" to them. No element of the supernatural. Fill in the _____ with your favorite bias. So, would you take away the events that the majority of scholars on your end of the pool take as having "really" happened, and go against the tide of secular scholarship? if not, then it appears that what makes an event "historical" for you *isn't* the number of witnesses, it's the number of miracles; zero being the preferable number.
Thanks for sharing with all of us your biases.
Jaguk Hemaphredes said:
ReplyDelete“The part about them coming out of graves after being dead and buried suggests this.”
I asked whether the people who were raised would look different, not whether their surroundings, such as gravesites, would look different. So, if the disturbed gravesites wouldn’t change the appearance of the people, what are you referring to? The passage doesn’t tell us that the people looked different from the general population. There’s a lot that the passage leaves unsaid. It’s a brief passage. You can make some assumptions that would render the passage’s historicity less plausible, but why make those assumptions?
You write:
“You mean, other than that we are essentially speaking of revived corpses here?”
What do you mean by “revived”? If a person’s body had decomposed in the grave, we would expect a restoration of that body in order to enable the body to function. That’s what we see in other contexts addressing resuscitation or resurrection, such as Ezekiel 37. Lazarus, for example, apparently didn’t continue to have the illness that led to his death. The term “zombie”, as commonly used with reference to movies and in other contexts, suggests concepts that Matthew 27 doesn’t imply (bodies that remain partially decomposed, people living in a trance-like state, etc.).
You write:
“I guess these risen corpses must have just blended in?”
If their bodies were restored, why wouldn’t they? There’s no indication that Lazarus looked different than the others who attended the meal in John 12, for example. But the people in Matthew 27 wouldn’t need to “blend in” in every context in order to have done so to some extent. If they looked different initially, such as when they were coming out of the grave, it doesn’t follow that they would look different when walking along a street later.
If you’re going to suggest that their clothing would set them apart, why should we think so? The concept that God would raise people from the dead, but leave them with no clothing or deteriorated clothing, is ridiculous. It’s consistent with the imagery somebody might get from a horror movie, but it’s absurd in a first-century Jewish context. People wouldn’t have been walking around nude, and assuming that bodies would be restored without restored clothing is dubious. Did Jesus have to travel nude for a while, looking for clothing, after His resurrection? Does God raise a person, but then leave him on his own to find some clothing to wear? Did God also leave people buried in the ground or inside a sealed tomb, without any further assistance, after reviving them? Did Jesus have to move the stone in front of His grave Himself?
You write:
“If it’s fictional? No, of course not.”
When you ignore the question I asked, and instead answer a question nobody was asking, you’re probably doing that because you’re playing with a weak hand. You know that you don’t have much of an argument.
I didn’t ask why we should expect other sources to mention an event that didn’t occur. I asked why we would expect them to mention the event if it did occur. You haven’t answered that question.
You write:
“You say other writers would have had no compelling reason to mention it. What was Matthew’s compelling reason to mention it?”
Matthew could have had a non-compelling reason. And if it was a non-compelling reason, it’s understandable that other sources, like Luke and John, wouldn’t think that they were compelled by that non-compelling reason. I’ve already explained, in my initial post and in the other material I linked to, why non-Christians might not mention the event, even if they had heard of it.
You write:
“So why did he bother mentioning it then?”
Because authors often mention things that are of less significance. Are we supposed to believe that everything an author mentions must be of an essential nature?
You write:
“I’m not sure what exactly is being argued by the critics who bring it up – it’s so bizarre and so obviously fictional that it doesn’t even need an argument.”
I deny that the account is “obviously fictional”, and I want you to argue for your position rather than just asserting it. As far as being “bizarre” is concerned, supernatural events aren’t supposed to be natural. Criticizing a supernatural event for being unusual doesn’t make much sense. Even many natural events, such as the death of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on July 4, 1826, are unusual. But we take other factors into account as well, such as the trustworthiness of the sources, rather than making a judgment based only on how common or expected an event seems.
You write:
“How about this, Jason: can you think of any *good* reason why one should believe this event actually happened?”
Yes. Search the archives of this blog for thousands of pages of material on the inspiration of scripture, the genre of the gospels, the historicity of the gospels, etc.
Jason wrote:
ReplyDelete"I asked whether the people who were raised would look different, not whether their surroundings, such as gravesites, would look different. So, if the disturbed gravesites wouldn’t change the appearance of the people, what are you referring to?"
And an earth quake probably disturbed *many* gravesites. So noticing disturbed gravesites, after an earthquake, probably wasn't somehting that would hit the front pages of The Jerusalem Times.
I posted my response before reading Paul’s. I see that he made some of the same points I’ve made. Paul and I both thought of the association between the term “zombie” and horror movies, and I suspect that most people would think of the same association. Nadir Ahmed probably chose that term because of the misleading implications he knew it would have, and I imagine that Jaguk is defending the term for the same reason. Would people normally think of a term like “zombie” when reading about Jairus’ daughter in Mark 5 or Lazarus in John 12, for example? I doubt it. It’s a well-poisoning term.
ReplyDeleteMy, what a tizzy you’ve managed to get yourselves in!
ReplyDeleteFirst Paul Manata:
“Right, so you've just undercut the request for the report to have been collaborated.”
I think the question about corroboration for such a bizarre report comes in response to the urgency that we take it seriously as history. If someone asks someone to believe what Matthew reports in the passage in question, the request for corroboration is natural if that request is going to be entertained. Of course, some will just believe it regardless of whether it is corroborated or verifiable. Perhaps the absence of this kind of disposition is what bothers many Christians.
”If other people back then reported it, you'd consign the reports to the rantings of ancient, superstitious people who *must* be wrong since the event is "so obviously fictional."
I do have that right of course. What are you going to do about it? Bitch and moan?
“What if they had died that week?”
What if? Does the passage indicate this? I don’t see that it does.
”What if they had been given a renovated body?”
Where does the passage say anything about the reanimated corpses having “renovated bodies”? What exactly is a “renovated body” anyway? What about their clothing? If they had been buried even for a few days, it’s possible that their clothing would have been soiled, perhaps even stained and stinking from decomposition. These are things that we know happens to dead bodies. Would a “renovated body” walk around nude, or would it wear its burial clothes, or a whole new wardrobe?
”Why didn't Jesus come out after three days all beaten and bloodied?”
I don’t know that Jesus did “come out after three days.” This is a faith-based belief that I never found persuasive whatsoever.
”So, what you're saying is that since you *a priori* deny any supernatural work done to the body, then they'd "obviously" have to come out of the grave like Night of the Living Dead.”
I don’t believe I said this. Can you show where I did?
“Terrorizing villagers, I'm sure. Perhaps some had eye balls hanging out, capped off with the classic raven pecking at it.
“What you're saying, if I'm reading you right, is that you're letting the grid of horror movies interpret your reading of the passage. That's a good hermeneutical device, I must say.”
I don’t think anything I stated ever suggested “the grid of horror movies” as my interpretive reference.
[Skip Manata’s groping speculations on what I think makes an event “historical” as it did not speak to my point.]
”Thanks for sharing with all of us your biases.”
And thanks for sharing yours.
Now Jason had something to say:
“The part about them coming out of graves after being dead and buried suggests this.”
”I asked whether the people who were raised would look different, not whether their surroundings, such as gravesites, would look different.”
Here’s what you asked:
“Does anything in the text of Matthew 27 suggest that the people who were raised would look any different from other people?”
My answer was that the part about them coming out of their graves after being dead and buried suggests this. I didn’t say anything about “disturbed gravesites.”
”The passage doesn’t tell us that the people looked different from the general population.”
The passage says precious little, which in itself is noteworthy to me. But I would say that the assumption that someone crawling out of a grave after being dead and buried for a while might look different from the average Joe who had never been dead and buried, is a reasonable inference.
“There’s a lot that the passage leaves unsaid.”
That’s an understatement if I ever saw one.
“You can make some assumptions that would render the passage’s historicity less plausible, but why make those assumptions?”
Indeed, why not simply assume that people who had been dead and buried for who knows how long, and then came out of those graves and “showed themselves unto many,” would simply blend in seamlessly with everyone else? Mmm.. okay.
”What do you mean by “revived”?”
Only the minimum necessary to fit what the passage in question actually states.
“If a person’s body had decomposed in the grave, we would expect a restoration of that body in order to enable the body to function.”
As you ask above, “why make those assumptions?” What “restoration” does Matthew indicate in the passage? As you say, “there’s a lot that the passage leaves unsaid.” If you reserve the right to insert things into the passage to fit your biases, why can’t I do the same? After all, Manata has already dismissed whatever I have to say as the product of bias. Are Christians without bias?
“That’s what we see in other contexts addressing resuscitation or resurrection, such as Ezekiel 37. Lazarus, for example, apparently didn’t continue to have the illness that led to his death.”
Then by all means, take the liberty to insert freely into the Matthean passage elements from other biblical contexts. This is how “scripture” developed over the centuries, and allusions like this make for good apologetic hiding grounds.
“The term “zombie”, as commonly used with reference to movies and in other contexts, suggests concepts that Matthew 27 doesn’t imply (bodies that remain partially decomposed, people living in a trance-like state, etc.).”
Exactly what does the Matthean passage in question imply in your mind? You yourself stated that “there’s a lot that the passage leaves unstated.”
Me “I guess these risen corpses must have just blended in?”
Jason “If their bodies were restored, why wouldn’t they?”
I have no idea what you mean by “there bodies were restored,” or where the passage suggests this. But let’s grant it for argument’s sake: if these risen corpses did just blend in, then presumably they would look pretty much just like anyone else. If that’s the case, how did Matthew know that anyone rose out of the graves in the first place? Or did Matthew never witness any of this to begin with?
“There’s no indication that Lazarus looked different than the others who attended the meal in John 12, for example.”
So, if Lazarus had a ruddy, acne-scarred face before his death, his face looked just the same after he was resurrected (or resuscitated, or whatever)? Is that what a “renovated” body is like? Just curious here.
“But the people in Matthew 27 wouldn’t need to “blend in” in every context in order to have done so to some extent. If they looked different initially, such as when they were coming out of the grave, it doesn’t follow that they would look different when walking along a street later.”
So what would have changed between the time they crawled out of their graves and the time they were walking along a street later?
”If you’re going to suggest that their clothing would set them apart, why should we think so?”
Well, for one, if the clothing were in their graves with them while they were decomposing. Or did everyone’s clothes look soiled and stained and stinky already, even before they were dead and buried?
“The concept that God would raise people from the dead, but leave them with no clothing or deteriorated clothing, is ridiculous.”
If you say so. Perhaps they all got fresh linens along with “renovated” flesh? (And that’s not ridiculous?)
“It’s consistent with the imagery somebody might get from a horror movie, but it’s absurd in a first-century Jewish context.”
Again, if you say so. Of course, I don’t know where the passage says anything about the makeover you apparently read from it.
“People wouldn’t have been walking around nude, and assuming that bodies would be restored without restored clothing is dubious.”
And yet the idea of dead people rising out of their graves is… perfectly reasonable?
“Did Jesus have to travel nude for a while, looking for clothing, after His resurrection?”
If Jesus was never resurrected in the first place, then obviously not.
“Does God raise a person, but then leave him on his own to find some clothing to wear?”
God can pretty much do whatever pleases him I thought.
“Did God also leave people buried in the ground or inside a sealed tomb, without any further assistance, after reviving them?”
Maybe he made sure they were buried with picks and shovels.
“Did Jesus have to move the stone in front of His grave Himself?”
I guess Jesus could have conjured some helpers at the time he needed them. Anything’s possible when you get into fictional accounts like these.
Me “If it’s fictional? No, of course not.”
Jason “When you ignore the question I asked, and instead answer a question nobody was asking, you’re probably doing that because you’re playing with a weak hand.”
You asked a question, and I answered it as best I could understand it. It’s not my fault if you don’t like the answer.
“You know that you don’t have much of an argument.”
Argument? For what exactly am I supposed to argue? This is amusement.
”I didn’t ask why we should expect other sources to mention an event that didn’t occur. I asked why we would expect them to mention the event if it did occur. You haven’t answered that question.”
How about this: Other sources could be expected to report such an amazing event precisely because it did occur, if in fact it did occur.
Me “You say other writers would have had no compelling reason to mention it. What was Matthew’s compelling reason to mention it?”
Jason “Matthew could have had a non-compelling reason.”
So Matthew was compelled by a non-compelling reason?
“And if it was a non-compelling reason, it’s understandable that other sources, like Luke and John, wouldn’t think that they were compelled by that non-compelling reason.”
Could they have been compelled by a different non-compelling reason, and yet felt so uncompelled by that non-compelling reason, that they just said the heck with it, and leave it out of their versions, even though Matthew’s non-compelling reason was at least compelling enough to compel him to mention it (albeit ever so briefly)?
“I’ve already explained, in my initial post and in the other material I linked to, why non-Christians might not mention the event, even if they had heard of it.”
Yes, but I found your explanation rather uncompelling.
Me “So why did he bother mentioning it then?”
Jason “Because authors often mention things that are of less significance.”
Yes, they sure do, which pretty much snuffs out the need to have a compelling reason to mention something.
“Are we supposed to believe that everything an author mentions must be of an essential nature?”
That’s a good question, one I’ll keep in mind the next time a Christian apologist asks me to identify some compelling reason for a gospel writer to mention something he doesn’t mention.
Me “I’m not sure what exactly is being argued by the critics who bring it up – it’s so bizarre and so obviously fictional that it doesn’t even need an argument.”
Jason “I deny that the account is “obviously fictional”,”
I know.
“and I want you to argue for your position rather than just asserting it.”
Yes, you probably want a lot of things. But I answer to a higher authority, Jason.
“As far as being “bizarre” is concerned, supernatural events aren’t supposed to be natural.”
Right. The more bizarre, the merrier.
“Criticizing a supernatural event for being unusual doesn’t make much sense.”
Which just makes me wonder what all the fuss about something being ridiculous is. The supernatural – which is admittedly expected to be unusual – becomes normal, while the natural – which we deal with everyday – becomes ridiculous and absurd. What fun it must be to be a Christian!
“Even many natural events, such as the death of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on July 4, 1826, are unusual.”
People have to die some time.
“But we take other factors into account as well, such as the trustworthiness of the sources, rather than making a judgment based only on how common or expected an event seems.”
Right. And while you find the New Testament sources “trustworthy,” I do not. Irks you to hell and back, doesn’t it?
Jaguk Hemaphredes wrote:
ReplyDelete"I do have that right of course. What are you going to do about it? Bitch and moan?"
Telling us that you "have a right" to respond in a particular way doesn't justify that response, and nobody was disputing whether you "have a right". So much of what you've written in response to us is irrelevant or trivial. You don't have much to say, but you keep posting.
You write:
"Does the passage indicate this? I don’t see that it does."
If the passage doesn't comment on the issue either way, then that's a problem for your position, not ours. If your argument that the passage is unreliable depends on reading an unjustifiable assumption into the text, then that's your problem.
You write:
"Where does the passage say anything about the reanimated corpses having 'renovated bodies'?...Would a 'renovated body' walk around nude, or would it wear its burial clothes, or a whole new wardrobe?"
Again, if the passage doesn't discuss such issues, then that's a problem for your position, not ours. Arguing that the people who were raised might have walked around naked or with only partially restored bodies doesn't give us reason to conclude that such things did occur.
As I explained earlier, the gospel of Matthew was written in the context of first-century Israel. We know how other resuscitations and resurrections were viewed in that context. We know what they thought of public nudity. We know that angels who took on human form were clothed, for example. The first-century Jewish context of Matthew's gospel doesn't lead us to view Matthew 27 in light of a modern horror movie. What leads you to view it as something more like a horror movie is your desire to criticize the passage.
You write:
"I don’t know that Jesus did 'come out after three days.' This is a faith-based belief that I never found persuasive whatsoever."
You keep changing the subject. Paul wasn't asking you to affirm that Jesus rose from the dead. He was asking you why the early Christian sources don't portray the risen Jesus in the manner in which you're portraying the risen people in Matthew 27. The issue is what's meant by what's described in Matthew 27. The intended meaning of a passage and the historicity of that passage are different issues.
You write:
"The passage says precious little, which in itself is noteworthy to me."
And many other historical sources say "precious little" about some of the subjects they address. But you want the passage to say more than it does, so that you can charge it with error. That's your problem, not ours.
You write:
"But I would say that the assumption that someone crawling out of a grave after being dead and buried for a while might look different from the average Joe who had never been dead and buried, is a reasonable inference."
Where does the passage mention "crawling"? And why are we supposed to conclude that people were watching their gravesites as they "crawled" out? If some people were watching, you need to explain how that's supposed to be a problem for us. We don't deny that some people knew that these people had been raised. Rather, we deny that the lack of other references to the event gives us sufficient reason to reject its historicity.
You write:
"Indeed, why not simply assume that people who had been dead and buried for who knows how long, and then came out of those graves and 'showed themselves unto many,' would simply blend in seamlessly with everyone else?"
As I explained earlier, the issue isn't whether these people always seemed indistinguishable from the general population. We don't deny that some people knew what happened. The point that I've made is that something more than their appearance would be needed to identify them as people who had been raised from the dead. The example I used earlier was walking along a street. I see no reason to think that these people would be identifiable as "zombies" while walking along a street. They could be identified by means of speaking with them or by means of their being recognized by people who had known them, for example, but I see no reason to think that people would have recognized them as risen from the dead just by observing them doing something like walking around.
You write:
"Only the minimum necessary to fit what the passage in question actually states."
The passage was written in a context. You don't ignore the implications of a context just because the text doesn't spell out every implication. What does a term like "raised" mean in a first-century Jewish context? Does it imply a zombie who walks around in the nude with a partially decomposed body? If a historian refers to what Abraham Lincoln ate for dinner one day, then doesn't make any further references to meals until he's discussing a day in Lincoln's life twenty years later, do you assume that the historian thinks that no meals were eaten between those two dates? Or do you take into account factors such as what the historian would have known about the human need to eat more often, the fact that historians are often selective in what they do and don't mention, etc.?
You write:
"If you reserve the right to insert things into the passage to fit your biases, why can’t I do the same?"
Again, if the passage doesn't comment on a subject either way, why are we supposed to prefer your "biases" over somebody else's? If the passage is as inconclusive as you're suggesting, then that's a problem for your position, not ours. An inconclusive passage isn't equivalent to an erroneous passage.
Interpreting Matthew 27 in light of its larger context, the context within that gospel and in first-century Israel, for example, isn't the same as "inserting things into the passage to fit your biases". To act as if we should ignore what we know about ancient Jewish views of resuscitations and resurrections, what ancient Jews thought of public nudity, etc. from the larger context in which Matthew was writing, but instead must isolate Matthew 27 from that context, is an absurd method of interpretation that would lead to many ridiculous conclusions in other areas of human communication if you were to apply your reasoning consistently. But you aren't consistent.
You write:
"Exactly what does the Matthean passage in question imply in your mind?"
It implies a raising of the dead in a first-century Jewish and Christian context, as I've explained repeatedly. Christianity was a Jewish religion. Jesus and the apostles often cited Old Testament scripture as authoritative. We know how they would have viewed public nudity. We know that when they describe something like an angel who's been given a human body, they view the angel as clothed rather than naked. Etc. If you don't understand the relevance of the Old and New Testament passages I cited earlier, then you ought to give these issues more thought before posting again. I doubt that anybody else reading this discussion has difficulty understanding the relevance of the context in which Matthew lived.
You write:
"But let’s grant it for argument’s sake: if these risen corpses did just blend in, then presumably they would look pretty much just like anyone else. If that’s the case, how did Matthew know that anyone rose out of the graves in the first place?"
Readers ought to note that Jaguk needs to have these things explained to him. What does that suggest about his level of discernment and how much effort he's given to thinking through his arguments?
A person could be identified as having risen from the dead if a relative or somebody else who knew that the person had died saw him after he was raised. Or somebody who was raised could have communicated what happened by speaking with other people, without looking different from other people. Or Matthew could have attained the information from Jesus, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or by some other means not involving the testimony of the people who met those who had been raised. There are a lot of possibilities.
You write:
"Or did Matthew never witness any of this to begin with?"
We don't know whether he witnessed all of it, some of it, or none of it. But since he doesn't have to have been an eyewitness in order for the account to be accepted as historical, what's your point?
You write:
"So, if Lazarus had a ruddy, acne-scarred face before his death, his face looked just the same after he was resurrected (or resuscitated, or whatever)?"
That's not what I said. Either you need to make more of an effort to understand people's arguments before responding to them or you need to be more honest about what you do understand.
You write:
"So what would have changed between the time they crawled out of their graves and the time they were walking along a street later?"
If nobody was watching the gravesites at the time, whereas other people were walking along the street, then what the person looked like along the street would be more relevant. What's the relevance of what somebody looked like when coming out of the grave if we have no reason to conclude that any relevant source was watching the grave at the time?
And you keep ignoring another issue I've mentioned. Even if somebody had been watching the gravesites at the time that the event of Matthew 27 occurred, how do you know that the person should have left us an extant document outside of Matthew's gospel that mentions the event?
You write:
"Perhaps they all got fresh linens along with 'renovated' flesh? (And that’s not ridiculous?)"
Given that so many other Jewish and Christian documents imply that God provides such things (angels in human form are clothed, the risen Jesus is clothed, etc.), and given other factors such as ancient views of public nudity, the idea that risen people would be left naked is less likely. Why is clothing people who are without clothes, by no fault of their own, "ridiculous"? I would say that your concept that God sends these people into first-century Israel in the nude is what's ridiculous.
You write:
"And yet the idea of dead people rising out of their graves is… perfectly reasonable?"
You keep changing the subject. The issue isn't whether you consider the concept of resuscitation or resurrection reasonable. The issue, in this context, is what Matthew 27 means. You have to determine what the passage means before you argue that its meaning is erroneous. Telling us that you think that the raising of the dead is unreasonable doesn't address what I said about how a first-century Christian Jew like Matthew would have viewed something like public nudity.
You write:
"Maybe he made sure they were buried with picks and shovels."
Once again, you have no answer, so you choose to be trivial and irrelevant instead. Either you believe that somebody like Matthew would have viewed such people as "buried with picks and shovels" or you don't. If you do, then explain why. If you don't, then how did the people get out of their graves? The idea that Matthew needs to tell us everything that God did, or else we should assume that the people who were raised were left on their own (to get out of graves, to find clothing, etc.), is unreasonable. It's common practice for writers, in antiquity and today, to summarize, to mention some events while not mentioning others. A resuscitation or resurrection would sometimes be sufficient by itself, but there would be other times when the person revived would be enclosed within a tomb, would need clothing, etc. To expect Matthew to mention everything else God did, in addition to the raising of the bodies, is unreasonable. I doubt that many of Matthew's first-century readers were so undiscerning as to think that something like a partially decomposed body or public nudity was involved unless Matthew specified otherwise. I doubt that you're so undiscerning either. Rather, you're looking for things to criticize.
You write:
"I guess Jesus could have conjured some helpers at the time he needed them. Anything’s possible when you get into fictional accounts like these."
You're not giving us any reason to think that the account is fictional. You're just asserting it.
You write:
"Other sources could be expected to report such an amazing event precisely because it did occur, if in fact it did occur."
Again, you need to be more specific. Which extant sources supposedly would have known of it and would have wanted to mention it? People don't record something just because they consider it "amazing", and if they did record it, the fact that they recorded it doesn't assure us that the record would remain extant in the twenty-first century. I've already addressed why other Christian and non-Christian sources might not discuss the event. You aren't interacting with much of what I said.
You write:
"So Matthew was compelled by a non-compelling reason?"
Again, authors don't limit themselves to essential material. Different portions of a document can have different degrees of significance in the mind of the author. Why do such things need to be explained to you?
You write:
"Yes, but I found your explanation rather uncompelling."
For reasons you haven't explained.
You write:
"Yes, they sure do, which pretty much snuffs out the need to have a compelling reason to mention something."
Since I never argued that authors only mention something if they have a compelling reason to do so, what's the relevance of your response? If extant sources other than Matthew's gospel had potential reasons for wanting to mention the event in question, but none of the reasons were compelling, then why are we supposed to expect them to have mentioned it?
You need to demonstrate that other extant ancient sources should have mentioned the event of Matthew 27. You haven't done that.
You write:
"The supernatural – which is admittedly expected to be unusual – becomes normal, while the natural – which we deal with everyday – becomes ridiculous and absurd. What fun it must be to be a Christian!"
Why don't you document your suggestion that I've made the argument that you're putting in my mouth? Where have I suggested that something like what occurs in Matthew 27 is "normal"? I haven't. An event doesn't have to be normal in order to be accepted as historical. And where have I suggested that "the natural" is "ridiculous and absurd"? I haven't. You're taking portions of what I said in one context and attaching them to portions of what I said in other contexts in order to produce an argument I never made.
You write:
"People have to die some time."
But two of America's most prominent founders don't have to die on the same day, fifty years (to the day) after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Did that not occur to you, or are you being dishonest?
You write:
"And while you find the New Testament sources 'trustworthy,' I do not."
I referred you to thousands of pages of argumentation and documentation in support of our position, in material that we researched and wrote for this blog. In response, you offer us an unargued assertion.
You write:
"Irks you to hell and back, doesn’t it?"
Since you've repeatedly suggested that our arguing against your position shows that we're "irked", then should we apply the same standard to your arguing against our position? Are you "irked"? And what is that supposed to prove? A historian of World War II could be upset by a Holocaust denier for good reason, even if the evidence is on the historian's side. Irresponsible behavior often upsets people who are responsible.