The Use Of Matthew 27:47 As Evidence Of Prayer To Saints

The passage has been brought up by some advocates of praying to saints. I discussed the passage in a post a few years ago.

Keep in mind that Jesus' opponents often accused him of things they and he disapproved of (Matthew 11:19, 12:24). They heard him say "Eli, Eli" (Matthew 27:46), so they had to come up with an explanation. The idea that Jesus' enemies, in the process of misinterpreting what he said, would only attribute to him something that they thought was an acceptable practice, thought was accepted to some significant extent among the Jewish people, or thought Jesus had approved of in the past is ridiculous. It would be like taking 11:19, in the same gospel, as evidence for Jewish and/or Christian support of gluttony and the abuse of alcohol. And the absence of any condemnation of prayer to saints in Matthew 27:47 doesn't tell us that the individuals who made the comment held a positive view of the practice. A lack of condemnation could be a result of agnosticism about the practice or a result of expecting the audience to recognize the problematic nature of the practice without having it explained to them (as in 11:19 and 12:24). Besides, if the individuals who made the comment about Elijah were Romans, what's the relevance of whether they approved of praying to people who are in the afterlife? What Matthew 27:47 tells us is that the concept of prayer to saints was known at the time, but it doesn't tell us whether the concept was viewed positively, neutrally, or negatively or who viewed it that way.

If the passage reflects some degree of Jewish acceptance of prayer to saints, something I see no way to argue for from the passage itself, it falls into the category I discussed in a post earlier this year. Ancient Jewish support for praying to beings other than God was accompanied by Jewish opposition to the practice. That opposition seems to be older, Biblical, and the view that was the dominant one among Christians during the earliest generations of Christianity.

A Summary Of The Evidence Against A Pagan Holiday As The Basis Of Christmas

Tom Schmidt is in the midst of posting a Twitter thread on the subject, which he started earlier this month. He also linked a recent Twitter thread by Tim O'Neill about English Heritage retracting its claim that the December 25 date was taken from paganism.

If Jesus was born outside Bethlehem, would the ancient sources be so unsupportive of that conclusion?

Critics of the Bethlehem birthplace often act as if they're confident that Jesus wasn't born there or that he was born in Nazareth instead. I've addressed their arguments many times, such as in the posts collected here. The article here argues for the likelihood that the early Christians and their opponents had access to reliable information on Jesus' birthplace and the likelihood that they obtained that information. For a brief overview of the evidence for the Bethlehem birthplace, do a Ctrl F search on "shows" here and go to the last hyphenated section here for information on ancient non-Christian sources. What I want to focus on in this post is something I wrote in a Facebook thread a few years ago. This is about whether evidence was lost or suppressed for a false date Jesus and the early Christians had set for the second coming. The same principles can be applied to the notion that Jesus was born outside Bethlehem, but that the evidence for that birthplace was lost or suppressed:

Abraham In Matthew 1 And The Virgin Birth

One of the problems with the popular claim that the concept of a virgin birth was borrowed from paganism is that it would be so easy for anybody to come up with the idea without doing any borrowing. And pushing the earlier virgin birth claim into paganism just pushes the question back a step. Where did the initial pagan source get the idea? If pagans could come up with it without borrowing, so could Jews, including the early Christians.

The first two verses of Matthew mention Abraham. And verse 2 mentions his begetting of Isaac. That was a miraculous conception, though not a virginal one. Matthew may have begun his genealogy with Abraham because Abraham is the father of the Jewish people. Or he may have started the genealogy with Abraham because of the similarity between the miraculous conception of Isaac and the miraculous conception of Jesus. Or starting with Abraham may have been chosen for both reasons. Whatever the case, the opening two verses of Matthew's gospel illustrate how easily a virgin birth claim could originate without any significant influence from paganism. It's not much of a step from Isaac's miraculous conception to the miraculous conception of Jesus. And the remainder of Matthew's gospel is highly Jewish and anti-pagan.

Non-Christian Corroboration Of Early Christian Miracles

"In fact, Jewish sources otherwise critical of Jesus repeatedly admit that he did work what we would call ‘miracles’. We see this most strikingly in the ‘Jew of Celsus’ (c.150 ce) who says that Jesus did perform παράδοξα, using the precise word deployed by the TF [Josephus' primary passage about Jesus]. Justin the Martyr further says that Jews believed Jesus worked miracles by magic, and a similar claim is time and again lodged against Jesus by Jewish authorities in the Gospels themselves. The Babylonian Talmud also criticizes Jesus ‘because he practiced sorcery’ (שכישף). And the Jerusalem Talmud states that Jesus’ followers could heal in his name, yet it still cautions faithful Jews not to be persuaded by them. The versions of the Jewish Toledot Yeshu (second–fifth centuries), an early account of Jesus, are highly critical of him, yet records all sorts of miracles that Jesus worked including even raising the dead. Likewise, a second- or third-century Jewish-Christian document, perhaps called the Ascents of James, reports that Jews would accuse Jesus of performing miracles like a sorcerer might do. Pagan sources also spoke similarly, as with the Milesian Apollo, who acknowledged that Jesus did ‘miraculous deeds’ (τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις) and the anti-Christian writer, Porphyry, effectively agrees....Porphyry admits that the apostles did miracles (Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo 81; found in Morin vol. 3.2 p. 80 lines 21–2). Similarly, Arnobius engages with an opponent who alleges that Jesus worked miracles through the knowledge of secret, magical arts or because he was a kind of demigod of old; see respectively Arnobius, Against the Nations 1.43, 53, and 1.48–9." (T.C. Schmidt, Josephus And Jesus [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025], 74 and n. 85 on 74)

There are other examples that could be cited. Schmidt's book is about Josephus, and he argues that Josephus corroborates Jesus' miracles. I've discussed other examples not mentioned by Schmidt elsewhere, like here and here. Notice the diversity of sources: mainstream Christian, schismatic, heretical, Jewish, and pagan.

Another category that should be taken into account is prophecy fulfillment. It's distinct from what Schmidt is addressing, but is relevant to non-Christian corroboration of early Christian miracles. Many ancient non-Christian sources corroborated facts of history related to Christianity that line up well with Old Testament prophecy: the timing of Jesus' life (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), the Bethlehem birthplace (in connection with Micah 4-5), the penal practices of the Roman empire (crucifixion and various practices associated with it in connection with passages like Psalm 22 and the third Servant Song in Isaiah 50), the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (in connection with Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy), etc. We've discussed such prophecies, their fulfillment, and non-Christian corroboration of the fulfillment, like in the posts gathered here. As with the sort of miracles Schmidt is focused on, the corroboration here comes from a large number and variety of sources, from the first century onward.

The Diversity Of The Empty Tomb Sources

I've argued elsewhere that the empty tomb was affirmed not just by the early Christians, but also by both their early Jewish opponents and their early Gentile opponents. In the post just linked, I argue for Justin Martyr's citation of a first-century Jewish source corroborating the empty tomb, and I discuss some other significant material in Justin. I've also written, here, about the tenacity of the Jewish corroboration, so that it persisted well beyond the time of the apostles and adapted to ongoing circumstances. The original Jewish explanation of the empty tomb, that Jesus' disciples stole the body, made far more sense early on than it did later. So, though some Jews continued to use the explanation that the disciples stole the body, others developed another argument, that a gardener took the body.

Not only are these large groups affirming the empty tomb diverse (Christians, non-Christian Jews, pagans), but there had to be a diversity of individuals within each of these groups. Paul was a former Pharisee and persecutor of Christians, and he would have had a substantial amount of knowledge of what non-Christian Jews knew about and were saying about the empty tomb. James would have had the knowledge of a family member who had close connections to other relatives of Jesus. If Jesus had received some other sort of burial than what the early Christians reported, such as being placed in some kind of family tomb, James would have been in a good position to know it. The Jewish leaders who had spent years working against Jesus and had arranged to have him crucified surely would have monitored what was going on and would have formulated a response to ongoing circumstances. Or think of Pilate's involvement in the events surrounding Jesus' death, including the entombing of the body and what happened immediately thereafter. Pilate not only had an opportunity to shape both Jewish and Gentile non-Christian views on these subjects, but also may have kept a relevant written record of some kind.

Even if one or more sources like the ones just mentioned were apathetic, careless, or some such thing, it's unlikely that all of them were and that they all erred in the same direction. The best explanation for such widespread affirmation of the empty tomb is that the tomb was empty.

Video Resources On The Non-Pagan Origins Of Christmas

Some good videos on the subject have come out in recent years, and some of them haven't gotten much attention. Here and here are a couple of interviews with Philipp Nothaft, a scholar who's done a lot of work on the early history of the Christmas holiday. And here's an interview with Tom Schmidt, another scholar who's done a lot of work on the subject, especially on Hippolytus. Here's Tim O'Neill and a couple of other skeptics of Christianity discussing the evidence against the pagan origins of Christmas.

Does Christmas have pagan origins?

In my last post, I discussed some disagreements I have with Jozef Naumowicz's recent book on the origins of the Christmas holiday, The Origin Of The Feast Of The Nativity In The Patristic Perspective (Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH, 2024). I now want to quote some portions of his book that I'm more in agreement with, where he argues that paganism didn't have any significant influence on the origins of Christmas. I can't quote every relevant part of the book here, but I'll cite some significant parts of it.

Is there support for December 25 as Jesus' birthdate prior to the Council of Nicaea?

A book on the origins of the Christmas holiday came out earlier this year, Jozef Naumowicz's The Origin Of The Feast Of The Nativity In The Patristic Perspective (Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH, 2024). A section of the book describing the author refers to Naumowicz as "a member of the Committee of Historical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He is the author and editor of many publications in the field of ancient Christianity and patrology, as well as the editor of the Library of the Church Fathers series." He argues that the December 25 date for Jesus' birth and the celebration of his birth on that day aren't found in any source prior to the Council of Nicaea, but he also argues that the date and the holiday weren't influenced by paganism in any significant way. So, he assigns a late date to the holiday, but denies that it's pagan or an attempt to compete with paganism. I disagree with him on the first point, but agree with him on the second. I'll explain why I disagree with him in this post, then I'll cite some of his comments where I agree with him in a later post. The book is worth getting for his material on the pagan influence issue, even if you disagree with him on the dating of the December 25 date and the holiday.

Why prefer Jesus to gods, emperors, and other ancient figures associated with miracles?

Critics often draw comparisons between Jesus and other ancient figures who had miracles attributed to them. It's often suggested that there's no or insufficient reason to favor Jesus over those other figures. A few points, among many others that could be made:

What should we make of alleged problematic parallels within Christianity and between it and other belief systems?

Michael Jones recently produced a good video that makes a lot of significant points about allegations of supposedly problematic parallels between Christianity and other belief systems (e.g., pagan accounts of a virgin birth, dying and rising gods in paganism). I've written some posts on issues like these over the years. See here and here, for example.

Christmas And Paganism

Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) has been doing some good work on the subject and has recently put out more videos about it. Here's a shorter one. Here's one that's longer.

Why wasn't early Christian eschatology criticized more?

In my last post, I argued that the earliest opponents of Christianity don't seem to have thought that Jesus and his followers falsely predicted the timing of his second coming. That raises the question of why they didn't make that accusation. Modern critics of Christianity frequently make the accusation that Jesus, Paul, and the early Christians in general set a false date for Jesus' return. Why would there be such a difference between Christianity's earliest opponents and its modern critics?

The Plausibility Of Alleged Doublets And Other Parallels In The Bible And Elsewhere

Critics often object that the similarities among two or more events reported in the Bible make it unlikely that all of the reports are historical. Sometimes it's even alleged that the similarities suggest it's unlikely that any of the reports are historically accurate. Supposedly, there must have been some single underlying tradition that was developed in different ways by different sources and eventually took the form of reporting multiple events, even though there actually was only one event or no event at all. Jesus' feeding of the five thousand and his feeding of the four thousand surely didn't both happen, especially the lack of anticipation on the part of his disciples in the context of the second miracle. Similar reasoning is applied to the accounts about Abraham and Isaac and their wives in Genesis 20 and Genesis 26, the multiple accounts of the healing of the blind in Matthew (in contrast to only one similar account in the other Synoptics), etc.

A variation of this kind of objection is to allege that a Biblical source is too similar to an extrabiblical one. Old Testament passages must have been derived from similar ancient accounts in other cultures. Claims made about Jesus in the New Testament are too similar to ancient pagan mythology. And so on.

Videos On Christmas And Paganism

Wesley Huff and Michael Jones recently put out videos arguing against the supposed pagan nature of Christmas.

A Video Of The McGrews And Others Discussing Christmas Issues

Than Christopoulos recently hosted a good Christmas program on his YouTube channel. There were several guests: Tim and Lydia McGrew, another Tim (I don't know his last name), Erik Manning, Bram Rawlings, Lucas (I won't use his last name, since he doesn't use it in the video and may not want it mentioned), and Michael Jones. They made a lot of good points about the historicity of a traditional Christian view of Jesus' childhood and the supposed pagan roots of Christmas.

Support For Christianity From Ancient Non-Christian Sources

A decade ago, I collected some links to many of Triablogue's articles on corroboration of Christianity from ancient non-Christian sources. I recently updated the post. Some links have been added, and some have been changed. I've also revised the text below the links.

Wrath and redemption

These are very confused objections to Calvinism:

https://www.facebook.com/jesse.morrell.1/posts/10157008212326765

1. The Bible is written in popular language, so Reformed theology often uses biblical language and imagery about God's wrath. Nothing wrong with that.

2. When, however, it comes to systematic and philosophical theology, greater precision is required. What does God's "wrath" stand for? Is that essentially an emotional state? Or is it a colorful, anthropomorphic way to express God's disapproval of sin?

Likewise, does the atonement pacify God's emotional state, or does it satisfy divine justice? Is it psychological or ethical? The literal attribute isn't anger but justice. 

3. The point is not that the atonement is anthropomorphic, but that scripture sometimes uses anthropomorphic descriptions to represent divine salvation and judgment. That understanding is hardly unique to Calvinism. Unless you think Yahweh is actually like the pagan gods of the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman mythology, with their recognizably humanoid psychological makeup, some adjustment is required. To take a comparison, Jesus isn't literally a pascal lamb, but his redemption action is symbolized by the pascal lamb. 

4. The atonement doesn't change God's mind. It's not as if there's a prior time when he's "literally angry with sinners," and a later time when he's pacified. If God is timeless, if God knows the future, then it's not as if he has to wait for the atonement to take effect to make up his mind. Indeed, if God planned the atonement, then there was never a time when that wasn't a factor in his view of the elect. 

So it's hypothetical. Absent the atonement, all sinners would face eschatological justice. The atonement doesn't change God's mind or attitude. Rather, it changes the outcome in the counterfactual sense that absent the atonement, there'd be a different outcome: universal damnation.

There's nothing contradictory about the Reformed position in this regard, if you allow a modicum of intelligence to influence your hermeneutics. Critics may disagree with that explanation, but if you're going to accuse of position of internal contradiction, then the question at issue is whether it's consistent on it is own grounds and not whether you reject the paradigm. 

Shippey on Tolkien

Here's an excerpt from chapter 4 of Tom Shippey's J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century.

Beowulf

I'm not a Tolkien scholar, so this post will reflect my limitations in that regard. I read LOTR once, as a teenager, to find out what all the hoopla was about. Once was enough. It's not a bad novel. It has a travelogue quality that appeals to a boyish sense of adventure, common to many men–myself included. It has a few memorable scenes and characters. But in general it's overrated. He's not a great storyteller like Homer (esp. The Odyssey)–much less the incomparable Dante. It lacks the primitive appeal and elemental simplicity of the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the past I have suggested that it reflects the medieval chivalric tradition. I found the movies enjoyable. Not the highest art, but they work at the level of the material. 

One of the interpretive issues regarding LOTR is the relationship between the story and Tolkien's Catholicism. If it has a Catholic Christian subtext, that's very muted. Not only are the characters not Christian, but they don't seem to be very pious. There's no worship or prayer, that I recall, either individually or institutionally. 

Tolkien wrote a seminary essay on Beowulf:

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/beowulf-the-monsters-and-the-critics/

And one question is whether LOTR was partly moldeled on Beowulf. There's an interesting tension between the worldview of the narrator and the worldview of the characters. The basic story is Viking legend. The product of a warrior culture with pagan values. The Protagonist is something of a demigod, doing battle with monsters. 

The outlook of the protagonist is essentially heathen. Similar to the honor-code of Homeric heroes. Mortality is inevitable, so what matters is to die a glorious death.

However, the narrator is a medieval Christian. So he's retelling the legend from the retrospective standpoint of a medieval Christian. The generates an interesting tension between the pagan, polytheistic viewpoint of the main character and the providential, monotheistic viewpoint of the narrator. The narrator attributes the hidden hand of providence to certain outcomes. There's nothing overtly Christian about the setting, plot, dialogue, or characters. Christian insight is supplied by the editorial asides of the narrator.

This is nicely explicated in a two-part lecture by Scott Masson: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bnuM-WkM50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTEeBt16orA

So Beowulf reflects a transitional period from Norse paganism to Norse Christianity. Both forward-looking and backward looking. 

There may be an residual element of that same unresolved tension in LOTR, between the Catholic viewpoint of the narrator (Tolkien) and the pre-Christian (?) viewpoint of the characters. 

Of course, Middle Earth has a different history than our world, so there's a sense in which it couldn't be Christian in any direct respect. The Christian faith is the product of a particular world history. That can't be transferred or duplicated as is to a planet with a different world history. At best, Tolkien could create a variation on Christianity. Something analogous to Christianity, but with a different backstory. 

It is striking, though, that Tolkien feels no duty to integrate LOTR into Catholicism. Perhaps that reflects a lay/clerical dichotomy, where he thinks it's the role of the clergy rather than laity to promote the Catholic faith–whereas the Anglican Lewis felt no such inhibition. Cf. A. Jacobs, The Narnian (HarperOne 2006), 199.

It may also go to the stereotypical difference between a cradle Catholic and an adult convert. Lewis had the evangelistic and apologetic zeal of a convert. The need to justify his conversion as well as the enthusiasm to share his discovery with the lost. What they are now, he used to be. He reaches back to bring others into the light. 

I find Beowulf of some personal, autobiographical interest due to my own Viking ancestry (on my father's side). Of course, the Christianity of the medieval narrator is far removed from my Protestant theology. I'm stand at the end of that trajectory.