Often enough, skeptics will bring up these passages in order to assert an alleged "error" in the Bible. They would refer to these saints as "zombies" as a way of claiming that such passages would be silly of us to believe in them, & therefore we should not regard the Bible as historically true because of what they perceive must be an error in Scripture. Then there are well-meaning Christians who, in trying to thwart these skepticisms, would claim that this is really an apocalyptical literary device intended to highlight the crucifixion's significance such as Mike Licona & William Lane Craig. However, both of these will either challenge Inerrancy & Inspiration, or they will challenge how one perceives these doctrines. On the flipside, we have those, such as myself, Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. James White, and others, that would perceive this text as literal history. In this article we are going to examine these passages of Scripture, and will do an internal critique of them. Also, I want to examine the arguments from both the atheists, and other Christians, regarding these passages as well. I want us to exegete these verses to see how Matthew & his original readers would have understood them.
MATTHEW 27:51-54
First, before we dive into the arguments and views of others regarding this passage in the Gospel of Matthew, I want to cite from this passage directly. This quotation from the pages of Scripture will become relevant all the way through this article as we discuss these raised saints. The passage comes directly out of the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27, verses 51-54. The actual Scripture under consideration actually comes from vv. 52-53, but I wanted to give these passages a bit more context as we examined them.
51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And 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, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!" (Matt. 27:51-54, ESV).
In a bit we'll break down this passage, but for right now these are the Scriptures that are being attacked by the critics. They will usually ask their question like this, "So, you think the zombies in Matthew happened?" The idea is to try to leave us speechless or stammering for an excuse. The idea is for the skeptic to "show" a supposed "error" in the Bible, but there is nothing about this passages that would demonstrate that this is an error. The skeptic has merely assumed his conclusion.
ARE THERE "ZOMBIES" IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL?
Skeptics will often claim that there are "zombies" in the Gospel of Matthew. It would often, even, be stated as a question, "Do you believe the zombies happened?" By calling these saints in Matthew 27:52-53 "zombies" they are committing a logical fallacy known as a question-begging epithet fallacy, where you use emotional language & loaded terms to persuade.
Imagine if a reporter said that, "The murderer has finally been apprehended!" By calling them a "murderer" the reporter is making the question-begging epithet fallacy because she is assuming that they were guilty rather than it being proven as such. What she should have said was that, "The suspect has finally been apprehended" instead. Ultimately, the skeptic makes this fallacy because they hope that they can persuade one to not believe the account if they make you believe that it is as silly & as made up as zombies then you wouldn't believe that it happened. This way they can try to get you to assume the same thing they assumed, namely, that the account didn't actually happened. However, there are several problems with this.
Outside of their argument being a logical fallacy, the Matthean account also never claims that these saints are zombies. Zombies are defined as, "a will-less and speechless human (as in voodoo belief and in fictional stories) held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zombie). In other words, they are mindless, souless, walking corpses of the undead. Now, is this an accurate description of the saints in Matthew? No, it isn't. The historical context would've recognized that these saints were alive, not dead, & that they had both a mind and their souls back, so they weren't reanimated corpses. The Jews, who Matthew is writing his Gospel to, would've seen this as a revivification, a reversal of death, but without being raised to immortality. It would have been no different than Lazarus in John (Jn. 11:43-44) or Jairus' daughter out of the Synoptics (Mk. 5:39-42; Lk. 8:49-55). Luke 8 is even more explicit, for Luke writes:
"While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, 'Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.' 50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, 'Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.' 51 And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, 'Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.' 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, 'Child, arise.' 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat" Lk. 8:49-55, ESV, italics added for emphasis).
The Jews would not have viewed these saints as "dead" in any sense of the word. They would have been considered alive. Zombies are the walking undead, and are therefore the reanimated dead. So, this would have violated the historical background and Jewish culture by which its writer, readers, and interpreters would have acknowledged. Because of this Jewish background, as well as the ancient context of everyone in the ancient world these saints would not have been viewed as "dead" and, therefore, not zombies by any definition of them. As N.T. Wright, a scholar & historian that studied the background on how the ancient world understood life, death, and resurrection, had said:
"'Resurrection', with the various words that were used for it and the various stories that were told about it, was never simply a way of speaking about 'life after death'. [sic] It was one particular story that was told about the dead: a story in which the present state of those who had died would be replaced by a future state in which they would be alive once more...'resurrection' was a life after 'life after death'... Resurrection was, more specifically, not the redefinition or redescription of death, a way of giving a positive interpretation to the fact that the breath and blood of a human body had ceased to function, leading quickly to corruption and decay, but the reversal or undoing or defeat of death, restoring to some kind of bodily life those who had already passed through the first stage. It belongs with a strong doctrine of Israel's god [sic] as the good creator of the physical world" (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, p. 201, emphasis in the original).
IS MATTHEW 27:52-53 AN APOCALYPTIC LITERARY DEVICE?
Mike Licona, a Christian apologist, scholar, historian, & Resurrection expert, holds & champions a position where he thinks that this particular passages is a literary apocalyptic device that was intended to be taken nonliterally as a way of them trying to highlight Jesus' crucifixion on the cross. He maintains that if you took a video camera then you'd never see this event happening. Instead, Matthew, he thinks, is only adding it in there as a way of expressing the dramatic emphasis of Jesus' death. He argues from several sources that do this with the deaths of emperors & kings (Licona, The Resurrection: A New Histiographical Approach, 2010, pp. 548-553). In fact, he goes on to summarize his position:
"Given the presence of phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as the death of an emperor or the end of a reigning king or even a kingdom, the presence of ambiguity in the relevant text of Ignatius, and that so very little can be known about Thallus's comment on the darkness (including whether he was even referring to the darkness at the time of Jesus' crucifixion or, if so, if he was merely speculating pertaining to a natural cause of the darkness claimed by the early Christians), it seemed to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as 'special effects' with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible. There is further support for this interpretation. If the tombs opened and the saints being raised upon Jesus' death was not strange enough, Matthew adds that they did not come out of their tombs until after Jesus' resurrection. What were they doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning? Were they standing in the new open doorways of their tombs and waiting?" (Mike Licona, The Resurrection: A New Histiographical Approach, 2010, p. 552, emphasis in the original).
Dr. Mike Licona offers us several points and objections for us to think about & consider. His arguments will be apart of our next section as we critical analyze this passage to see if he was correct or not.
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF MATTHEW 27:51-54
Any exegetical & critical analysis of a text in Scripture must, first, start with an internal critique. The first problem we see Mike Licona doing is that he stats with an external analysis and then moves inward on the text. This means that he is trying to import from the outside which is not exegesis but eisegesis. You can't look outside, and then see if the text corresponds to an outside source. Rather, we look at the text, see & examine what the text says, and then examine its context, which is why I backed up a bit, and moved forward a bit, in my citing of the passage. Because I don't want to just view the text, but also its respected context. Now, I'm not saying you can't ever look at historical sources, view historical backgrounds, or similarly in language, but I am saying that you don't ever move from the outside to the inside when exegeting a particular passage of Scripture, but you do move from the inside (the text and the context) to the outside. This is how exegesis is done.
We also must asked the question, how did Matthew, and his readers, would have perceived the text as he was writing it? Those who think Matthew is using a literary device to highlight the crucifixion would admit, in correctly steel manning their view, would claim that if you took a video camera back to that time you would not see this event actually happening. In other words, they think this account is unhistorical, and is meant as such by Matthew, the writer of this Gospel. However, is that the case, is the question we are asking.
There are several cues from within this passage, and its respected context, that indicates that Matthew saw this event as actually happening. The first one I want to mention, is the one section of this passage that Dr. Licona forgot to mentioned, is that chapter 27, vv. 53 & 54 claims that there was eyewitnesses to these events. Verse 53 claims that when the saints went into the holy city (Jerusalem) that they "were seen of many." In ancient times when eyewitnesses are mentioned or alluded to in this manner it was a way of rubberstamping the truthfulness of an event. For example, look at how Paul does this in 1 Cor. 15, v. 6: "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep" (Italics added for emphasis). By the way, when a lot of witnesses are recognized it was common to not name them specifically as Paul does in v. 5 with his reference to "the twelve", v. 6 with his reference to the "five hundred brothers", and v. 7 with his reference to "all of the apostles." If a witnessed was relevant to a discussion or if there was only a few witnesses or so (such as with the empty tomb) do you name them. So Matthew's reference to "the many" in v. 53 is on par with what you would expect from Matthew claiming that there were many eyewitnesses, but does not named them specifically.
We also have another eyewitness report to the incident that occurred, at least in reference to the other miraculous events occurring during Jesus' crucifixion and after his Resurrection. This time, however, our eyewitness is specifically identified as the centurion (v. 54). This means that Matthew is showing that the events he is chronicling had actually happened because they were witnessed by others. Did Mathew personally witness these events? He does not say, so it is hard to say for sure, but to say that he didn't because he didn't mentioned it is an argument from silence & would, therefore, be a matter of speculation. We just don't know for sure.
However, this flies in the face of Mike Licona's theory that this passage should be understood as a literary compositional device where the account in question did not historically happen. This means that Matthew is perceiving that this account is both true and historical. Otherwise, why even bother claiming eyewitnesses to an event that never actually happened?
There is another cue we will look at which shows how Matthew is perceiving this text. He mentions that this event occurred after Jesus had Resurrected from the dead (referring to the saints leaving their graves following the Resurrection of Christ), found in v. 53. Of this reference, Licona does, indeed, respond to it. Remember that he argued:
"...Matthew adds that they did not come out of their tombs until after Jesus' resurrection. What were they doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning? Were they standing in the new open doorways of their tombs and waiting?" (Mike Licona, The Resurrection: A New Histiographical Approach, 2010, p. 552, emphasis in the original).
To Dr. Licona, this is a problem, because he sees that the "graves were opened" at Jesus' crucifixion, but the text doesn't actually say that. Instead it records the timing of this event following Jesus. Resurrection. This would mean that the whole event is being displaced by Matthew from the event occurring after Jesus was raised from the dead to the time Jesus was crucified. Now, I'm not saying that Matthew is not displacing the event to highlight Jesus' crucifixion to some extent, but this does not mean that Matthew is not recording a historically accurate, eye-witnessed event. He just displaces it to coincide with Jesus' crucifixion and the miraculous events that occurred there.
In addition to this, I see this as more of a problem for Mike Licona's thesis. His whole point is to claim that Matthew is taking a made-up account and using it to highlight the significance of the crucifixion. If this was so, then why include the "correct" timing of this event following Jesus' Resurrection. Mike, in his book, had named off several of them, in which he saw them adding miraculous events to show significance upon a death, the end of a king's reign, or the end of a kingdom (Licona, 548-552). However, if Mike's view was correct, then why does Matthew tell us that he displaced this event from one context (after Jesus' Resurrection--which would mean that the true timing of this event did not occur during Jesus' crucifixion which it was suppose to ne highlighting), and into another context (Jesus' crucifixion--in which this event did not take place during)?
There is also another problem with this argument. As I've said, this is another cue that Matthew is perceiving this event occurring in real time. This appears to be an apologetic reflection, meaning he mentions the true timing of this event in order to defend against a theological attack of it. According to Paul, Jesus was the firstfruits of them that were sleeping (dead), meaning he was the first to really rise from the dead. However, what can we make of those, such as Lazarus & Jairus' daughter? They were raised to a mortal life, as was the saints in Matt. 27. But wait a minute, they were raised as a group. Matthew responds by defending this theology by expressing their chronological timing following Jesus' Resurrection. 1 Cor. was written before all four Gospels. This does appear to be included as a way of theologically defending this view. I can see no further plausible explanation that Matthew would have added the correct timing of this event, which would've made even less sense if Dr. Licona was correct.
One final cue that Matthew is perceiving this event as a real historical event comes from the context. Outside of the eyewitnesses, Matthew includes these events along with a number of other events such as an earthquake that shook the temple & tearing its veil, & a kind of supernatural darkness that crept over the land (v. 45). In addition to this, Thallus (AD 52), a pagan, had commented on the darkness surrounding Jesus' crucifixion. His account was referenced by Julius Africanus in AD 221. Mike responds to this by claiming "...that so very little can be known about Thallus's comment on the darkness (including whether he was even referring to the darkness at the time of Jesus' at the time of Jesus' crucifixion or, if so, if he was merely speculating pertaining to a natural cause of the darkness claimed by the early Christians)…" (Licona, p. 552).
A pagan historian by the name of Thallus wrote a history of Rome from the Trojan War to AD 50. He was believed to have been writing around AD 52. He references a darkness that had covered the land during Jesus' crucifixion. This same darkness was also mentioned by Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, & Luke 23:44. So, this account isn't just found in Matthew's Gospel.
As mentioned, we don't have any of Thallus' works, only fragments that exist in the writings of others. This particular reference was commented on by Julius Africanus (AD 221). Julius said that Thallus had written and commented on this. He wrote:
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun" (Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973, vol. VI, p. 130, cited in "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ" by Gary Habermas, 1996, p. 197.
Although Julius Africanus references what Thallus had said, this appears to be nothing more than a summary of Thallus' statement and argument. Also, this original work written by Africanus was also lost. Instead, we have a citation of what Julius Africanus said about Thallus from Georgius Syncellus, writing in around AD 800, who cites Julius Africanus verbatim. This is typical of historical sources. We have lost tons of sources from the ancient world. Because of this much knowledge of the ancient world comes from sources that cites other sources. So, it is no surprise for the historian to find sources that cite other sources we no longer have. Therefore, given this limitation on historical sources, the historians of ancient history are forced into a situation whereby they must take information from secondhand and even thirdhand (where a source might cite a source that cites a source, and we don't have the original source, nor the secondhand source either) sources.
However, even though Mike Licona is a historian and should've known better, he argues against the reliability of this source based upon its third-handed nature (Licona, p. 245). However, it seems really implausible that Georgius Syncellus made up the reference, or that Julius Africanus made up the reference of Thallus (especially sense he argues against Thallus' lunar eclipse explanation). As far as I can tell, no historian thinks this way, nor argues this, necessarily, even Mike Licona, even if he wants to imply it. Plus, this would violate mainstream historical method of giving the benefit of the doubt to the source.
Instead Mike Licona summarizes his conclusion on Thallus' comment this way:
"Although this text cannot be ignored, it is not very useful. One can only speculate about the identity of Thallus. We do not even know when he wrote...Even less knowable is from where and whom he received his information. Given the date, it is possible Thallus was in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Perhaps he was merely responding to Christian reports of the darkness. We cannot know based on the information we have, which unfortunately comes from a man some 750 years removed from Thallus and who received his information from another source about 165 years removed from Thallus. While we may assign a rating of possible to Thallus, the only value in this source is a possible corroboration of the darkness during Jesus' crucifixion reported by the canonical Gospels" (Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2010, p. 245, emphasis in the original).
Of course, I disagree with Mike Licona's conclusion here. Since it tells us of an event that it is so close to what the Gospels tell us that one would have to work really hard to not make them the same event. First, Mike questions the veracity of the citation by casting uncertainty over who Thallus was. I don't think it's true that we no nothing about Thallus. He was a pagan who wrote about the history of Rome. However, not knowing that much about a person doesn't have anything to do with what they wrote & accurate it was, so this appears to be a non sequitur, and possibly a red herring.
Secondly, he, then, attacks the date of composition. Uncertainty about dates of sources is always a constant dispute for historians, but sense his history only goes up to AD 50, it is a reasonable inference that he must've written his work shortly after that. The usual date given for Thallus now-nonextant work is AD 52. Mike Licona places in AD 55 (Licona, p. 245), but this could be the latest possible date given, but it is less plausible than AD 52, and this is the typical dated granted for Thallus' work.
Next, Licona targets the whereabouts that Thallus had gotten his information from. Although it is natural to question one's sources of information, & there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but Mike doesn't question the sources Thallus tells us he had, but rather Licona questions the source of information Thallus doesn't tell us about. However, due to the limitation, we can't be certain if Thallus included his source of information or not, & Julius Africanus just didn't convey that to us. Either way, this appears to be an argument from silence. The fact that he doesn't tell us about his sources doesn't mean that he didn't have them, nor does it mean that, either, Thallus or his sources were being unreliable at this point.
Mike does admit that Thallus was likely in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, and, therefore his source goes back there too, but he seems to imply that his source of information is Christians (Licona, pp. 245 & 552). This is speculation, implied or not. Dr. Licona, then, argues that, "We cannot know based on the information we have, which unfortunately comes from a man some 750 years removed from Thallus and who received his information from another source about 165 years removed from Thallus" (Licona, p. 245). This is definitely a red herring. It doesn't matter how long Georgius Syncellus was writing, only how close the original source was from the time of the event. Remember, Syncellus is citing from Julius Africanus who is writing much earlier than he is, and Thallus, whose work on the history of Rome, Africanus had in front of him. And Thallus is writing in AD 52, which is very close to the timing of the events. It seems Mike is hoping to persuade his readers by how far the sources are from each other, but this is irrelevant sense they are citing from the sources that were much earlier than when they were writing.
He then argues for the rating of this passage as "possible" (Licona, p. 245). Again, I disagree with his conclusion on this. Thallus is writing too close to the events which the Gospels report on to be brushed off, or taken as an amazing coincidence. We cannot say for certain if Thallus ever said that he was referring to the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion sense we lack his original source, but we can ascertain the fact that Julius Africanus, who had his source in front of him, believed that he was referring to these events. In addition to that, Thallus included and connected an earthquake that shook "many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down" (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1). This connects it, along with the close timing of the events and the same location of the events as the crucifixion (Judea), & it makes this highly probable that it is referring to Jesus' crucifixion. Although this last statement is highly controversial regarding this passage, it does carry all of the earmarks of historical reliability & plausibility. Although I can see why this passage would be hard for someone who, like Mike Licona & Bart Ehrman, who don't think these miraculous events occurred at Jesus' crucifixion, this non-Christian source makes such thesis untenable.
In addition to all of this we actually have several writers who mentioned the darkness during the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Next to Thallus, is another Greek writer, also a pagan, whose writings go back to the first century, named Phlegon of Tralles, a Greek historian, wrote of this darkness too. Although Phlegon is not as early as Thallus, he is considered an early writer regarding the darkness during the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Like many sources in history, we lack the original source, but we do have fragments of his writings preserved in the writings of other ancient writers. He writes:
"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the 6th hour the day was changed into night and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicaea" (Phlegon of Tralles, Olympiad in the writings of Julius Africanus, AD 221).
The 202nd Olympiad is dated between AD 29 & AD 33, which places this event, or which Phlegon is referring to, squarely during the time period of Jesus' crucifixion. This would mean that Phlegon gives us the specific time that this darkness took place, and is even more explicit that Thallus regarding the time of this event. There were many other writers that referred to Phlegon's mentioning of the darkness shrouding Jesus; crucifixion, particularly a series of both early and late church fathers that followed suit. Several examples will suffice.
Philipon (first century, cited by Origen): "And about this darkness - Phlegon recalls it in the Olympiads...Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the Crucifixion of the Lord Christ, and no other (eclipse), it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times … and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar."
Origen (early church father and textual critic, AD 200): "With regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too I think has written in the 13th or 14th book of his Chronicles."
Origen (early church father and textual critic, AD 200): “Celsus imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention, but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages made our defense, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Savior suffered."
Julius Africanus (early church father, AD 200): "Phlegon records that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the 6th hour to the 9th, manifestly that one of which we speak."
Tertullian (early church father, AD 197): "At that same moment about noontide, the day was withdrawn; and they, who knew not that this was foretold concerning Christ, thought it was an eclipse. But this you have in your archives; you can read it there...Yet nailed upon the cross, Christ exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioners work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse.”
Eusebius (church historian and church father, AD 315): "Jesus Christ underwent his Passion in the 18th year of Tiberius. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: ‘the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell.’”
This show strong historical evidence for the reference by both the synoptics Gospels & Thallus and Phlegon's words regarding this event. It seems that various writers using various early sources regarded this event as historically true. Although the bulk saw this event as a supernatural phenomenon, some even try to naturalize the account, but none denied it. Although most of these sources that I've cited have been Christian, some, such as Thallus, was not. You can add many other sources that regarded the raising of the saints as a historical event also, including many of the names that I have already named.
You might wonder why I spent so much time discussing this darkness at Jesus' crucifixion? The reason is that Matthew chose to displace this event from the time following Jesus' Resurrection & insert it in the context of these miracles at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. It wouldn't make sense for Matthew to insert a made-up story amongst historically accurate events such as Jesus' death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:45-54) and His Resurrection (v. 53), the darkness shrouding the earth at the time (v. 45), as well as an earthquake around the same time corresponding to these events (v. 51). It is likely being inserted in among other historical accounts is because this, too, is a historical account. Coupled this with an eye-witnessed report and you have a very high probability that Matthew saw these events as historically true.
In addition to this, in spite Mike arguing for the alleged "vagueness" of Ignatius (Licona, p. 552), Ignatius, one of the earliest writers & apostolic fathers we have extant sources for, who is writing outside of the New Testament, & knew the apostle John, and lived during John's own lifetime, he is very explicit concerning the saints that had left their graves. He writes:
"For Says [sic] the Scripture, 'May bodies of the saints that slept arose,' their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude" (Ignatius, The Epistle to the Trallians, ch. IX, in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", vol. 1, p. 70, as cited by the late scholar Norman Geisler, "The Early Church Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27", found at http://normangeisler.com/the-early-fathers-and-the-resurrection-of-the-saints-in-matthew-27/.
"...[T]herefore [sic] endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead" Ignatius, The Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. IX, in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", vol. 1, p. 62, as cited by the late scholar Norman Geisler, "The Early Church Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27", found at http://normangeisler.com/the-early-fathers-and-the-resurrection-of-the-saints-in-matthew-27/.
The evidence, both the internal and external evidence, seems to affirm the account is historically true and accurate. I do not think the secular view carries any weight, & neither does the literary view. This leaves only the historical view regarding this passage. This also, finally, leads us to my conclusion regarding this study.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
In the coarse of this study we have discussed three different views regarding the passage in Matt. 27:51-54 which details the reference of the rising of the saints shortly after Jesus' own Resurrection from the dead. These three views are the secular view, the literary view (we may also call this the "liberal view" sense it was first conceived by liberal Christian scholars), and the historical view.
The secular view that is believed by such persons as Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, & Matt Dillahunty, must assumed that the text in question is guilty until proven innocent which doesn't represent responsible historical method. They also must reject the account because of its reference to miracles which is equally circular. Secularists regard these saints as "zombies" but this commits the question-begging epithet fallacy (a form of the circular argument in which uses emotional language and loaded terminology, wording, phrases, or images to persuade others). They hope by using the loaded word "zombie" they could persuade others that this is a silly, made up account.
However, the term "zombie" for the raised saints in Matthew 27 is both contextually and lexically unsound. Zombies are souless, mindless corpses of the undead which are not alive in any sense of the word. In the coarse of this discuss I have demonstrated that this was not how they viewed the idea of being raised. They would've understood this as a reversal of death, and being truly made alive with their souls and minds returning to their bodies. The word "zombie" is about as foreign to this text as you're ever going to get.
The literary view is just as untenable. This view emerged, originally from liberals, but was championed among certain conservative Christian circles by Dr. Mike Licona, particularly in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. We have given an in-depth analysis of Dr. Licona's thesis and have come to the conclusion that Matthew is presenting a historical, eye-witnessed report. He includes references to the events being eyewitnesses, historical details such as Jesus' crucifixion, the Resurrection, the darkness that had covered the land that was referenced by Thallus, Phlegon, Julius Africanus, & several others. He also mentions the earthquake that shook the ground beneath Judea & other places.
In addition to all of this, we find numerous writers, including early ones, that refer to the raising of the saints in Matthew 27. Writers such as Phlegon, Philipon, Ignatius, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and all of the way to the Reformers. A number of them also reinforced Phlegon's comments concerning the darkness & the earthquake at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.
Since Matthew tells us that this event occurred after Jesus' Resurrection, this would contradict his use of sources in his book which referenced miraculous stuff allegedly being added to an account upon the death of a king, the end of his reign, or the end of a kingdom since, according to Matthew's own testimony, chronologically this event occurred after Jesus was raised from the dead.
My conclusion after doing an in-depth study and analysis of this passage is that this was an eye-witnessed report that Matthew has picked up. It is unclear with rather Matthew, or any of the other apostles, had saw these events or not, but Matthew has picked up on it, most likely picking up on it from the eyewitnesses themselves. This is self-evident in the text sense Matthew uses the same language as Paul did with the five hundred. I have no doubt that Matthew is understanding this passage as literal history. If I was assigning probability to it, it would be in the high 90's, and possibly as high as at 99% probable.
Comentarios