homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Matthew 28:1

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Matthew 28:1
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
Is the order of the words the same as the order of events? And what is the meaning of ‘behold’ (Gr. ἰδοὺ), sometimes translated as ‘immediately’? It all suggests that the women came to the tomb first, and then the stone was rolled away. Note also the purpose with which the women came, namely to see the tomb.

Mark 16 has ‘Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him’. The purpose here is different, which is perhaps why they ask themselves ‘Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us (ἡμῖν)?’, which Matthew does not have. However when they get there they find the stone has already been rolled away, and they find the young man, the angel, inside the tomb.

Are these accounts consistent?

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are you working out of the Greek? Because the verb tenses will help with a lot of this stuff for you, I believe.

"Behold" (idou) is an imperative command-to-the-reader ("see! Look!") which is used as a particle basically to ramp up the excitement. We do it in English too ("So there was this earthquake, see? And this angel shows up, see? And he rolls away the stone, see?" etc. etc.)

I don't think seeing the tomb (Matthew) and anointing Jesus' body (Mark) are incompatible. You could easily tell a friend that you're off to the cemetery to visit your mother's grave, and then tell a different friend that you're going there to take flowers.

Regarding the Mark 16 account--the buying of spices most likely took place on Saturday night, directly after the sun went down. That is when the Sabbath officially ended. It is the earliest possible time when the women would be able to go shopping, and it is also the most likely time when a shopkeeper would be available for business (you could knock him up before dawn on Sunday, but I think he'd hate you).

So the chronology would be basically, see Jesus buried, go home and rest on the Sabbath, Saturday night go buy the spices, sleep, get up in the predawn darkness and take a walk to the tomb. Most likely they intended to get there as early as possible--you don't want to be conspicuous when you're a possible target for Jesus' enemies. And it was Passover with a full moon, so there might have been a fair amount of light to walk by (I'm no good with figuring out when moonrise and moonset would have been that night).

Now when it comes to establishing the exact chronology of everything, I think there are going to be problems. First of all, because you can have blanket statements like "Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb." This is like saying "On Thursday we went to Disneyland." It probably isn't referring only to the minutes dedicated to the walk from their homes to the tomb, it's referring to the entire episode--an interpretation which is all the more likely as it occurs at the very beginning of the story. We do it today, too--"On Friday I went to San Diego," and you know that's just the introduction to a long, long story, so you get yourself a beer.

The last thing that's going to mess up your efforts to create a detailed chronology is the fact that most of the events in the story have no clear ending or beginning. "Going to the tomb" doubtless took a while, and so did the discussion about how to get the stone rolled away--when precisely did someone bring that up? Clearly it was before they saw that it HAD in fact been rolled away, so probably when they were still on the trail--but probably some time after leaving home, or they would have brought guys with them. Let's guess halfway there.

Then, when did the earthquake hit? Was it while they were still on the trail, when they were just coming into eyeshot of the tomb, or when they were already standing there at a full stop gazing? They could have felt it at any point. As for the angel's descent, that could easily be inferred by the fact of his presence--no eye-witness by the ladies required (though it appears the soldiers, at least, witnessed it).

They see the angel sitting on the rock--which I've always thought is way cool, what a way to disrespect that piddling little barrier [Big Grin] [Cool] . Luke has two angels there, so the other one could easily be inside. There's also the possibility that they noticed the entrance was open, looked inside and freaked (=encounter with angel and shocking message), backed away, and only then realized there was a second one perched on the stone overhead.

tl/dr; version: It's entirely possible to establish a coherent chronology (or three) just by taking the time to imagine the typical behavior of a bunch of freaked-out people around dawn. And given the human tendency to summarize, condense, and focus on certain details while ignoring others, we're not ever likely to establish precisely what happened first, second, third, and so forth. The witnesses weren't trying to do that.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the word used in the Greek for "earthquake" contain the same meaning as we use it, i.e. something originating from deep within the earth and registering on the Richter scale? Or does it just convey more of a surface-level trembling that would be expected with a big heavy boulder being moved?

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Greek word is seismos. It has a wide-ish semantic range for various 'shaking' events, though most frequently it appears to be used for what we think of as an earthquake. I think the qualifier that it was a "great" (Gk mega) earthquake militates against it being simply a surface level shaking such as might be caused by a stone being rolled.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, BroJames. seismic, hence the word.

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Note Matthew 27:51, which speaks of an earthquake at the moment Jesus dies. ‘The earth shook (ἐσείσθη)’. He adds ‘The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many’.

A separate question is who ‘saints’ (ἁγίων) refers to. ‘Saint’ is an almost exclusively New Testament word, and refers to followers of Jesus both living and dead. E.g. ‘as Peter went here and there among all the believers, he came down also to the saints living in Lydda’ (Acts 9:32). Given that Jesus’ ministry was 5 years at the most, this means that the saints who were resurrected after the crucifixion must have died in the past 5 years.

Matthew is the only evangelist to mention this event.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
A separate question is who ‘saints’ (ἁγίων) refers to. ‘Saint’ is an almost exclusively New Testament word, and refers to followers of Jesus both living and dead...

That’s an interesting interpretation – I hadn’t come across that one before. The usual interpretation from commentators on the ‘saints’ in this verse is that it refers to God’s faithful followers in Israel over the centuries. Points in favour of that include:

[1] hagios (=ἅγιος) in its various forms is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew qadôs and its derivatives. Matthew, the argument goes, would most likely have had the Jewish scriptures in mind and would have expected his audience to also bring to mind the holy people of God from the pre-Jesus era

[2] During the Second Temple era in the run up to the time of Jesus there had been an increasing development of the term to refer to “the saints” as the members of the Jerusalem cultic community. Again, Matthew’s audience would have made the link to those people who had been buried for some time around Jerusalem where they worked and lived (presumably), including potentially the Maccabean martyrs, who had been called ‘saints’

[3] The wording in Matthew suggests a link back to Ezekiel 37, particularly v.13 ("Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and raise you from your graves, my people")

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
See below. A pretty consistent usage. As I understand, Acts is roughly contemporary with Matthew, the letters of Paul are earlier. So if the usage was established by Paul’s time, why not by the time of Matthew?

Acts 9:13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints in Jerusalem;

Acts 9:32 Now as Peter went here and there among all the believers, he came down also to the saints living in Lydda.

Acts 9:41 He gave her his hand and helped her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he showed her to be alive.

Acts 26:10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem; with authority received from the chief priests, I not only locked up many of the saints in prison, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being condemned to death.


Romans 1:7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Romans 8:27 And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.


Romans 12:13 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.


Romans 15:25 At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints;


Romans 15:26 for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.


Romans 15:31 that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my ministry to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints,


Romans 16:2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.


Romans 16:15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.


1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:


1 Corinthians 6:1 When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints?


1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?


1 Corinthians 14:33

for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches).


1 Corinthians 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave to the churches of Galatia.


1 Corinthians 16:15 Now, brothers and sisters, you know that members of the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints;


2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia:


2 Corinthians 8:4 begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints


2 Corinthians 9:1 Now it is not necessary for me to write you about the ministry to the saints,


2 Corinthians 9:12 for the rendering of this ministry not only supplies the needs of the saints but also overflows with many thanksgivings to God.


2 Corinthians 13:12 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed, the English translation of the Greek agios follows from the Latin sanctus, but it is a mistake to imagine that the word in the NT had the same connotations, that it does nowadays. Both Paul and Luke use it to describe all of God's faithful people, and that usage parallels the usage of qadosh in places in the OT and intertestamentally.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can certainly see the strength of the argument that ‘saints’ in those passages denote members of the Jesus community, though perhaps seen in continuity with the faithful in God’s family going back through the ages. I would agree that if Christians were included in the reference by Paul’s time then there is good reason to think that Matthew would have been aware of this, too.

The ‘saints’ episode in Matthew is a strange one. It does come out the blue. The question would be, I guess, whether Matthew intended that exact same Christian referent in his gospel narrative, a narrative set at an earlier time than Paul. He doesn’t make reference in his narrative to any of Jesus’ disciples who had died before the resurrection; wouldn’t he have made some reference to this during his account of Jesus’ ministry if his intention was to resolve an issue by having them raised up? The point here is to draw a distinction between the contemporary (to Paul, Matthew, and the community) world and language use, and that of the narrative world set up in the written work of Matthew. A similar point could be made about the temple; Paul can denote the Christian body when he uses that term, but in the gospel narratives the reference is to the Jerusalem temple.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yup I agree it’s puzzling, for the reasons you state. It’s odd that every single use of the term in the NT outside the gospel (except for Revelation, which is different again) refers to living Christians. Then there is this one reference in Matthew, the only one in the gospels. What does it mean?

Note also ‘fallen asleep’, not ‘sleeping’. My Greek is poor but κεκοιμημένων is pp, and means either fall or put to sleep. To me this suggests recent deaths.

There is a reference Paul makes which I can’t find, but I think in Corinthians, where he refers to members of the community who had fallen asleep or gone to sleep, i.e. died, since the crucifixion, which William Lane Craig makes much of.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Found it.
quote:
1 Cor. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

Sometimes translated as ‘fallen asleep’. The Greek is ἐκοιμήθησαν, which is past tense of the same verb as in Matthew.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not boing to fuss aboug the term "saints," though I do think it could encompass OT believers, but rather point out that tthose resurrected at Jesus' death were very likely to be recently dead Jerusalemites for the simple reason that they were recognized-- and recognized to be those who ought to be dead. If an influx of Moses or David-era people were to rise, rub there eyes, and set off down the streets of Jerusalem, I doubt anyone would recognize them as resurectees. More likely they'd be ignored as ordinary folk ( though depending upon the state of their clothes, risen or otherwise, you could have quite a few entertaining scenes play out.).

But if Uncle Mo who died last year suddenly arrived home, you can bet Aunt Shoshana would recognize him and faint.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Matthew’s presentation was intended to make the point that these holy dead (the sleeping saints) were from the upper echelons of the religious/social hierarchy rather than the 99%; they were people who could afford to have a tomb made, such as the rich man, Joseph of Arimathea, or have a tomb made on their behalf.

The closeness in the text to the ripping in two of the temple curtain – as with Matthew’s use of ‘holy city’ to describe Jerusalem – seems to be placing the holy dead in association with those who mediated between God and humans. Priests would most naturally come to mind here, but I wonder if Matthew had in mind the esteemed prophets. This does at least have a link back to a text earlier in his narrative: Matt. 23:29f…
quote:

“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous! And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets!’”

There does then seem to be a tradition that Matthew was aware of – and expected his audience also to be aware of – of revering those who had lived a holy and loyal life before God, mediating God’s message to the people. The tombs, it would seem, are for folk who held a prominent role in the conjoined religious/social set up.

Matthew also doesn’t really suggest that these raised saints / holy ones who came into the holy city after Jesus’ resurrection were recognised as such (in the way that a relative would be recognised), but rather were caused to be visible /to be seen (passive form of the verb emphanizo [= ἐμφανίζω].

Matthew does have an affirmative view of the role of prophets; references to them crop up throughout his work. The prophets foretold the commissioning of Jesus, they were persecuted (and only later revered), and they were active in the Christian community. This last point is one where Matthew has to warn his audience to be aware of false prophets.

If all this hangs together, then Matthew’s view of life, death, and life after life involved a vindication by way of resurrection for those who had correctly announced God’s intentions for his people down the ages.

Shemu'el the Baker on his way to his stall, trudging past the early morning throng of people on their way to their stalls, pauses and blinks a few times. Was he imagining things or had that been Elijah who had just wandered past him? Shemu'el had an inspired thought: Was it too late to get his autograph?*


* Autograph: an original document containing an original text by or on behalf of an original writer.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm not [g]oing to fuss aboug the term "saints," though I do think it could encompass OT believers, but rather point out that tthose resurrected at Jesus' death were very likely to be recently dead Jerusalemites for the simple reason that they were recognized-- and recognized to be those who ought to be dead. If an influx of Moses or David-era people were to rise, rub there eyes, and set off down the streets of Jerusalem, I doubt anyone would recognize them as resurectees. More likely they'd be ignored as ordinary folk ( though depending upon the state of their clothes, risen or otherwise, you could have quite a few entertaining scenes play out.).

But if Uncle Mo who died last year suddenly arrived home, you can bet Aunt Shoshana would recognize him and faint.

I wonder about'appeared [ἐνεφανίσθησαν] to many'. It doesn't say whether the risen ones were recognised or not. (1) If they weren’t, i.e. if they just looked like ordinary people walking through the market place, how did these reports reach Matthew at all? It would have been business as usual. (2) Or were they recognised as the walking dead, i.e. looking like zombies or the creatures in the Michael Jackson video in dusty cobwebby clothes and grey faces? Hard to tell. Or (3) Did they not look like zombies, but were recognised as people who had died? In which case, no one would know what Elijah looked like, so the only reasonable explanation is that they were people who had recently died, and who appeared to those who had known them and thus recognised them. Or possibly (4) they weren’t recognised but they explained who they were (e.g. ‘I am Elijah’) to ordinary people in the street. But then you have to explain why they weren’t ridiculed. If a person greets me in the street dressed like an Old Testament prophet, claiming to be Elijah or Isaiah, I will nod politely and head nervously away, saying I have an important meeting to attend.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We cross-posted, I think.

On the question of how someone would have known it was Elijah (or one of his prophetic brethren), I think Matthew supplies the answer earlier in his work. In chapter 16, for example, he refers to a general expectation that one or other of the renowned prophets would return. This may not have been understood to mean a look-alike (as you say, how would anyone have known what Elijah looked like?), but more a role-fulfilling character - one who acted like Elijah et al. Perhaps behind all this was the anticipation that a figure, a prophet like Moses as promised in Deuteronomy, would come.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Returning to the sequence of Matthew’s narrative. I am assuming that the gospel narratives are not written from what is called the omniscient point of view, i.e. where the narrator sees and knows ‘everything that happens within the world of the story, including what each of the characters is thinking and feeling’. I am assuming that each evangelist, writing some time after the events described, has collected and verified reports, interviewed witnesses who are still living, checked conflicting accounts etc.

In this case, Matt 28:2 presents great difficulties. If the author is not omniscient, how do we know that ‘an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it’? Someone must have been around to see, and thus to report this. In Matthew’s sequence of events, the angel seems to appear after the women have arrived at the tomb. But this conflicts with the other evangelists’ accounts, so we have to suppose that the sequence is actually 28:2 then 28:1, so that the women did not see the angel coming down and rolling the stone. So who witnessed this?

Matthew reports that the guards saw the angel, and ‘were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men’, then later (28:11) that some (τινες) of the guard went and reported this to the chief priests, who gave them a large sum of money to say that the disciples had stolen the body. So either (1) the story of the angel reaches us from the guards who did not go to the chief priest or (2) from the guards who were bribed. There is a separate question of how the story of the bribe reached the evangelists. Either from the guards who didn’t go to the priest, and weren’t bribed, or from those who were bribed. It’s unlikely that those who were handsomely bribed told us either of the stories. But if from the guards who weren’t bribed, we have to explain how the bribe story reached the evangelists.

(To explain why I am interested in this, I studied for the theological diploma years ago, where I was taught that the differences in the gospels are explained by theological reasons. I.e. Luke says there are two angels for theological reasons, Matthew says only one for theological reasons. The gospels are not historical accounts but rather works of theology. I found that disturbing. Are the gospels a sort of lie, told for theological reasons? Surely not.)

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
We cross-posted, I think.

On the question of how someone would have known it was Elijah (or one of his prophetic brethren), I think Matthew supplies the answer earlier in his work. In chapter 16, for example, he refers to a general expectation that one or other of the renowned prophets would return. This may not have been understood to mean a look-alike (as you say, how would anyone have known what Elijah looked like?), but more a role-fulfilling character - one who acted like Elijah et al. Perhaps behind all this was the anticipation that a figure, a prophet like Moses as promised in Deuteronomy, would come.

I was still thinking about your carefully argued post. Yes, if there was a general expectation today in London that an OT prophet would appear and I came across one in the Fulham Road, then yes, it would not seem so unreasonable to me.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think we can count "prophetic actions" as part of the way they would be recognized, as we have no records of any such behavior, and for that matter, no records of the resurrectees period after Matthew describes them. That would work okay if they basically went home and melded into their families again, but if they are older resurrectees (e.g. Elisha, Joshua, etc.) something has to be done with them. And somehow it seems unlike God to just say "Poof! You're dead again. Kindly crawl back to your graves and don't clutter up the landscape."

(That's also the reason I don't think they would show any zombie-like traits or appearance. To be a zombie is not to be risen, but rather to be undead. Plus that was not AFAIK a category the ancient Jews would have recognized. And the usual characteristics would have freaked them right the hell out, as being signs of an "unclean" being on the loose, spreading spiritual contagion everywhere.)

I'm fairly sure ancient Jewish dress would not have varied sufficiently from early first century dress as to make the resurrectees spot-able by it alone. (Yes, I'm assuming God did not force the poor people to walk about nude as their clothes had perished in the grave. He has better manners than that.)

Even if it did, why would one's mind automatically leap to the idea that a risen ancient was walking the streets? If I saw a fellow in a stovepipe hat walking about, I wouldn't automatically question whether I was looking at a risen Lincoln. Heck, even if he LOOKED like Lincoln, and had all the accoutrements. I would automaticaly assume someone was having a fancy dress competition or something.

Which all is why I think these are the dead of the past handful of years only--because only they would be recognisable beyond a doubt to the living--recognized, that is, as previously-dead-now-risen and also as themselves (and not simply as random strangers).

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK that’s a good argument too. They can’t look like zombies because to look like a zombie is essentially to be a zombie. Bits of rotting flesh, dusty bones poking through, no lungs or heart. A zombie is just a dead body powered by an external supernatural force. Resurrection by contrast means full resurrection, i.e. living breathing body with blood. So that rules (2) out on theological grounds. But if they just looked like ordinary people walking in the marketplace, the story would not have reached us, which rules (1) out.

Hence the remaining possibilities are (3) they were recognised as people who had recently died or (4) they were people who did not look out of the ordinary, but claimed to be OT prophets, perhaps truly so.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Peter Damian:

quote:
To explain why I am interested in this, I studied for the theological diploma years ago, where I was taught that the differences in the gospels are explained by theological reasons. I.e. Luke says there are two angels for theological reasons, Matthew says only one for theological reasons. The gospels are not historical accounts but rather works of theology. I found that disturbing. Are the gospels a sort of lie, told for theological reasons? Surely not.
I don't think that distinction is one that the authors of the Gospels would have been aware of. The author of John is explicitly writes to convince his readers that Jesus is the Son of God but also maintains that his testimony is true. But historians select the data they report - their works would be overly long and unreadable if they did not - and present the data in a way that tallies with their views on the subject in hand. So it's not unreasonable, if there were variant accounts of the number of angels present at an event for St. Matthew, or whoever, to report the story which tallied with his views about angels.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right, but my teachers were on the extreme liberal catholic end of Anglican, and I got the impression that, according to them, the evangelists were just making the angel(s) up. They would say things like 'in those days, the meaning of 'history' was different from now', i.e. the gospels were not intended to be factual.

That clearly conflicts with John: ‘these [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Peter damian, I'm sorry to say that there are fashions in academia just as in everything else, and it seems to me that theology is in the habit of borrowing literary criticism fads about half a generation later. We went through the whole "there is no author, authors are a fraud and the text grew organically out of a community by some mysterious means" thing. We just did it with Homer and others, not Matthew, Mark, etc.

We also went through the "text is not a text" thing, where people would look for discontinuities (some real, some imagined) so they could triumphantly declare that these were irrefutable signs that two or more earlier texts had been forcibly merged. Even in the middle of a single sentence. Theology picked up that one too.

The difference for us in literature is, we actually have living authors with texts that some of us are fool enough to try to deconstruct that way, while the author is yet living--who then gets up and tells us all we don't know what the hell we're talking about and it didn't happen that way. So there is a useful corrective to our theorizing. But for you folks in theology/biblical lit crit, there is no such corrective. So wild theories go their full length.

As a result, whenever I read this sort of "one angel in X for theological reasons, but Y invented two for different theological reasons" with a strong underlying implication of "No angels in reality were there"--well, I remember the many, many times my lot has gotten it totally wrong and been told so by a living author, and I put the biblical lit crit down. Way, waaaaayyyyy too overconfident.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yup just saying what I was taught. I wrote an essay critiquing it, it's probably still on the hard drive.

Probably also worth saying this was diocese of Southwark which is pretty hard core liberal. Presumably most people here have heard of Giles Fraser?

[ 03. October 2016, 17:45: Message edited by: peter damian ]

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Right, but my teachers were on the extreme liberal catholic end of Anglican, and I got the impression that, according to them, the evangelists were just making the angel(s) up. They would say things like 'in those days, the meaning of 'history' was different from now', i.e. the gospels were not intended to be factual.

That clearly conflicts with John: ‘these [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’.

It sounds like we got our initial theological education at the same place!

The theory that was doing the rounds when I was there was that the New Testament incorporates 'midrash' which is a genre of Jewish story telling that involves using a well known Biblical figure in a non-canonical folk tale to make a theological point. So, if you have angels at the tomb, or whatever, it could be a midrash to make whatever theological point the evangelist wanted to make. I'm not convinced about this because I think that the Rabbi's concerned knew what they were doing and did not elide their midrash with what they thought were true stories about Abraham or Elijah, or whoever.

My own view is that the Christian tradition is kicked off by the Resurrection and that, when the earliest Christians started dying off the impetus to write the Gospels followed. The Evangelists then started trying to assess the various stories knocking around about Jesus and to put them into an orderly framework. In this context it would hardly be surprising if a few apocryphal stories made the cut. There's a very good apocryphal story about Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, which has been knocking around for years and they were both secular Jewish philosophers in the 1940s. Now if you think that the Bible is infallible and that only if it is infallible is Christianity true, that is a problem. My initial response, when I came to look at the New Testament as an inquiring history graduate was not, that I thought there were problems with the narrative, there are always problems with the narrative, that is what historians are there to point out. My instinct was that, all things considered, that this is really rather more plausible than I gave it credit for. Suffice it to say, the number of angels at the tomb, if any, doesn't strike me as a massive problem.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Callan what you describe ('midrash') is eerily familiar. I am inclined to your view of things.

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think we can count "prophetic actions" as part of the way they would be recognized...

It’s not the prophetic actions or even dress as such that would matter here, because the verb in use is not ‘to recognise’, but rather ‘to make (or be made) visible.’ If Matthew wanted to suggest the appearances were about people recognising these resurrected saints he could have used the verb epiginosko (= ἐπιγινώσκω), a verb he uses six times elsewhere in his Gospel in the sense of recognition. What seems to be going on here is that Mathew is making it clear that these people were not disembodied voices wandering about or ghosts or anything like that, but rather fully resurrected individuals with bodies that could be seen plainly – along the lines of Jesus’ resurrected body, perhaps. Something other than a shade. They were made visible (passive form of the verb), implying an act of God, in the same way that they were resurrected (passive again).

Something of a speculation here, but perhaps these were the well-tended tombs of revered prophets outside of Jerusalem that, when the earthquake struck and cracked them open, were found to be empty. After all, how many prophets were revered enough in their lifetime by the leadership to warrant conspicuous burials? Perhaps the nicely white-washed tombs were after thoughts by a “Whoops!” generation. However, Matthew – who liked to poke the odd conspiracy in the face (e.g., the rumours about what really happened in Jesus’ empty tomb) – just couldn’t resist a “Oh no, seriously, these were genuinely resurrected flesh and blood humans!”

As for the rest, Matthew is just not interested in saying more. A dry card, that one.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584

 - Posted      Profile for peter damian   Author's homepage   Email peter damian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think we can count "prophetic actions" as part of the way they would be recognized...

It’s not the prophetic actions or even dress as such that would matter here, because the verb in use is not ‘to recognise’, but rather ‘to make (or be made) visible.’ If Matthew wanted to suggest the appearances were about people recognising these resurrected saints he could have used the verb epiginosko (= ἐπιγινώσκω), a verb he uses six times elsewhere in his Gospel in the sense of recognition.

Sure, hence the translations as ‘appeared to many’ and the like. But you still need to explain how the reports come to us. If no one realised that the resurrected people were resurrected, then how was it these events were reported at all?

--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog

Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The answer is pretty much as I noted earlier. If we have to use the language of ‘recognition’ then the answer would be that God caused them to be recognised, and that in such a way that a recording was important (to Matthew).

In more depth, though, and going back somewhat to the basics of the argument…

Part of the passive “being made visible” (or better - being made known, being revealed) involves one entity (the actor in the grammar) explaining to another (the recipients in the grammar) something. This passive voice here suggests that God made them known; that these saints/holy ones were caused to be seen. Matthew is very light on the detail of who the actor was, but it had to be somebody and God fits the bill better than anyone else here. The translation “appeared (to many)” is too active and doesn’t really carry the weight in English of Matthew’s intention.

The verb group epiphaino in the Greek versions of the Hebrew scriptures (LXX) translate the Hebrew words that denote causing to shine. If this was part of the consciousness of Matthew and his audience then there is a strong background of using this word in connection with God’s glory, his radiance, his causing his glory / presence to shine; i.e., his ‘appearance’ in that sense. In literature closer to Jesus’ time, 2 Maccabees uses epiphaino to denote God’s saving intervention: God reveals himself by what he does. Further, in other NT writings, the verb is associated with Jesus’ / God’s intrusive return at the end of the age.

All of this drives me to think that mere recognition of someone, as by a relative or close associate for instance, doesn’t really capture what Matthew wants to get across here. So Matthew was more probably tapping into other themes available at the time:

[1] He must have known, and expected his audience to know, about those tombs outside of Jerusalem. The only viable link we have back earlier in his work to tombs is to those of the prophets and other righteous people (in chapter 23).

[2] The quite strong Deuteronomic tradition in the background of the prophet like Moses coming (together with a penchant for Jews in the Second Temple era to associate nationalistic leaders with major prophetic figures)

As so often when dealing with a snippet of information in a text the interpretation is going to be based on probability more so than certainty. Thinking about this little snippet in Matthew, for me the starting point in answering the question: Why is that there? (i.e., your question: Why was this recorded?), should always be to take the author on his own intentional merits, taking into account any information that can assist with defining the background. It seems to me that such a striking event as resurrected people, taking into account the linguistic tools Matthew uses as well as the background material he and his audience would have had to hand, requires something more than a general raising of common folk who were recognised by their relatives and friends. Even without the grammar, that seems too banal for Matthew in his theologically striking narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection. He recorded it because it was a divinely dramatic statement, demonstrating God’s power and presence.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607

 - Posted      Profile for Arminian   Email Arminian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is also a reference to the dead who rose in the apocryphal 'Gospel of Nicodemus'
I (XVII)

1 And Joseph arose and said unto Annas and Caiaphas: Truly and of right do ye marvel because ye have heard that Jesus hath been seen alive after death, and that he hath ascended into heaven. Nevertheless it is more marvelous that he rose not alone from the dead, but did raise up alive many other dead out of their sepulchres, and they have been seen of many in Jerusalem. And now hearken unto me; for we all know the blessed Simeon, the high priest which received the child Jesus in his hands in the temple. And this Simeon had two sons, brothers in blood and we all were at their falling asleep and at their burial. Go therefore and look upon their sepulchres: for they are open, because they have risen, and behold they are in the city of Arimathaea dwelling together in prayer. And indeed men hear them crying out, yet they speak with no man, but are silent as dead men. But come, let us go unto them and with all honour and gentleness bring them unto us, and if we adjure them, perchance they will tell us concerning the mystery of their rising again.

2 When they heard these things, they all rejoiced. And Annas and Caiaphas, Nicodemus and Joseph and Gamaliel went and found them not in their sepulchre, but they went unto the city of Arimathaea, and found them there, kneeling on their knees and giving themselves unto prayer. And they kissed them, and with all reverence and in the fear of God they brought them to Jerusalem into the synagogue.

Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Lamb Chopped -- if it's a full moon, then moonrise is at sunset and moonset is at sunrise.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, good to know!

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools