I got this great email:
"Someone on a forum
mentioned your article concerning the
validity of Matthews story about the dead saints rising after the death
of
Christ. Here were my thoughts, your article statements are bolded:
I know Matthew was
primarily written for the Jews but the
event he writes about is so grand it's truly amazing that he's the only
one to
write about it.
The author [Glenn] states:
So, in keeping with Matthew's Jewish-oriented message, it makes
sense
for him to record this action of the Messiah.
It's kinda like several reporters going to an event, while there a UFO
lands
briefly and then takes off. Only one reporter mentions it, a reporter
who's
known for writing about UFO cases. Logic tells us that even though the
OTHER
reporters aren't there to focus on any UFO's, they're surely going to
mention
it, it's a huge deal!
I did find this interesting:
Indeed, stories and legends of these risen saints circulated
and were
embellished over time. They show up in several of the NT apocryphal
works (e.g.
The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 7.1-2, Gospel of Nicodemus 17ff). For
example, in
this later work (Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate), there is the
story of
Simeon and his sons (living in Arimathea), who were raised at that
time, whose
tombs were still open (for inspection!), and who wrote sworn testimony
to their
resurrection. While many of these stories are no doubt fanciful
embellishments
of the passage in Matthew (apocryphal writings generally "filled in the
gaps" left by the biblical writers), there may be some historical core
behind such related stories as this one about Simeon.
I find it odd that other resurrection stories are 'embellishments' but
the
story Matthew mentions isn't. To me it seems more likely that Matthews
story is
an embellishment due to the fact that none of the other Gospels mention
it at
all and one would think they surely would.
I know in the past many people have stated why they believe in the
global
flood, they say "Jesus confirms the story in the new testament". What
those people are saying is, by the fact that other people mention the
incredible event, that adds validity to the idea that it actually
happened.
[Also, from this analysis, it should be quite clear as to why
it did
not show up in Luke-writing to the Gentiles, and in Mark-an abbreviated
version
of Peter's core preaching (written down by a Hellenistic Jew). It would
not
have been relevant to their literary purposes.]
I'm blown away by this ending statement. Again, he's saying since they
weren't
specifically targeting the Jewish audience, you have to admit the story
is just
too incredible to pass up. Dead people rising from their graves and
going out
to once again meet their friends and family isn't a 'non-issue'.
I replied:
XYZ,
Thanks
for
your
thoughtful
comment—
I
tend
to
agree
with your “UFO” analogy argument. If this
passage/event were as unique as a UFO would be to our 21st
century
experience, ‘literary purpose’ might not be strong enough a reason to
omit it.
But
when
I
got
your thoughtful email, I started to wonder about
how ‘too incredible to pass up’ this event would have been for the
other gospel
authors—in context of Jesus’ life.
I
went
to
my
series on the miracles of Jesus and found this
table:
The
only
miracle
considered
‘too incredible to pass up’ by all
four gospel authors is the feeding of the 5000. Three post-mortem
revivifications, the feeding of the 4,000 (!), walking on water,
calming a
violent storm with a two-word phrase, and turning water into wine
didn’t make
the cut…
So,
I
realized
that
your argument would have applied more
closely in this case IF THERE HAD ONLY BEEN ONE or TWO or THREE
‘UFO-class’
events—but we have at least 36 (of varying scope and intensity) ‘UFOs’
recorded, which means that selection/omission for literary purposes
is
still very reasonable as a possible explanation for that
selection/omission
(and seemingly, practiced by all the evangelists—since only one UFO is
actually
noted by all 4).
I
have
learned
(over
the last decade or so) to not impose my
‘expectations’ on what should/should not have been included in the
gospels (and
most other ancient writings too, I might add.) I still ‘slip’ and make
these
arguments myself (what I call the ‘begins with Surely” type
arguments—lol). I
would have expected (on the simple basis of ‘interest’) Matthew to have
included the healing of the Centurion’s son in his home city – likely a
former
business colleague of Matthew the tax-collector—and I would have
expected John
to have included the story of the healing of the High Priest’s servant,
since
he was a close associate of the High Priest’s household and staff. I
would have
expected the medical practitioner Luke to have included the stories
which were
medically ‘without precedent’—the man born blind, or the long-term
paraplegic
at the Pool of Bethesda. But they didn’t, and I can agree with the
commentators
who argue that omitting those (otherwise interesting to the authors)
details
fits with the narrative and rhetorical flow of their respective gospel
documents.
So,
I
still
think
in this case that there is still room for my
argument about omission/selection for literary purpose.
I
should
also
point
out though, that selection/omission for
literary ‘limitations’ might also apply (see quote below).
Matthew
and Luke, for example, are close to the maximum length of a standard
scroll, so
they really could not have added much additional material (UFO-ish or
not).
John could have included more, but he includes so much more verbal
events (e.g.
Jesus’ back-and-forth with His audiences and opponents). He could have
included
more miracles, but didn’t—he has the lowest number of miracles by far
of all
the gospels. All of his are chosen/selected carefully for his narrative
purpose, even though he admits at the end that ‘all the books in the
world
could not hold all the things Jesus did’ (John 21.25).
“Luke–Acts
may
be
closer
to
standard forms of Greco-Roman historical writing than are the other
Gospels,
which resemble ancient biography. Whereas Matthew, Mark and John wrote
forms of
ancient biography, Luke’s second volume shows that he wrote history as
well.
Luke and Acts are each roughly the same length as Matthew, with Mark
one-half
and John two-thirds that length, indicating scrolls of standardized
lengths (Matthew,
Luke and Acts were each close to the maximum length for scrolls,
between
thirty-two and thirty-five feet). “ [Keener, C. S., &
InterVarsity
Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament .
Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.]
Matthew
and
Luke
are
full scrolls yet still only contain about
2/3rds of the miracles in that list. So, scroll size limitations
probably
FORCED some level of selection/omission, and this would have (ideally)
forced
the authors to select only events/discourses immediately relevant to
their
purpose in writing (i.e. ‘literary purpose’). Publication of a single
scroll
was very expensive in itself, so ‘more material in a second volume’ was
probably not an option:
"The
writing
of
a
book of this
length (i.e. Luke) was an expensive endeavor in the ancient world, both
in
terms of time and resources, and it was common to dedicate such a work
to an
influential patron” [Arnold, C. E. (2002). Zondervan Illustrated Bible
Backgrounds Commentary Volume 1: Matthew, Mark , Luke. (322). Grand
Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.]
Of
course,
the
reality
of literary purpose and literary
limitation doesn’t mean AT ALL that Matthew didn’t ‘invent the story’
(as even
a few good evangelical scholars believe), but it DOES create a
plausible scenario
in which omission by other gospel writers (for reasons of literary
purpose
and/or literary limitation) is a reasonable position to take,
historically
considered.
One
other/minor
point:
on
the embellishment issue, I was
actually talking about the kind of ‘embellishment’ that starts with a
‘base
story’ and embellishes/expands THAT BASE STORY with additional details,
exaggerations, dialogue, etc (e.g., the expansions to the Book of
Daniel, or
Infancy Gospels). This is different from ‘fabrication’ or ‘invention’
of the
whole base event- story. The existence of ‘seriously expanded versions’
of a
pre-existing story normally indicates that the base (i.e. ‘unexpanded’)
version
was considered ‘important enough’ or ‘recognized enough’ or
‘authoritative
enough’ to be used as a Trojan Horse for some additional
‘information’(normally
of the polemical type…sigh). So the examples I gave in that article
were of
that specific ‘type’ of embellishment.
Of
course,
people
DO
use the term ‘embellishment’ when
suggesting that ‘un-precedented fabrications’ were introduced into an
existing
story-line (e.g. this unique passage introduced into the story line of
Jesus’
life), but that’s a different sense of the word. My point was that the
more
specific type of embellishment (i.e. additional material ‘inside’ a
pre-existing story) provided some evidential data for the story’s
initial
acceptance (not, btw, whether it was originally a ‘fabrication’ or
‘invention’
of Matthew).
Anyway,
thanks
very,
very
much for your thoughtful email and
critical thinking about this! This re-analysis has certainly been of
value to
ME, in thinking about to what extent and under what conditions your
excellent
‘UFO analogy’ might apply to (especially) miraculous – or at least
‘massively
memorable’—events in the gospels.
Thanks
again,
Warmly,
Glenn