Zombies In The BibleBefore we get into the video, I wanted to give you guys some perspective on this portion of Matthew. In this portion, Matthew claims that in addition to the curtain in the Jewish temple tearing and a supernatural eclipse, there was a horde of zombies that rose up and walked about Jerusalem.
This is an uncomfortable passage because nobody else records this, even in the Gospel traditions. Matthew is the only one. Generally, in historical studies, you would consider the earliest source to be the best representation of an event. This fact alone makes Matthew’s account less historical than either Mark or Paul. Matthew copies nearly all of Mark and was written most likely in the 80s while mark was written sometime after 70 CE. Mark does not recount the Jewish Zombie attack of Jerusalem and neither does Paul who is our only contemporary account of anything that may have happened at that time. That makes Matthew’s Gospel far less likely to be a historical account. Now that we have explored the historiographical reasons behind Matthew’s Gospel being non-historical, let’s see how the apologist Dr. Michael Brown twists information to suit his needs.
The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Matthew Records ItTo begin the video, Dr. Michael Brown claims this:
it’s definitely an interesting account and it’s only found here in the Bible and people are said well if this really happened then why didn’t someone record it well Matthew didThat’s not what they mean when they ask that question. They mean “Why didn’t someone other than biblical authors write about it?” because there would have been plenty of people in the first century that should have written about a bunch of Jewish Zombies walking around Jerusalem. They would have written about the massive supernatural eclipse, but that didn’t happen. If you think that Thallus proves otherwise, I have some bad news for you. He doesn’t. Thallus isn’t an actual source for these events as he was heavily interpolated. This is proven in the mainstream scholarship on Thallus. Thallus never connects the events he talks about to Jesus’ crucifixion. There were no earthquakes or eclipses during the supposed time that Jesus was crucified and The authentic portions of Africanus’ work, which is the only place where Thallus’ reference exists, refutes the idea that there was even the possibility of an eclipse at that time.
What Happened To The Zombies
you said well what am I talking about well Matthew tells us that after Jesus rose from the dead the tombs also were open and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many peoples like Jewish zombies just walking around out of the graves what happened to themThat’s a good fuckin question. What did happen to all these zombies? I mean traditionally in zombie horror flicks this would start an apocalypse. I doubt the first century Jews had any previous encounters with zombies so they wouldn’t know to double-tap them in the head. It seems like if this did happen people would have actually written about it considering all the mayhem that would have ensued after their rising from the grave. So how does Mike explain this lack of evidentiary support for his bullshit theological claim?
We don’t know what happened to them were they taken up to heaven did they just disappear did they live for a while men died and just get buried again did they walk back to their graves and go back I mean we simply don’t know but this was the power of the Messiah’s death this was the power of his resurrection that it was so powerful with it that others were also raised from the dead this is the result of his death on the cross and then his resurrection and Matthew records itHmmm… seems like if it was as powerful as you say, other Gospel writers would have at least written about it. The Synoptics have a lot of common ground between them but you’re telling me that they didn’t feel that it was necessary to write down the horde of zombies that rose up out of their graves through the sheer power of Jesus’ sacrifice? Theologically it would make sense that it is supposed to represent the sheer power of Jesus’ sacrifice. That was the message that Matthew was pushing and he chose a more powerful version of an Elisha miracle where his bones resurrected someone. But as literal history, this event doesn’t make sense given the evidence.
Ancient Accounts and Their Sources
you say again well why don’t other record well Matthew did there there are many many many many many accounts from the ancient world that we only have one source for it even very major things sometimes there’s only one source for themNatural things getting recorded once in history is perfectly acceptable. Generally, we have other physical and textual evidence that supports the one source either causally or directly. Making this out to be like it’s just another Sunday in Jerusalem in 30 or 33 CE is rather fallacious. This was an equivalence fallacy for those that are keeping track. Like I said previously since this is a supernatural event we would need a lot more evidence than a biased source claiming some impossible Walking Dead action.
Matthew as an Eyewitness
here’s the question Matthew was an eyewitness and he was writing to other people who knew what happened then and some of them were eyewitnessesSo let me get this straight, your way to convince people that this account is true is to claim that one of the arguably more powerful incidents that happened, considering that tearing a curtain and an earthquake are natural events while Jewish zombies are more of a supernatural one, was not recorded by either of the earliest accounts. Then you try to claim the author of that Zombie script as an eyewitness to it and was the only eyewitness that thought it was remarkable enough to write it down even though this horde of zombies “appeared to many.” You expect us to buy that load of horseshit over actual critical historiography… And, Matthew was writing at the end of the first century most likely in the 80s or early 90s. He was not an eyewitness. In fact, this was after any eyewitnesses would have died. Since Paul nor Mark record the Walking Dead episode that was filmed in Jerusalem it probably never actually happened.
Why Would Matthew Fabricate This Account?
why would he fabricate something like this just another fair question to ask why would he fabricate something like this that everybody would know never happened obviously enough word got out about this that he shared it and first Corinthians 15 Paul says that Jesus is the firstfruits of those who sleep in other words the first one to rise from the dead here are some others that rose What happened afterward we simply do not knowOf course, this is fabricated, what are you talking about? He would fabricate it because he wanted to present Jesus and his sacrifice as greater than the previous prophets. He was basically one-upping Elisha. It’s well known that Jesus is representative of all the previous prophets that “came” in the Jewish faith. All of them raised people from the dead, even after they died. During Jesus’ life, he resurrects multiple people himself. It seems like this was right up Jesus’ mythological alley. Finally, the “they wouldn’t lie” thing is really getting tired. People lie all the time that’s no different then than it is now. So stop acting like these people that wrote these theological books were eyewitnesses, were above lying for their faith, and that because they believed something happened that means it actually happened. Non not those things are true… at all.