That particular event doesn't have to be true for the claim to be literal. The point of the resurrection in terms of Messianic lore is that Messiah was supposed to control the keys ot life and death. In the last day he would raise all of fallen Israel from the dead. So Jesus is called (Paul) "first fruit form the dead." It's like saying "to prove he is Messiah he'll raise himself." then this (probable) embellishment is added becuase it just seems right, Messiah is going to raise all of Israel he raises himself first so he also raises others with him. That's most likely the way the redactor saw it.
Having said all of that the event can be real and the fact we don't have a record of it is in no way evidence that it can't be real.
There are all kinds of happens throughout time that are not recorded in history.
*they had no press, no school of journalism, no philosophies of how to report things, no sense that reporting mattered.
*no in search of, no Ripple's believe it or not. no nothing.
*they didn't even have news papers.
*no evening news at 11.
*It doesn't indicate it was more than a handful of people. So like 10 people raise up and come out of graves, stare in wonderment at each other then wonder home in different directions.
who is going to report it and to whom do they report?
6 comments:
That particular event doesn't have to be true for the claim to be literal.
What is your definition of the word "literal" in this context?
"That particular event doesn't have to be true for the claim to be literal."
He was speculating that the Res could just have literary or symbolic value. I took that to mean that this was the intention of he authors, a metaphor. I was just saying even if the event didn't happen they probably meant for us to understand it as having happened. They weren't just making a metaphor.
It probably was a metaphor, or Jesus made it look like the souls of the people on the right side of the gulf(or Abraham's bosom) came out of their graves while he preached to the people in Hades when his body was in the tomb.
That may make more sense since those people that "came up" out of their graves weren't going to stay on the earth, because it wasn't the second advent. They had to go to Heaven with Jesus and the converts from Hades until Jesus returns.
If the resurrection of the saints described in Matthew did not really happen, yet the author or authors of Matthew meant for us to think it really did happen, would that be an example of legendary development in the Gospel of Matthew?
Although it certainly doesn't follow that all of Matthew is legend just because this part is, don't these verses serve as a counterexample to the apologist claim one often hears about the gospels being written so soon after the events that there was insufficient time for legend(s) to develop?
That may make more sense since those people that "came up" out of their graves weren't going to stay on the earth, because it wasn't the second advent. They had to go to Heaven with Jesus and the converts from Hades until Jesus returns.
I've always understood it that they returned to their normal lives and lived out the duration of them like Lazarus.
Brap writes:
"If the resurrection of the saints described in Matthew did not really happen, yet the author or authors of Matthew meant for us to think it really did happen, would that be an example of legendary development in the Gospel of Matthew?"
"Although it certainly doesn't follow that all of Matthew is legend just because this part is, don't these verses serve as a counterexample to the apologist claim one often hears about the gospels being written so soon after the events that there was insufficient time for legend(s) to develop?"
These are more in the nature of minor emendations. There's a big difference in an embellishment and making up a whole text from scratch.
the real issue is what part of it was pre Mark. In other words the embellishment may not have been from the mid century like the passion narrative as a whole. that could have been a late feature added after the writing of Mark. It's not in Mark. It's not in the others so it's probably not part of that oldest group of readings that Koester calls "the passion narrative."
Post a Comment