WHEN THE SAINTS DON'T GO MARCHING IN

Is Matthew's Imaginative Scene in 27:52,53 Inspired?

Introduction

Something strange happened one day as I re-read the Gospel According to Matthew. I read Matthew 27:50-53, which says, "And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many." Surely, something so profound and miraculous as a mass resurrection event, in Jerusalem of all places,--by eyewitnesses "no doubt"!--would be recorded somewhere. Such a thing would lend credibility to Jesus' own resurrection. Yet my inquiry provided no such evidence. The above image is a screen shot of an Answer to a Question found on GotQuestions.Org, a popular apologetic website for Evangelicals, or anyone interested in Theology. Their answer provides no hard, historical eyewitness attestation, which I find to be extremely damning.

Their presupposition is "This event occurred as a testimony to the immortal power ascribed to Jesus Christ alone." It certainly "does." What proof is provided that it happened? None. Paul does mention in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrected Jesus himself appeared to 500 brethren at once and then him "as one born out of due time," meaning after Jesus had already ascended. But--despite his own dubious claims of having met the ascended Jesus without corroborating eyewitness testimony--not even Paul cites such an event as proof of "his" Gospel. As we will see, not only is this event not historical, it's actually "merely" a traditional use of apocalyptic imagery to make a theological point. To me, this raises serious questions about what we consider "inspired scripture" and how we are to discern as we interpret.

I. Textual Status of Matthew 27:52–53

1. The first thing to acknowledge is that this passage is in all surviving manuscripts of Matthew. But, as I asked before, did the event actually happen? Unlike the ending of Mark (16:9–20) or the Pericope Adulterae (John 7–8), Matthew 27:52–53 is not a later scribal addition in the manuscript tradition.

• All early Greek manuscripts of Matthew contain it.

• Early versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) contain it.

This means that if it's secondary, it's secondary at the authorial level, not later by a scribe. So what purpose would such a flourish serve?

II. Why Scholars Doubt Historicity (Even Though It’s in the Manuscripts)

1. Matthew alone reports the event, and no parallel exists in Mark (Matthew’s primary source), Luke (uses Hebrew Matthew + Mark in many scenes), or John (focuses heavily on Jerusalem events). For an event as monumental as multiple dead people walking into Jerusalem, the absence of corroboration is as striking as Paul the so-called Apostle not having witnesses for his claims.

2. Matthew uses apocalyptic tropes. Note The GotQuestions Article deference to these tropes. This passage resembles imagery "inspired by" the following:

• Ezekiel 37 – resurrection of dry bones.

• Daniel 12 – many who sleep in the dust shall awake

• Zechariah 14 – eschatological disturbances accompanying the Day of the Lord

Matthew frequently “midrashically” embellishes events with apocalyptic symbolism. A "Midrash" is defined as, "a Jewish method of interpreting biblical texts, often used to explore deeper meanings and fill in gaps in the narratives. It encompasses various forms of commentary, including legal interpretations (halakhic midrash) and narrative expansions (aggadic midrash) on the Hebrew Scriptures." Other examples of this include (1) The star at Jesus’ birth; (2) The mass slaughter of infants (unique to Matthew); (3) Pilate’s wife’s dream; (4) The earthquake and the tearing of the veil; (5) This resurrection vignette upon the death of Jesus on the cross/ stake. Scholars (e.g., Allison, Nolland, Davies & Allison, Raymond Brown) argue that the episode fits Matthew’s habit of embedding theological fiction in historical narrative.

III. Historical Silence Outside Matthew

Furthermore, as already alluded to, there's no historical witness outside of the Gospel of Matthew to corroborate such a miraculous event ever occured.

1. Josephus (37–100 CE) records comets, temple portents, ghostly armies in the sky; the screams of angels; prophetic madmen. Yet he never mentions open tombs, multiple resurrected saints, and/ or crows of the undead walking into Jerusalem.

2. Philo of Alexandria

Also silent.

3. Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger are all silent.

4. Early Christian apologists are silent as well. Writers like Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus never use this story as evidence, even though it would be one of the most powerful apologetics imaginable. As mentioned, not even Paul himself verifies this event ever took place. Yet they all defend the resurrection vigorously. This suggests that they may not have considered the passage historical, that it was unknown in at least "some" Christian circles, or it was viewed symbolically and was understood to be fictitious.

IV. Theological Motifs in Matthew’s Passion Narrative

Most scholars think Matthew crafted 27:52–53 as eschatological symbolism. We find three reasons why:

1. Earthquake + split rocks + opened graves

These are standard biblical day-of-the-Lord tropes.

2. “Holy ones who had fallen asleep”

This phrase resembles Daniel 12:2 and 1 Enoch 51 — apocalyptic texts circulating in Second Temple Judaism.

3. “Appeared to many”

The phrase echoes post-resurrection appearance formulae.

Thus many scholars conclude that Matthew treats Jesus’ death as the beginning of the eschatological age, so he inserts a visionary sequence of apocalyptic imagery based on past examples of the tradition.

V. What Various Scholars Say

Raymond Brown (The Death of the Messiah): 

 “Apocalyptic imagery rather than strict historical reporting...Matthew is painting a theological picture.”

 

Dale Allison (Matthew commentary):

“A symbolic, visionary, or legendary elaboration appended to the Passion narrative.”

 

R.T. France acknowledges its historicity is doubtful and that,

“Matthew alone records it, and he does so in heavily apocalyptic language.”

 

John Dominic Crossan:

“A pure piece of apocalyptic special effects.”

 

Craig Keenerd amits,

“Its lack of corroboration makes historical certainty impossible.”

VI. The Most Responsible Conclusion?

Based on universal manuscript presence, total absence of external corroboration, apocalyptic literary characteristics, Matthew’s narrative technique, silence of Josephus, other Gospels, and early Christians, the majority scholarly view is that Matthew 27:52–53 is a Matthean theological fiction, symbolizing eschatological hope and was not a literal historical event. It's not a scribal forgery, but it was a purposeful apocalyptic insertion by Matthew to perpetuate and deepen the theological meaning of the death of Jesus. This underscores the freedom that Biblical authors had to embellish the narratives, thus proving that not all of Scripture is inspired truth; much scripture is inspired by truth.