# Is there more to the story on Matthew 27:50-53? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167 "2012-03-29T15:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/81 "2012-04-03T22:37:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Yeah, pretty much. But more important than my pleasant nature, is the fact that I don’t believe that the writings of stinking bronze-age primitives are especially insightful. Okay. Certainly your right. Others do, however. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/82 "2012-04-03T22:42:42Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I still think you’re misreading something that is straightforward. It DOES say they walked out of the tomb, and into the city. “Appeared to many” simply means “were seen by many.” They weren’t seen by EVERYBODY in Jerusalem for the same reason that the Superbowl isn’t seen by everyone in America, or the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade isn’t seen by everyone in NYC. Some people were otherwise occupied, that’s all. “Dammit Ethel, get off of the john and get out here! You’re missing the zompie apocolypse!” (Okay, yeah, there’s no _particular_ reason to assume they looked like zombies, but that sounded funnier than “bunch of nondescript guys I don’t recognize wandering around”.) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/83 "2012-04-03T22:56:39Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Okay. Certainly your right. Others do, however. True enough. Some people juggle geese. ---
**Author:** ![JasperST](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/76d3ee/32.png) [@JasperST](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasperST)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/84 "2012-04-03T23:28:33Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Since the Virgin Birth is one of only a few things that Luke agrees with Matthew on, there seems to be more of a basis than misreading Isaiah. I would guess it was just Christians trying to compete with all the other stories of gods mating with mortals. My first post here and I’m already stepping in it. I was a Christian for 20+ years and took it seriously, studied, read and researched the time period, what was said who said it, when and where…and all that. I believe it wasn’t exactly a misreading but a mistranslation. The problem was in rendering the word ‘almah’ in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. The Hebrew word means ‘young unmarried woman’, not really virgin but assumed to be so. Plus, Isaiah 7:14 really has nothing to do with a coming Messiah, the sign was that by the time the child was of age the two kings would abandon their land. As far as the OP, it’s also a strange omission by everyone else, including the two prolific historians and commentators of the day, Josephus and Philo. And all the other stuff, temple drapes torn in two, the day turning to night, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/85 "2012-04-03T23:29:23Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > There is no Biblical basis for Mary’s perpetual virginity, and in fact the gospels plainly state that Jesus had siblings. I realize that apologists will claim that “brother” can mean “cousin,” but Greek had different words for them, and Luke uses those different words in 8:19, referring to Jesus’ brothers, and 1:36, referring to Mary’s cousin. > > I don’t know or care why Catholics decided to make perpetual virginity part of their dogma. I believe that there were some legends about Alexander the Great’s virgin birth, and he certainly thought he was descended from the gods. And I believe it is pretty well established that James was the brother of Jesus. I think the Mary cults says interesting things about their frantic attempt to fulfill Jewish Messianic prophecies, and their attitude toward sex. It also shows Joseph as the most clueless cuckold ever, and an early example of the all purpose explanation “goddidit.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/86 "2012-04-03T23:47:36Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > I still think you’re misreading something that is straightforward. It DOES say they walked out of the tomb, and into the city. “Appeared to many” simply means “were seen by many.” They weren’t seen by EVERYBODY in Jerusalem for the same reason that the Superbowl isn’t seen by everyone in America, or the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade isn’t seen by everyone in NYC. Some people were otherwise occupied, that’s all. \ the scene: The Temple in Jerusalem. The High Priest is doing the third Sunday Pesach show. The Under Assistant Chief High Priest rushes up to him and tugs his robe. HP: Will you stop bugging me! UAHP: Look in the back. They’re here. HP: Who’s here? UAHP: Elijah and Moses. HP: You’re putting me on. UAHP: No, I’m sure its them. Moses lisps and everything. Anyhow, pieces are falling off of them. HP: To congregation: Chant pages 42 - 129 in your Haggadah scrolls. To UAHP: Quick, run and see if we have any manna. What are they doing here? To Elijah: You’re late. You were supposed to show up for dinner last night. To Moses: Hey, part the wine in the glass, would you? UAHP returns. I can’t find manna anywhere. Anyway, is it good for Pesach? Meanwhile the people, bored with their chanting, have noticed the visitors. Cries of “Can I quit work and go on a desert vacation?” are heard. A Roman soldier, attracted by the commotion, enters. Soldier: What’s going on? HP: A couple of the kids dropped by. Can’t you keep anyone out of the city these days? That fake Messiah and now this. (whispers to him:) What are paying protection for anyway? ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/87 "2012-04-04T00:12:41Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > True enough. Some people juggle geese. And some people comment on geese juggling without bothering to learn what it takes to be a geese juggler. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/88 "2012-04-04T00:30:38Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > And some people comment on geese juggling without bothering to learn what it takes to be a geese juggler. There is nothing special to it, in fact, it’s easier than not juggling. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/89 "2012-04-04T04:19:26Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I never claimed that they said abortion was viewed as a good thing to do, but for long periods of time punishment was less than or similar to masturbation etc…, thus it was allowed or permitted. Cite? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > At one point the penance for Oral Sex was 7 years, for a pre-quickening abortion was only 120 days. Assuming this is true, doesn’t the imposition of a 120-day penance for abortion rather contradict your claim that abortion was permitted? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > That changed to instant ex-communication in the late 1800’s for an abortion any point in time after conception which is exactly what the linked article says. The linked article says it was always forbidden, which flatly and unambiguously contradicts your claim that Piux IX banned in it in 1869. Look, the Didache (about AD 70) condemn abortion, bracketing it with murder, adultery, the seduction of boys, fornication, theft, sorcery and child destruction. The Letter of Barnabas (AD 74) condemns abortion along with child destruction. Turtullian (late second century) condemns it repeatedly in strong terms in several of his works. Basil the Great (AD 74) recommends ten years’ penance “whether the embryo were perfectly formed or not”. I’m afraid the notion that the Christian tradition hasn’t pretty consistently condemned abortion from a very early time and in very strong terms is just nonsense on stilts. It’s true that Pius IX imposed the penalty of exommunication for abortion, but it is disingenous when mentioning this not to add that he was the latest in a long line of popes to do so. It’s also true that in the Middle Ages the canonical penalty often varied depending on whether an abortion was early or late-term, but even early-term abortions were strongly condemned. And, in imposing a uniform penalty for all abortions, later popes were not innovating; they were returning to the well-documented practice of the early church. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/90 "2012-04-04T05:07:13Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Cite? > Assuming this is true, doesn’t the imposition of a 120-day penance for abortion rather contradict your claim that abortion was permitted? > The linked article says it was always forbidden, which flatly and unambiguously contradicts your claim that Piux IX banned in it in 1869. > > Look, the Didache (about AD 70) condemn abortion, bracketing it with murder, adultery, the seduction of boys, fornication, theft, sorcery and child destruction. The Letter of Barnabas (AD 74) condemns abortion along with child destruction. Turtullian (late second century) condemns it repeatedly in strong terms in several of his works. Basil the Great (AD 74) recommends ten years’ penance “whether the embryo were perfectly formed or not”. > > I’m afraid the notion that the Christian tradition hasn’t pretty consistently condemned abortion from a very early time and in very strong terms is just nonsense on stilts. It’s true that Pius IX imposed the penalty of exommunication for abortion, but it is disingenous when mentioning this not to add that he was the latest in a long line of popes to do so. It’s also true that in the Middle Ages the canonical penalty often varied depending on whether an abortion was early or late-term, but even early-term abortions were strongly condemned. And, in imposing a uniform penalty for all abortions, later popes were not innovating; they were returning to the well-documented practice of the early church. I already gave you cites for official church documents, the fact that you ignore them gives me little reason to go find more. If you want to believe that ensoulment, quickening etc… were not part of the church I can’t do anything to change your mind. To pretend the Apostolicae Sedis did not change that is just wishful thinking. your whole premise was that the early church “didn’t call it murder” but I proved that wrong, it was not a grave sin for much of the history for the church until after enslavement or the quickening depending on the era. Even [newadvent.org](http://newadvent.org) admits that “Now Gregory XIV had enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortion of a “quickened” child but the present law makes no such distinction, and therefore it must be differently understood” Even with their intrest in protecting “Papal infallibility” ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/91 "2012-04-04T05:48:55Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > If you want to believe that ensoulment, quickening etc… were not part of the church I can’t do anything to change your mind. Huh? Where have I ever disputed anything you said about ensoulment or quickening? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > To pretend the Apostolicae Sedis did not change that is just wishful thinking. Where have I “pretended” that? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > your whole premise was that the early church “didn’t call it murder” but I proved that wrong, it was not a grave sin for much of the history for the church until after enslavement or the quickening depending on the era. So, let me get this straight; you’ve “proved” that the early church called abortion murder, but you still maintain that it was not regarded as a grave sin? The facts are these: 1. The Christian tradition has always condemned abortion as gravely wrong. 2. In the Middle Ages, a canonical distinction was often made between early (pre-quickening) and late (post-quickening) abortion. Both were regarded as gravely wrong, but the canonical penalties attached to late abortion were more severe. 3. Any suggestion that early abortion was ever regarded as acceptable or as only trivially wrong is false. 4. The pre- and post-quickening distinction fell out of favour when scientific knowledge rendered it untenable. 5. Any suggestion that this represents a change in dogma, or has implications for claims about papal infallibility, is just silly. There are serious arguments against claims of papal infallibility, but this isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/92 "2012-04-04T08:06:12Z")
> [@](#): > > So, let me get this straight; you’ve “proved” that the early church called abortion murder, but you still maintain that it was not regarded as a grave sin? Actually, it says a woman that has attempted abortion must pay the penalty for murder, which isn’t quite the same thing (doesn’t say the term when the attempt was made, nor if those using contraception pay the same penalty). What’d be interesting is if the abortion was unsuccessful and the penalty for murder was death. > [@](#): > > The pre- and post-quickening distinction fell out of favour when scientific knowledge rendered it untenable. This part interests me. Which part of scientific knowledge determined that a foetus couldn’t be ensouled in the 19th century? Isn’t the Eucharist evidence that a soul is immaterial? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/93 "2012-04-04T11:10:59Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Look, the Didache (about AD 70) condemn abortion, bracketing it with murder, adultery, the seduction of boys, fornication, theft, sorcery and child destruction. The Letter of Barnabas (AD 74) condemns abortion along with child destruction. Turtullian (late second century) condemns it repeatedly in strong terms in several of his works. Basil the Great (AD 74) recommends ten years’ penance “whether the embryo were perfectly formed or not”. Could you guys please include some links with all these assertions? Even with the internet, it’s not easy to find what you are citing, when all you do is paraphrase a sentence from someone who wrote several volumes. ---
**Author:** ![JasperST](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/76d3ee/32.png) [@JasperST](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasperST)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/94 "2012-04-04T14:06:31Z")
This is a great source for the early writings: [http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html](http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/95 "2012-04-04T15:40:12Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > And some people comment on geese juggling without bothering to learn what it takes to be a geese juggler. If I’m decoding your snarky metaphor correctly, you’re accusing people who find scripture to be factually dubious of having not bothered to learn how to read scriptures and find them factually plausible? That’s an…interesting accusation. And an ignorant one - many atheists got that way after many years as believing theists. So those types of theists certainly know how the whole uncritical credulity thing is done, even if they don’t do it anymore. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/96 "2012-04-04T16:47:18Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Huh? Where have I ever disputed anything you said about ensoulment or quickening? > Where have I “pretended” that? > So, let me get this straight; you’ve “proved” that the early church called abortion murder, but you still maintain that it was not regarded as a grave sin? > > The facts are these: > > 1. The Christian tradition has always condemned abortion as gravely wrong. > > 2. In the Middle Ages, a canonical distinction was often made between early (pre-quickening) and late (post-quickening) abortion. Both were regarded as gravely wrong, but the canonical penalties attached to late abortion were more severe. > > 3. Any suggestion that early abortion was ever regarded as acceptable or as only trivially wrong is false. > > 4. The pre- and post-quickening distinction fell out of favour when scientific knowledge rendered it untenable. > > 5. Any suggestion that this represents a change in dogma, or has implications for claims about papal infallibility, is just silly. There are serious arguments against claims of papal infallibility, but this isn’t one of them. After quickening it was a grave sin, please show me where it always was so previous to the late 1800s 1. you are inferring a grave sin here once again, today abortion would be an irregularity, I have provided cites where it was not in the past and it was not murder until after the quickening. 2. Once again, evidence that it was a grave sin for the majority of this time period please? I have documented where it was a venial sin. 3. It’s penance was 1/14th of that for a blow job, and shorter than the remainder of the pregnancy for most of that time. To claim it was even at the level of instant ex-communication like today is unfounded. 4. Conception being at the point ensouling was more due to the arguments that the scripture claimed that marry was sinless from conception than science, although there may have been input from science. As for the “soul” Aristotle was far more correct than most 19th claims. The infallibly was a note how [newadvent.org](http://newadvent.org) tends to not hot link or mention inconsistencies, not claiming infallibility had anything to do with our subject. ---
**Author:** ![hoopified](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/cab0a1/32.png) [@hoopified](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hoopified)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/97 "2012-04-09T23:37:31Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If I’m decoding your snarky metaphor correctly, you’re accusing people who find scripture to be factually dubious of having not bothered to learn how to read scriptures and find them factually plausible? > > That’s an…interesting accusation. And an ignorant one - many atheists got that way after many years as believing theists. So those types of theists certainly know how the whole uncritical credulity thing is done, even if they don’t do it anymore. I’m quite certain many have become atheists in this way. And there are many folks who have become Christians after having been atheists. My contention is that atheists generally view scripture in the worst possible light, often plucking verses from their context that supports a view that many Christians don’t have, and often not bothering to see what competing views might be on a particular verse. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/98 "2012-04-09T23:57:21Z")
I can easily agree with your use of the word “often.” Atheists do often selectively focus on the most awkward elements of scripture, and, alas, even often distort scripture or engage in biased interpretations of it. I cannot agree with your use of the word “generally,” as I think it implies far too high a degree of statistical frequency. In general, atheists do not engage in distorted readings of scripture. This is largely because it isn’t necessary; scripture has enough problems of its own without any need to manufacture additional shortcomings for it. The majority of atheists, like the majority of Christians, are people of sincere personal integrity, arguing with full honesty for what they truly believe. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/99 "2012-04-10T03:37:03Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > My contention is that atheists generally view scripture in the worst possible light, often plucking verses from their context that supports a view that many Christians don’t have Since Christians have one Bible and hundreds of denominations, it seems inevitable that atheists will have an interpretation that disagrees with that of many Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2012, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/100 "2012-04-10T04:09:38Z")
Anyways, back to the topic in the OP: The explanations I’ve heard over the years of the passage are: 1. Matthew is trying to fulfil Scripture, specifically Ezikeal 37 and Daniel 12. This seems a decent explanation, since in other places its pretty clear Matthew is writing his Gospel with more concern to having Jesus fullfill OT prophecy then for the plausibility of the events for his audience. On the other hand, its a bit of a streatch to go from those particular OT passages to the rising of the Saints. 2. Matthew means the whole thing metaphorically, the breaking of tombs and rising of Saints is just a symbol of Jesus’s death causing the Resurrection of the Dead. Note in the passage, the tomb breaking happens when Jesus dies, but appearing in Jerusalem doesn’t happen till after the Resurrection, at least three days later (and maybe much later). So in this interpretation, its meant to show that the Rez is a two step process, first Jesus has to die, then he has to come back. It was never meant to be taken literally, rather then that the Saints really came back and then spent three days hanging out in their tombs. 3. Matthew subscribed to some theology that people alive during the End Times would get to be Ressurected first, or get some other type of precedence during the Second Coming. Since Matthew was more concerned then the other Gospel writers with the OT, he didn’t like the idea of modern folks getting dibs over Moses, David, Abraham and Co, so he Resurrected them so they could hang out for a few decades till the world ended and be first to join Jesus. I don’t think I’ve ever seen something presented as a consensus position, but those are the three theories I think I’ve seen most often. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167.md?page=6)