Critiquing: Why Didn’t Anyone Besides Matthew Mention the Resurrection of Multiple People after the Crucifixion?

December 11, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Resurrection—Lack of Evidence—Biblical Exclusivity—Miracle Skepticism—Crowd Control

---

Introduction

The content presents a discussion on why the resurrection of multiple people, mentioned only in the Gospel of Matthew, isn’t corroborated by other sources, both biblical and extra-biblical. The hosts, Greg Koukl and Amy Hall, provide their reasoning and address related questions.

Outline and Explanation

1. Reliability of Biblical Records
2. Comparison with Other Historical Events
3. Absence of News Apparatus in Ancient Times
4. Worldviews on Supernatural Events
5. Different Instructions by Jesus

---

Reliability of Biblical Records

The content begins by addressing the question of why the resurrection of multiple people, as described in Matthew 27:52, isn’t mentioned elsewhere. The hosts assert the reliability of the canonical gospels as historical records, citing scholars like Bart Erman who consider them generally reliable.

“These are historical records from that period of time. And there is every reason to believe, as even Bart Erman does, that these are on balance reliable.”

Critique: This assertion assumes the inherent reliability of the gospels without addressing the need for external corroboration. A non-believer would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The hosts’ reliance on the authority of Bart Erman is also somewhat selective, as his broader critiques of the gospels’ historical reliability are not acknowledged.

Comparison with Other Historical Events

The hosts compare the lack of extra-biblical accounts of the resurrection to the lack of records on Herod’s massacre of infants, suggesting that not all significant events were widely recorded.

“The infants murdered in the little town of Bethlehem were probably 15 to 20 at the most. And so it’s not the kind of massacre that would make the headlines of the ancient Near East.”

Critique: This comparison highlights a logical inconsistency. The massacre of infants, while tragic, involves fewer people and a more localized event. In contrast, a mass resurrection should have had a broader impact, especially given its supernatural nature. The failure to recognize the differing scopes and implications of these events undermines the argument.

Absence of News Apparatus in Ancient Times

The content explains that the ancient world lacked the communication tools and infrastructure necessary to widely disseminate news, which is why such events might not have been recorded by multiple sources.

“You don’t have a 24 or 7 news cycle. You don’t have satellites. You don’t have embedded reporters.”

Critique: While it’s true that ancient communication was limited, significant events were often documented by multiple sources, especially those with profound religious or cultural implications. The absence of any corroboration for such an extraordinary event raises questions about its historicity. This explanation does not adequately address why a mass resurrection, an event likely to provoke widespread attention, wasn’t documented by contemporary historians or other gospel writers.

Worldviews on Supernatural Events

The hosts argue that the ancient Near Eastern worldview, which was more accepting of supernatural events, might explain the lack of surprise or widespread documentation of the resurrection.

“Those people were completely comfortable with the idea of a supernatural realm. That’s why they had pantheons of other gods that were meant to explain things that happened in nature.”

Critique: This explanation overlooks the critical thinking and skepticism present even in ancient times. Not all individuals or cultures were equally credulous, and extraordinary claims, especially those involving resurrection, would likely have been met with scrutiny and documentation. The content fails to consider the diversity of thought in ancient societies, where supernatural claims were not universally accepted without evidence.

Different Instructions by Jesus

The content also addresses the different instructions given by Jesus to those he healed, suggesting practical reasons for these variations, such as avoiding crowds or fulfilling specific purposes.

“There were times when Jesus had so many crowds following him that he had to retire to some remote place to get a breath of fresh air, so to speak, or to pray, or to be with his disciples.”

Critique: While practical considerations might explain some of Jesus’ instructions, this reasoning does not directly address the central question about the resurrection’s lack of corroboration. The inclusion of this point seems tangential and distracts from the primary issue of evidentiary support for extraordinary claims.

---

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

1. Appeal to Authority: The reliance on Bart Erman’s authority without fully addressing his critical perspectives on the gospels’ reliability.
2. Straw Man: Comparing the mass resurrection to Herod’s massacre, which involves a different scale and context.
3. Special Pleading: Arguing that the resurrection doesn’t need external corroboration because of the supposed reliability of biblical records.
4. Confirmation Bias: Selectively interpreting historical silence as supportive rather than critically questioning the lack of evidence.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Inherent Reliability of Gospels: The assumption that the gospels are reliable historical documents without external verification.
2. Ancient Worldview Acceptance: The claim that the ancient Near Eastern worldview would naturally accept a mass resurrection without significant documentation.

---

Testing Alleged Promises

The content does not provide methods to test the alleged promises of God, such as the resurrection. Potential methods could include:

• Historical Investigation: Scrutinizing archaeological and historical records for corroborative evidence.
• Philosophical Inquiry: Evaluating the consistency and plausibility of the claims within the broader context of known historical and scientific facts.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The discussion highlights the need to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. Extraordinary claims, such as a mass resurrection, require substantial evidence. The lack of corroboration in this case suggests a need for skepticism and a critical evaluation of the claims based on the available evidence.

---

Conclusion

The content fails to provide a coherent and substantiated explanation for the lack of corroboration of the resurrection of multiple people. Logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases undermine the argument’s credibility. A critical evaluation requires aligning belief with evidence, which in this case, remains insufficient to support the extraordinary claim.

---

Thank you for reading. I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.