1 The Raising of the Saints in Matthew 27 Chris Matthiesen Abstract Matthew’s lone account of the raising of the saints at Jesus’ crucifixion is well known for its peculiar literary construct and questioned historical credibility. Considered awkwardly phrased and outside of Matthew’s usual style, this briefly mentioned event is often included within the larger discussion contesting biblical inspiration. Many commentators, however, posit that Matthew did consider this unique narrative to be a factual record and that its inclusion in his gospel account reflects the broader sociocultural world wherein he wrote. Introduction The historical veracity of Matthew 27:51b-53 1 (hereinafter referred to as “SM”) is widely questioned today, from biblical scholars 2 to biblical skeptics. 3 The primary objection to SM is its absence from any other extant documents of the period. Matthew’s critics find it difficult to accept the silence of such a spectacular event from both the NT canon (sans Matthew) and non-biblical sources. Matthew’s defenders, in turn, consider the objection little more than an argument from silence. 4 Both sides have a point. Often, challenges to SM are poor examples of an argument from silence. 5 However, a response is warranted given the amount of attention afforded the issue. This article will attempt a brief treatment of two concerns identified from the stated objection above: 1. Is it plausible that such an event could indeed be absent from non-biblical documents? 2. Would the other NT authors have included SM in their writings had they known of it? 1 ‘Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks were split apart. And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised. (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.)’ New English Translation (2006). 2 Even among those professing Biblical inerrancy. Some of the more notable scholars who have recently faced scrutiny from the evangelical community for accommodating a more nuanced definition of ‘Biblical Inerrancy’, at least partly because of difficulty with Mathew 27:51-53, are Michael Licona, D.A. Carson, and Leon Morris. See http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona- controversy/ and http://www.considerthereasons.com/2014/01/da-carson-leon-morris-and-matthew-2752.html. 3 See for example Robby Berry’s “The Fivefold Challenge”. (Cited 16 Mar 2014 online http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4five95.html) where Matt 27 is listed as one of five biblical events unsatisfactorily answered by archaeology. 4 Ibid. 5 The quality of an argument from silence lies in the strength of the inference. Within historiographical methodology, a strong inference considers certain criteria to establish the plausibility of events in question as having occurred or not. The University of Massachusetts’ History Department, on their website, expresses it in this way, “The strength of that inference in a given case will depend on (1) how many documents there are, or in statistical terms how large the sample is, and, in literary terms, (2) how likely the thing is to have been mentioned in documents of that type in the first place.” “Arguments from Silence”, (2006). Cited 16 Mar 2014. Online: https://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/silence.html.