Why this story matters

(commentary on Matthew 27:51-53)

(Page 5 of 7)

So is the story historical?

It may make things clearer if we compare Matthew's words with Mark's. If we were to eliminate Matthew’s two sentences about the dead saints, the accounts of Jesus' death would almost be carbon copies. Here is Mark’s version:

"At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah." One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said. With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!"

 And here is Matthew’s version with the addition in bold:

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah." Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him." And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

If you eliminated the bold part the two versions would be pretty much the same. They're almost word for word identical except for Matthew's addition of the dead saints.  Scholars have acknowledged for a long time that the similarities are because Matthew copied parts of his gospel from the same source as Mark (or directly from Mark). Since Matthew's version was written later, it appears to have been embellished with a legend about dead saints coming back to life. This is how Thomas Long explains the addition:

“Some of these concerns, at least, are addressed when we realize that Matthew is here not writing straightforward history, but apocalyptic literature. The language is stretched beyond recognizable shape in order to show the theological meaning of Jesus’ death.” (p.319)

When Long says Matthew is stretching the language beyond recognition in order to make a theological point, it's partly just a scholarly way of saying Matthew's story is a fictional embellishment. In common language, he made it up. In the postscript to Robert Gundry's book, Matthew, the author states, “Clearly Matthew treats us to history mixed with elements that cannot be called historical in a modern sense” (p.613). Gundry is admitting that this is not history in literal terms. In other words, it didn't really happen. Gundry explains that Matthew was speaking to a Jewish audience and he knew they would appreciate ideas of prophecy fulfillment. For example, his audience would have been familiar with Ezekiel 37:11 which says, “this is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them."

It is worth noting here that, at the time he wrote this, Robert Gundry was an eminent scholar and had been a prominent member of the venerable Evangelical Theological Society for many years. He was eventually forced out by more conservative members who felt that his views were in conflict with the strict doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. They claimed that such views as those stated above may “undermine confidence in the complete truthfulness of all of Scripture” (Christianity Today magazine, Feb. 3, 1984). Better to simply have the great scholar removed from the society than to have the dogma of inerrancy undermined.

© IllustratedBibleStories.ca