"To this day" in Matthew Lies or truth?

[TedM]

When was this written, and if written pre-100AD how would you explain them if they aren't true?

Matthew 27:8
For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Matthew 28:15
And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

[Kris]

I say "lies" to the second quote--- Matthew put a lot more detail into the story and I think he was trying to explain why the Jews and Romans weren't spreading what happening to Jesus. Saying that everyone hushed it up and got paid off was a way to explain this issue.

[Kris]

Also, who told Matthew all of this anyway? I think the "to this day" gives away that this gospel was written many years after the supposed events or was at least edited.

[JoeWallack]

When was this written, and if written pre-100AD how would you explain them if they aren't true?

...

Matthew 28:15
And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

JW:
Matthew 28

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,

13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14 And if this come to the governor`s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, [and continueth] until this day.

Wow, that would be really embarrassing for "The Jews". What happened to The Criterion of Embarrassment which you freely invoke as supporting historicity if you think it's something embarrassing for Christianity? If Christianity claims something that would be embarrassing for non-Christians than by The Criterion of Embarrassment wouldn't it support fiction?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[toejam]

When was this written, and if written pre-100AD how would you explain them if they aren't true?

Matthew 27:8
For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Matthew 28:15
And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

1) I assume there was a field known as the 'Field of Blood' nearby. If it's not true that it was called this because it was bought with Judas' blood money (nor because he died there, as in Acts), then I would think it's because it's just a Christian legend that someone made up to try to "explain" why the field was known by that name. It's seemingly a common thing to make up legends to explain distinct landmarks. That is what I suspect is going on. My understanding (which I recall from an old lecture series so my memory might be off) is that there are clay deposits in the Jerusalem area that have a distinct red colour, and some scholars have speculated that this Field of Blood may have originally been called that due to the red colour, and the legend was taken over by the early Christians. But we no longer know where this field is, so who knows?

2) The second one I think is harder to deny - I think there were rumors - whether based in fact, legend or lies - that the Christians stole the body. The author of this passage is trying to rebut them. I can't think of a good reason as to why a Christian scribe would make up a non-existent accusation against them to counteract. Clearly there were people making this accusation. Now if it's not true that the body was stolen, well, I think there are a stack of other plausible proposals as to what happened to the body of Jesus. Geza Vermes offers several of the stock explanations typically proposed by scholars who don't think Jesus was actually resurrected in his book "The Resurrection", and he explains their strengths and weaknesses.

I'm 50/50 on whether there was a historical 'empty tomb'. If there was, then I've always liked James Tabor's suggestion, that the body was originally placed in a temporary tomb due to the coming Passover, and moved to another tomb/grave the following day, and that this was the genesis for the "Oh my Jehovah! His body is missing... He must have been resurrected!!" legend. This may also have helped generate the Jewish response that the body was stolen. Heck, there's a good chance that the Jews were on to something - that the body was stolen.

[TedM]

Wow, that would be really embarrassing for "The Jews". What happened to The Criterion of Embarrassment which you freely invoke as supporting historicity if you think it's something embarrassing for Christianity? If Christianity claims something that would be embarrassing for non-Christians than by The Criterion of Embarrassment wouldn't it support fiction?

Are you joking or serious here? If you are serious, I'm not following your reasoning. I see the Criterion of Embarrassment as only applying to the author's viewpoint regarding what he/she would find embarrassing for him or herself.

[TedM]

I say "lies" to the second quote--- Matthew put a lot more detail into the story and I think he was trying to explain why the Jews and Romans weren't spreading what happening to Jesus. Saying that everyone hushed it up and got paid off was a way to explain this issue.

But what about the readers of Matthew, who came across the claim that the story spread among the Jews was that the disciples stole the body? Wouldn't the readers of the Matthew gospel know what the Jews were saying? Doesn't it make sense to conclude that in fact at least SOME Jews were saying the disciples stole the body?

Assume for a moment that in fact there were Jews saying that the disciples stole the body. Why would they say that? It seems to me that they would say that in direct response the the IDEA/CLAIM that the tomb was empty, and only after first accepting the premise that there actually was a tomb. So, if this tradition started early, then that would support the idea that there was early acceptance of an empty tomb. But, it seems to me that tradition could well have come along much later, when those who claimed theft of body really had no idea of whether there was a tomb or not, but just accepted that premise while rejecting the claim for resurrection.

[TedM]

1) I assume there was a field known as the 'Field of Blood' nearby. If it's not true that it was called this because it was bought with Judas' blood money (nor because he died there, as in Acts), then I would think it's because it's just a Christian legend that someone made up to try to "explain" why the field was known by that name. It's seemingly a common thing to make up legends to explain distinct landmarks. That is what I suspect is going on. My understanding (which I recall from an old lecture series so my memory might be off) is that there are clay deposits in the Jerusalem area that have a distinct red colour, and some scholars have speculated that this Field of Blood may have originally been called that due to the red colour, and the legend was taken over by the early Christians. But we no longer know where this field is, so who knows?

Seems reasonable. We just dont know enough -- when did it start being called the Field of Blood? I would think that along with that name would have been an ORIGINAL explanation of the name, which would be hard to displace later with the Judas legend, due to there already having been an established folklore. But if it was not well-known anything is possible.

Note that Acts says the death of Judas was very well known:

And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Why does it need to say that if in fact Judas never had a spectacular death or maybe even never existed? Another liar?

I'm 50/50 on whether there was a historical 'empty tomb'. If there was, then I've always liked James Tabor's suggestion, that the body was originally placed in a temporary tomb due to the coming Passover, and moved to another tomb/grave the following day, and that this was the genesis for the "Oh my Jehovah! His body is missing... He must have been resurrected!!"

While I see the appeal of this, it seems to me that such a move would not be kept secret, especially from those that were of the Jesus circle. If that was the case, I would somewhat expect a reference to that or to something very compatible with that somewhere.