In public discussions of the historical reliability of the Gospels, Bart Ehrman frequently calls attention to the following passage from Matthew. It deals with supernatural signs that took place when Jesus died on the Cross:
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many (Matt. 27:51-53).
The part about saints being raised and coming out of their tombs is unique to Matthew. It is not in the other Gospels.
For centuries, readers have wanted to know more about this—like what happened to these saints afterward (did they return to their tombs? die again? ascend to heaven?).
But we are told nothing else in the Gospels and have no reliable, supplemental accounts in early Christian literature. In fact, the Church Fathers barely mention the subject.
There is a good bit to say about this passage, but here I want to focus on the use that Ehrman makes of it in debates.
Basically, he claims that this event is (a) strange and (b) not believable.
He will challenge his Christian debate partner and his audience on whether they really believe this happened.
And to make affirming its truthfulness less palatable, he will animatedly mock the idea of accepting it, speaking of the raised saints as “zombies.”
Zombies?
By characterizing these individuals as zombies, Ehrman conjures mental images from comic books, cartoons, and horror movies of shambling, decaying zombies shuffling around Jerusalem—which is a ridiculous image meant to make the hearer find believing in this incident less palatable.
It’s also a logical fallacy known as the prejudicial language fallacy or loaded language fallacy. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:
Loaded language is emotive terminology that expresses value judgments.
When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the listener to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.
That’s exactly what is happening here. Ehrman is using an emotionally loaded term—zombie—that is ostensibly an objective description of the raised saints, when in fact it is not.
He then relies on the emotionally laden term to get the listener to adopt his perspective on the passage when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.
Not Zombies
To see why the term zombie is not an accurate description of the raised saints, we need to consider how the term is used.
For an extended discussion of the concept and history of zombies, you can listen to Episode 159 and Episode 160 of Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World.
But to put the matter concisely, since the term zombie entered the English language, it has conventionally referred to a person who has died and then been returned to life in a damaged, sub-normal state of functioning.
In this sub-normal state, zombies typically move slowly, lack independent thought, can be used to perform slave labor, and may be physically rotting away—among having other horrifying characteristics.
However, this is not what the Bible envisions when it speaks of people being brought back to life.
Instead, they are envisioned either as returning to a healthy, normal state of human functioning or they are envisioned as returning to an improved, glorified state of functioning.
Conceptually, there are three general states of functioning one could return to:
-
- An improved, glorified state—like Jesus and the blessed on the Last Day
- A healthy, normal state—like Lazarus, Jairus’s daughter, and people who are revived after being clinically dead in hospitals
- A damaged, sub-normal state—like Haitian zombies are supposed to be (see the Mysterious World episodes linked above)
It is only the last state that the term zombie applies to in standard English.
We do not call otherwise healthy people who have had their hearts restarted “zombies.”
And English certainly does not use the term to refer to people who come back in a glorified state.
It is only to those returning in an unhealthy, damaged state to which standard English applies the term, and this state is never discussed in the Bible.
As a result, Ehrman is fallaciously misusing the term in an attempt to generate emotional revulsion and/or mocking cynicism on the part of the audience.
In fact, Ehrman is deliberately misusing the biblical text, because Matthew does not invite us to imagine the raised saints as shuffling, horrific zombies.
The fact Matthew refers to them as saints who have been raised telegraphs to the reader that they should be regarded as good.
At a minimum, they would have been returned to normal functioning—like Lazarus and Jairus’s daughter—and they may have been returned to a glorified state—like Jesus and the blessed on the Last Day.
Indeed, these two positive states are the very ones Matthew expects his readers to envision, as they are the ones that apply to the passages in his own Gospel where the dead are raised.
Ehrman is simply abusing the biblical text in order to score rhetorical points.
No Good Reason
And this is simply a rhetorical move, because—per the loaded language fallacy—he has given us no good reason to disbelieve that this happened.
When functioning as a secular historian, Ehrman stresses that historians can’t pass judgment on miracles—on supernatural events that by their nature would go beyond the ordinary operation of history and thus go beyond the historian’s competence.
He thus denies having an anti-supernatural bias that affects his judgment.
But that is exactly what is happening in this case.
In discussions of this subject, Ehrman has appealed to “common sense” as reason to disbelieve that some of the dead were raised during the Crucifixion.
However, from a Christian perspective, “common sense” does not prevent one from believing in the resurrection of Jesus—or Lazarus—or Jairus’s daughter—or the blessed on the Last Day—or the saints who were raised during the Crucifixion.
These may be miracles, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe in them—unless you have decided that miracles are impossible and thus committed yourself to an anti-supernatural bias when reading accounts of them.
What Ehrman really means is that his own sensibilities—informed as they are by anti-supernatural bias—tell him that this couldn’t have happened, and he mistakes his own sensibilities for what is common.
But, in fact, most human beings—both in world history and today—do not share this view and regard the miraculous as a real possibility, however rare miracles may be.
Ehrman has thus given a person open to the miraculous no good reason to disbelieve in this miracle.
Instead, he has abused the biblical text by deliberately misrepresenting what Matthew asks us to imagine.
And he has abused the English language by misusing the term zombie in an attempt to score rhetorical points.
