On the immediacy issue, I want to clarify that it’s just a thought. It’s a suggestion, but I’m not sure about it.

On the centurion reporting to Pilate: I quite agree that if the centurion saw the mass resurrection, he would have reported it. So… What makes you think that he didn’t?

In my original post, I mentioned a particular category of people. (Rather, I asked a question.) When you bring up the centurion, my mind immediately goes back to that question. Can you figure out which question I have in mind? And which second question I would go to next?

1.) On “saints”. The word “saints” is used in the New Testament for all Christians. So the passage may refer to disciples of Jesus who had died during the 3 years of his ministry. Or, simply to faithful Jews from before his ministry. It’s not like the current Catholic use of the word “saint”–it doesn’t imply that they were notable people in the city.

2.) On what the centurion & women saw: The text says that the tombs were opened. (In the earthquake, I think.) It also says that the resurrected saints came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection. If they didn’t come out of the tombs, why do you think that the centurion & soldiers & women saw them? Don’t you think that the darkness and the earthquake would be enough to cause amazement amazement?

3.) On the timing. Matthew sticks the group resurrection into the middle of the narrative. My guess is that he’s going with topical arrangement, as he does so often. Here’s the key sentence again:

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.

At first glance, it looks like the bodies were raised at the same time that the tombs were opened. That would mean that they came out of the tombs 3 days later–or more. (It doesn’t say immediately after Jesus’ resurrection.)

I’m wondering if that’s what Matthew actually meant. Or did he mean that they were “raised and came out of the tombs” after Jesus’ resurrection? There’s two options: Immediate resurrection, and later resurrection.

* The immediate option seems more natural, grammatically. At least in English. It’s not a very natural thing to try to group “were raised” with “after his resurrection.”
* But Matthew does have a tendency to group things topically. And we already know that he’s phrasing the timeline awkwardly (to our ears)–because he jumps ahead and then jumps back in v. 54.
* If Matthew is saying they were immediately raised, why doesn’t he say anything about what they were doing in their tombs for 3 days? That’s an awkwardness that rivals the grammatical location of “after his resurrection”. (This isn’t just, “Resurrection? Weird!” This is, “Matthew says that the bodies were raised, and then they just don’t do anything for 3 days? Waird!”)

In short, my guess is that the tombs were opened during the earthquake, and the saints were raised later. Not necessarily at the same time as Jesus–perhaps sometime between his resurrection and ascension.

You’ve got to read the rest of the text and read it closely. The many dead “holy people” or “saints” came back to life. They hung out in or around their tombs waiting for Jesus. They didn’t go into Jerusalem until after Jesus was resurrected. The centurion and the other Roman soldiers saw all the events and were “filled with awe”. The women also saw what had happened.

It’s unlikely that the centurion and Roman soldiers would see such a fantastic event and not report back to Pilate, “You’ll never guess what happened!”

Since they appeared to many people you’d think that word would have also gotten back to the relatives of the “holy people” or “saints” when they appeared in Jerusalem. They did after all appear to many people. The women had seen the resurrected saints also, so you’d think they would have spoken up also.

Since they were saints presumably they would have been rather well known in a holy city like Jerusalem.

So why didn’t Mark, Luke, John or the Apostle Paul mention it? Why didn’t Tacitus, Josephus or Pliny write about such a fantastic “historical” event?

I’m guessing it’s because Matthew made it up. It’s allegorical literature. Mythology. Fiction. To me it puts Matthew in a rather dim light as a credible historian.

” When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son [1] of God!”

” There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”