by tula 65 Replies latest watchtower bible
Sara smiles: If that scripture is right, then they were raised up to go where? not to heaven but to their homes in the city. To do what? I believe it was to show others Jesus power!
So do you think they are still walking around on the earth?
Did they eventually die again?
What thoughts has the wtbs given you concerning that?
Tula,
Christ was dead. He could not raise anyone back to life when this earthquake occurred. This is why I can say with certainty that the dead were not brought back to life as stated but simply raised. The event had no further repercussions as proof. No sciptures saying God raised them either. When Christ comes again to raise the dead there will be a resurrection but to immortal human life not the mortal life Lazarus and others had. So Paul who also raised the dead later in time taught that the resurrection had not occurred. He resurrected mortal humans but did not count that as the resurrection of the dead. This will only take place when Christ returns at a future time.
Joseph
Tula,
Jews had sacred terms for their dead. Matthew used Saints but Hebrews used Angels for their dead prophets (Heb 1:1). So we read: 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And we also have: 13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Such Angels were also holy ones or Saints as Matthew put it. No smoking gun here.
Joseph
Thank you all for your input on this.
Matthew 27:52-53, which seems to describe the raising of the saints immediately after the death of Jesus on the cross and their entry into the holy city after his resurrection, has long been recognized as one of the most puzzling and difficult passages in the New Testament and certainly the most perplexing in the Gospel of Matthew. It has been deservedly called a crux interpretum in the Gospel of Matthew. However, I would like to assist those who are investigating this text by calling attention to my article entitled MATTHEW 27:52-53 AS APOCALYPTIC APOSTROPHE: TEMPORAL-SPATIAL COLLAPSE IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW which appears in the JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 122/3 (Fall 2003): 489-515. In this article I argue that when Matthew speaks about the raising of the saints and their entry into the holy city he is not talking about an event of the past. He is talking about an event that is still future. He is speaking of the same event that occurs in the Book of Revelation 21:2-27 and context where once again we see the entry of risen saints into the holy city. Therefore this passage is not a historical report, but a piece of apocalyptic prophecy such as we find in the Book of Revelation and other end-time literature. Matthew practices something called temporal-conflation, temporal-folding, or temporal-collapse. He takes an event of the apocalyptic future and pulls it back into the past in order to create a flash-forward effect in his narrative. Matthew 27:52-53 is best understood as a flash forward to the apocalyptic future. Those who are interested in how this approach solves the many problems of Matthew 27:52-53 might want to spend some time with this article.
Kenneth L. Waters, Sr.
Well, it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say, all it says is they came out of the graves after the resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared unto many. It is very difficult I know.
One example, might be Lazarus. I think Lazarus was raised from the dead to die again. It’s possible, that however, this was a very special group of people raised from the dead and they appeared unto many. I’m not sure that that word really can tell us much. I don’t know whether that means they actually appeared in the physical form or whether they appeared in some form where you could appear or disappear. And if that’s the case, they would be in some kind of glorified form. But because the text doesn’t say I would be a little at ease in terms of expressing dogmatism.
Let me give you my opinion however, for what it’s worth, I think they probably didn’t die again. I think this was a demonstration of the power of Christ, in His kingdom power, which would be to raise men for eternal life. So I tend to lean that way.
Question: "What is the meaning of those who were raised to life at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:52-53)?"
Answer: Matthew 27:50-53 records, “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”
This event occurred as a testimony to the immortal power ascribed to Jesus Christ alone (1 Timothy 6:14-16). Only God has the power of life and death (1 Samuel 2:6; Deuteronomy 32:29). Therefore, the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity. All other religions and their respective leaders do not serve a risen Lord. By overcoming death, Jesus Christ immediately receives precedence because He came back to life when everyone else did not. The resurrection has given us a reason to tell others about Him and place trust in God (1 Corinthians 15:14). The resurrection has given us assurance that our sins are forgiven (1 Corinthians 15:17). Paul clearly says in this verse that no resurrection equals zero forgiveness of our sins. And, finally, the resurrection has given us a reason to have hope today (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). If Christ was not raised from the dead, then Christians would be no better off spiritually than non-Christians. But the fact is that God did raise "Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification" (Romans 4:24-25).
The raising of the saints fits into the overall rhetorical devices and strategies used by Matthew in his gospel. Examining Ezekiel 37 and the bones raised to life in connection with this story reveals that an Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the raising of these saints. Additionally, the raising of the saints relates directly to the coming kingdom. The raising of a few and not all of the saints shows that Jesus has power to resurrect, but also points forward to the second coming and judgment of Jesus Christ, which will include all those whose names are written in the Book Life by faith in the grace of God. Knowing that Jesus has died and conquered death through His resurrection ought to hasten our desire to repent and trust Him alone for salvation so we too can one day be resurrected “in the twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:52).
A. The significance of the event is well summarized by one of our LCMS New Testament theologians, the late Dr. Martin Franzmann, who wrote: "The saints proceeding from their tombs and appearing in the holy city indicate that Christ's death is the victory over death, that He is the firstborn from the dead." Matthew's mention of this event, of course, was not intended to satisfy our curiosity about the details of what this event might have entailed at a personal level, but to impress on all readers in subsequent times that Christ is the Victor over death and that His resurrection guarantees our own.
27:52-53 Various strands of explanation for these two mysterious verses seem to be woven together in the New Testament. When the Messiah died as Son of Man, like all other humans before him he descended into Hades (the Hebrew Sheol was the place where the dead awaited the resurrection). The difference was that he now "descended into the lower part of the earth" (Ephesians 4:9) to bring the dead his good news of their redemption. Peter called this "a proclamation to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19). With the Messiah's resurrection those who were released "appeared to many" with their resurrection bodies. And it seems they ascended with the Messiah at the end of the forty days (Ephesians 4:7-9).
Two short verses in Matthew raise perhaps the most serious questions that can be put to a literal interpretation of the resurrection stories. Matthew said that at the moment of Jesus' death "the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52-53). This is an account of a miracle unsurpassed anywhere else in the gospels. It makes the postresurrection appearing of Jesus "to above five hundred brethren at once" (1 Cor. 15:6) appear tame in comparison.
In this case, many saints were raised and appeared to many. Unlike the accounts of Jesus raising Lazarus or the synagogue ruler's daughter or Jesus himself being raised, this depicts saints dead for way over "three days" being raised. And, from the phrase, "they entered the holy city and appeared to many," it is possible to infer that these many raised saints showed themselves to many who were not believers! Yet Josephus, who wrote a history of Jerusalem both prior to and after her fall, i.e., forty years after the death of Jesus, knew of Jesus but nothing of this raising of many and appearing to many. Of this greatest of all miracles, not a rumor appears in the works of Josephus or of any other ancient author. Surely at least one of the many raised out of those many emptied tombs was still alive just prior to Josephus's time, amazing many. Or at least many who had seen those many saints were still repeating the tale. Although people may have doubted that Jesus raised a few people while he was still alive and although "some doubted" Jesus' own resurrection (Matt. 28:17), who could fail to have been impressed by many risen saints appearing to many? How also could Peter have neglected to mention them in his Jerusalem speech a mere fifty days after they "appeared to many in the holy city"? Surely their appearance must have been foremost on everyone's mind. So why didn't Paul mention such a thing in his letters, our earliest sources? Why did the women who visited the "empty tomb" on Sunday morning not take notice that many other tombs were likewise open? Why didn't the visitors to Jesus' tomb mention that they had met or seen many raised saints in that vicinity, meeting them on the way to Jesus' tomb or on the way back to town? Why did the apostles disbelieve the first reports of Jesus' resurrection when a mass exit from the tombs had accompanied his resurrection? Why didn't Matthew know how many raised saints there were? Why couldn't he name a single one or a single person to whom they had appeared? How did Matthew know that these saints had come out of their tombs? That would be more than anyone had seen in the case of Jesus' resurrection.
Let's look at the implications of some of these questions. According to the literal Greek in Matthew 27:50-53, the tombs were opened and the saints were "raised" at the instant of Jesus' death, but they entered the city over a day later! Apparently, neither Joseph of Arimathea nor Nicodemus, while burying Jesus (John. 19:38-40), chanced to marvel at all the opened graves and the raised saints in them waiting patiently for Sunday morning. The women in Matthew's account were likewise oblivious to the many graves lying opened by the earthquake and the saints supposedly just beginning to leave the cemeery for town the same morning the women were arriving. And the other gospels were silent on this major miracle involving many! Paul was silent on this matter in 1 Corinthians 15, where he discussed the resurrection at great length! Peter was silent on the matter in his speech recorded in Acts 2, delivered a mere 50 days after the many saints entered the city and appeared to many! Surely the "gift of tongues" would pale in miraculous significance compared to the "raising of the many who appeared to many." Yet Peter said nothing about the latter. We are not talking about just the apostles, like Peter, being witnesses to just the resurrection of Jesus; we are talking about many people who had witnessed many saints being raised, and some of these "many" witnesses were surely present in the audience Peter preached to that morning. So why would he have had to speak at length to convince them that the resurrection of one man had happened? Having witnessed the resurrection of many, they would have readily accepted the claim that one man had been resurrected.
And what about the raised saints themselves? Wouldn't they have made terrific evangelists? But we don't read anything about that; instead, we have silence. We admit that to argue from silence is not equivalent to disproof; however, it is not the silence of extrabiblical sources that makes us doubt this account of multiple resurrections. It is the silence of other biblical authors that is generating our doubt.
A few extrabiblical sources did expand Matthew's tale of the many raised saints. These expansions were composed over one hundred years after Matthew's gospel was written. Remarkably, they even mentioned the names of some of the "many saints" raised, like Simeon and his sons, Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets, etc., names that Matthew neglected to include. Of course, these expansions of the two extraordinary verses in Matthew and the list of names are found only in apocryphal gospels, which are full of all sorts of marvelous miracles that even surpass the ones attributed to Jesus in the four gospels that the church now endorses (like the story of the talking cross that followed Jesus out of his tomb in the Gospel of Peter).
Perhaps Matthew, like the authors of the apocryphal gospels, collected tales he had heard from other believers and/or composed gospel fictions. Perhaps when he composed those two short verses, he was only giving mythical form to the belief that "the resuscitation of the righteous was assigned to the first appearance of the Messiah, in accordance with the Jewish ideas" (D. F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined). He was also indulging in miracle enhancement: multiplying signs and wonders said to accompany Jesus' death and resurrection, i.e., Matthew's unique account of two earthquakes, one that opened the tombs of the many saints (at Jesus' death) and one that moved the stone to open Jesus' tomb (Easter morning). The other gospel writers remarkably neglected to mention that even one earthquake took place. That leaves Matthew's account on doubly shaky ground. Neither did Matthew use the most precise words to depict this wonder, because the verses state, literally, that the saints were raised at the time of Jesus' death and then lay around in their tombs for a day and a half before entering the city! That absurdity arises from what appears to be a sloppy interpolation of the phrase "after his resurrection":
And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised: and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many (Matthew 27:50-53).
The verses make more sense without that phrase than with it. Without it, they would simply state that the raised saints immediately entered the city upon Jesus' death. But some Christian copyist, or perhaps the gospel's chief editor, felt obligated to add the phrase "after his resurrection" to ensure the priority of Jesus' resurrection, regardless of the literal consequences.
People who believe that many tombs were opened and that many saints appeared to many will of course have little trouble also believing that Jesus was resurrected. However, those of us who doubt the story of the many raised saints see in it a reflection of the kind of blind faith that made the story of Jesus' resurrection catch on in the first place.
RELATED ARTICLES
Isa.26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.
- Ez.37:7-10 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
- Mat.27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Matt. 27:51-53 - Grave opened, many saints raised & appeared to many.
2. How did their resurrection occur? Why did it happen? What became of them after they were resurrected?
3. What we know for sure:
a. Tombs were opened by earthquake when Jesus died.
b. Many bodies of dead saints were raised from the dead.
c. They came out of their graves after Christ was resurrected.
d. They went into Jerusalem & appeared to many.
e. THEY WERE ALIVE -- Not zombies ("a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated…a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead." (according to voodoo belief, jrp ) -Merriam Dictionary 4. Some have speculated they ascended into heaven (McGarvey).
-Little doubt "these resurrected are symbolic, showing that the resurrection of Christ is the resurrection of the race" (The Fourfold Gospel, 732).
5. Take a look at bodily resurrection to strengthen understanding & faith.
I. WHAT IS BODILY RESURRECTION?
A. The Life Force Is Restored To The Flesh.
1. cf. Death - Jas. 2:26.
2. cf. Resurrections from the dead:
a. 1 Kgs. 17:17-23 - Soul (nephesh, life) comes back to the body.
b. 2 Kgs. 4:32-35 - Flesh is warm (functioning, alive) once more.
c. Lk. 7:15 - Resurrected could speak.
d. Lk. 8:55 - Normal bodily functions resumed.
e. Jno. 11:14, 17, 43-44 - Another example of full bodily function.
f. Acts 9:37, 40-41 - Cognitive responses.
B. Summary Of Characteristics Of Those Raised From The Dead:
1. They were living - Lk. 24:5.
2. They had bodies - Lk. 24:36-43. (Not spirits or ghosts)
3. They were conscious & cognitive with physical activity - Jno. 12:1-2.
II. WHY WERE PEOPLE RAISED FROM THE DEAD?
A. As An Act Of Divine Mercy - cf. Lk. 7:12-13.
B. To Give Confirming Evidence Of God's Power, Presence & Approval.
1. 1 Kgs. 17:24 - By this she knew Elijah was a prophet.
2. Lk. 7:16-17 - Evidence of God's approval & presence.
3. Matt. 27:52-53 - Though not stated, we conclude the same purpose was behind these resurrections.
C. What Was Accomplished By These Resurrections? Faith In Those Who Considered & Accepted The Evidence.
1. Many believed - Jno. 11:45; 12:10-11, 17-18; Acts 9:42.
2. If true in the case of Lazarus & Dorcas, why not also Matt. 27:52-53?
-(Not a deterrent or distraction to faith, but an opportunity to glorify God - cf. Lk. 7:16).
III. WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE WHO WERE RESURRECTED?
A. They Continued To Live Out Their Lives Until Death Came - cf. 1 Cor. 15:22 ("all die").
1. 1 Kgs. 17:22 - "See, your son lives!"
2. Lk. 7:15 - "And He presented him to his mother."
3. Jno. 12:1-2 - Lazarus resumed his normal activities of life.
4. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose & lesson of resurrection!
B. What About The Saints In Matthew 27:52-53?
1. First, no direct statement of them after they "appeared to many." (So, we would do well to not conjecture.")
2. Two possibilities:
a. If they lived out their physical lives & died, it would be as others who had been raised from the dead. (Exception: Jesus - Acts 2:24; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:18 - He will resurrect our bodies - 1 Cor. 15:20- 22).
b. If they appeared & then ascended to God's presence (paradise), they may be viewed as demonstrating "that the sting was now taken from death, that the power of the grave was broken, that men shall rise again with their bodies and be known and recognized…" (Pulpit Comm., XV:595). - cf. 1 Cor. 15:20, 22
-Lessons for us:1. Christ has power over physical & spiritual death - Jno. 11:25-26.
2. We must have faith in Him & His power over death (Rev. 1:18).
3. We will experience bodily resurrection - Jno. 5:28-29.
4. We must experience a spiritual resurrection to have the resurrection of life - Col. 2:12.
Conclusion 1. The resurrection of people in the past assures us of God's power over death. It proves Jesus is the Christ. And, as a Christian there is comfort in knowing death is not the end of our existence.
2. Are you ready for death & your resurrection?
Matt 27:52,53
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which were dead arose, 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.Known dead people will be brought back to life in a 'spiritual' body and appear to living people in Jerusalem. That is the Gospel account of what happened the first time, and it is what Paul is empathically explaining to watch for this time.
Additionally the Gospel records, that after Jesus raised from the dead He remained on earth for 40 days and then He ascended into heaven. Paul is explaining that this is the same sequence of events that will take place at the time of the Rapture of the Church. He is demonstrating that the Ascension of Jesus into heaven is indisputably linked as a foreshadow to the Rapture of the Church. And, because the Church is called the Body of Christ this is said to be the 'Body of Christ' going up into heaven in both instances.
Paul is also saying that from the time the 'dead in Christ' raise from the dead this time, they will stay on earth for 40 days [just like their predecessors did in Matthew 27: 52,53 ] and then they will be Raptured along with those that are a live and waiting for the 40th day to arrive. The living are waiting for the 40th day because they knew the warning sign had taken place 40 days prior.
And lastly, Paul sets the timing for both the 'dead in Christ to rise' as well as the Rapture when he says that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the Jewish Feast of First Fruits and ascended 40 days later. That interpolates into the 'dead in Christ' will rise this time on the Jewish Feast of First Fruits and the Rapture of the Church will happen 40 days later. And all that comes together to say that the WARNING SIGN for the Rapture of the Church is the 'dead in Christ' rising on First Fruits!
Please see the article: SUBSTANCE & SHADOW
I argue that when Matthew speaks
This tells me that the author can only be speculative and opinionated. What does he draw on to back up his ideas? Other ancient writings? More scripture? No, I don't see it. Everything I have heard so far only seems to be conjecture.
I do very much appreciate your contributions, thought, effort, and time, WriteTo Know.
The Watchtower Society and Johannes Greber
Ken Raines
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Watchtower Society occasionally used the translation of the New Testament by Johannes Greber to support their similar renderings of John 1:1 and Matthew 27:52,53. In 1983 they officially stopped using his translation because of its "close rapport with spiritism." The information that Geber Was a Spiritist Was readily available to the Society's writers. In 1955 and 1956 the Society's writers themselves wrote of Greber's spiritism. Their use of Greber's translation to support their New World Translation and their explanations for it is evidence of shallow scholarship.
Johannes Greber was a Catholic priest turned spiritist who translated the New Testament "with the help of God's spirits." His experiences with spirits and their communications with him are related in his book, Communication With the Spirit World published in 1932. (See previous article)
Greber's translation reads similarly to the New World Translation at Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 27:52,53. The Society quoted and referred to it in support of their controversial renderings of these verses in material they published from 1961 to 1976.
The Society Quotes Greber
The Society's much disputed translation of Jn. 1:1 is "the Word was a god" in clause c. Since this translation is usually considered "tendentious" or even impossible by recognized scholars, the Society has sought support for this rendering in lesser known, and in some cases, obscure sources. They have, for example, quoted Johannes Greber's and John S. Thompson's translation that render it in the same manner. Both individuals apparently received this translation from spirits. [1]
The Society quoted Greber's translation of Jn. 1:1 as if he was a noteworthy Greek scholar or authority in their publications The Word--Who Is He According to John, 1962, p. 5; The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1962, p. 554; Make Sure of all Things, 1965, p. 489, and Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 1669.
Greber's New Testament translation was also used by the Society in support of their unusual translation of Matt. 27:52,53. These verses describe an apparent resurrection at the time of Jesus' death. Most translations render these verses much like the NIV which has:
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.
The early church Father Ignatious apparently referred to a resurrection of some Old Testament "holy people" at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection that were seen in Jerusalem. [2] However, only Matthew's gospel records such an event in the Bible and the grammar of the Greek text here is somewhat ambiguous. Both the Society's and Greber's translations of these verses state that instead of a resurrection (neither believe in a bodily resurrection) there was simply a projection of dead bodies out of their graves as a result of the earthquake that accompanied Jesus' death and these dead bodies were thereafter seen by others who passed by on their way into Jerusalem.
They quoted Greber's translation of these verses to support their similar translation in The Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1961, p. 30; Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 1134; The Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1975, p. 640, and The Watchtower, April 15, 1976, p. 231.
Greber a Spiritist
The Society however, in 1955 and 1956 wrote material that used Greber's translation and book as an example of spiritism. This appeared in the booklet, What do the Scriptures Say About "Survival After Death?" where they said:
It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book entitled "Communication With the Spirit World, Its Laws and Its Purpose." (1932, Macoy Publishing Company, New York) In its Foreword he makes the typical misstatement: "The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible... [3]
Also the February 15, 1956, Watchtower made these famous statements:
Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The New Testament, copyrighted in 1937: "I myself was a Catholic priest, and... never as much believed in the possibility of communicating with the world of God's spirits. The day came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such communication,.... My experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both German and English and bears the title, Communication with the Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose." (Page 15, ¶ 2, 3).... Greber endeavors to make his New Testament read very spiritualistic.... ex-priest Greber believes [spirits] helped him in his translation. [4]
From these quotations it is apparent that the information that Greber was a spiritist and that he "translated" the New Testament with the help of spirits was readily available to the Society's writers and was known by at least one of the Society's writers in 1955 and 1956. This is only five years before they began quoting Greber favorably.
Letter to the Greber Foundation
The Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation republished Greber's New Testament translation and Communication book in 1980.[5] Apparently aware of the Society quoting approvingly of his translation they sent a copy of the 1980 ed. of the translation as well as a copy of Greber's Communication With the Spirit World of God book to the Society's headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y.. In response, the person occupying desk "EG:ESF" in the Society's correspondence department responded with a thank you letter dated December 20, 1980. This letter said:
JOHANNES GREBER MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
139 Hillside Ave.
Teaneck, NJ 07666Gentlemen:
This is to acknowledge receipt of the two books you recently sent to us, The New Testament translated by Johannes Greber, and his book "Communication With the Spirit World of God."
We appreciate you sending these volumes on to us. For some years we have been aware of the translation by Johannes Greber and have on occasion even quoted it. Copies of the translation, though, have been hard to obtain. Since we have four libraries... we wonder about the possibility of obtaining a few additional copies of The New Testament.[ 6]
Here the writer at the headquarters asks for more copies of the translation but not of the Communication book. "EG" knows that they have been quoting from it "on occasion" and have been aware of it for "some time".
The Society Responds to Questions
Before and after the above letter from the Society was sent to the Greber Foundation, numerous individuals wrote the Society about the translation. For example, Keith Morse of Personal Freedom Outreach (PFO) wrote the Society one year after the above letter was sent to the Greber Foundation. He asked about the translation and was told in a response by the Society:
With reference to your inquiry regarding the publication the New Testament, by Johannes Greber, we have to inform you that we do not publish or stock this book. In line with your comments, on the title page of our library copy of this book, against the date 1937, the publishers are given as John Felsburg, Inc., 88 N. Fourth Ave., New York, NY. This is really the only information that we have,... [7]
Here, one year after receiving a copy of the 1980 edition of his New Testament translation and asking for additional copies for their other libraries, the Watchtower correspondent, desk "EW:ESG", says the only information they have is the address of their library copy (not 'copies') which was the 1937 John Felsburg edition. What happened to the other copies? Did they throw them away because of their spiritistic origin or were they in different libraries which the correspondence desk didn't check? Others who wrote asking about the Greber New Testament and an address of where to obtain a copy got the same answer. [8]
This prompted M. Kurt Goedelman of PFO to write the Society about this. In his letter dated September 27, 1982, he gave the Society some of the references in their literature to Greber as scholarly support of their translation and then said:
The reason I am directing this letter to you is to receive a response to why you use Greber's work to support your theology? This may seem like a peculiar question, however when one checks into the source of Mr. Greber's work, we find he is a spirit medium. The fact that he is a medium is not hidden from public knowledge, but rather is the very heart of the Greber message.
I have enclosed a photocopy of a flyer furnished by the Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation which explains briefly his mediumship. Also this flyer gives insight into how Greber allegedly made his 'New Testament' translation. I have marked this flyer as "Figure #1" for your convenience.
In addition to Greber's 'New Testament' he has written a book entitled Communication With the Spirit World of God, .... I know that the Watchtower Society is aware of this publication as they have purchased a copy of this very work from the Greber Memorial Foundation. This is proven by the enclosed photocopied Watchtower letter (marked "Figure #2"), which has also been provided by the Greber Foundation.
Thus I restate my question as to why the writers of Watchtower material are in use of a double standard. That is, numerous Watchtower publications roll off your presses instructing members to have nothing to do with spiritistic works, then they themselves quote from spiritistic material to endorse the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses....
Also in closing I would very much appreciate your comments concerning the enclosed photocopied Watchtower letter to Mr. Keith Morse (marked "Figure #4"). The Society informed Mr. Morse that they do not know where to obtain a Greber 'New Testament' translation and only furnished him with an out-of-date address. Take careful note of the date of the letter to Mr. Morse (December 10, 1981) and then note the date of the letter to the Greber Foundation (December 20, 1980). This proves that the Society did have an up-to-date address, but provided bogus information to Mr. Morse's inquiry.
I ask that you please not pass my letter over or discard it before a reply is sent. I will be anxiously awaiting your prompt response.
Sincerely,
M. Kurt Goedelman,
Director [9]
Needless to say, they never sent him a reply. Counter-cult groups like PFO published material on the Society's use of Greber and what they considered the "bogus" information and cover-up of their knowledge of Greber. This information eventually reached JWs themselves. For example, Marilyn Zweiful wrote a letter to the Society dated December 21, 1982, after a friend of hers was asked about the Greber situation by her son-in-law who had heard a recorded message tape ('A message for JWS') that discussed this subject. It discussed the Society's use of Greber, his spiritism as explained by the Society itself in the 1956 Watchtower article and their recent correspondence with the Greber Foundation. She stated that she didn't know how to explain this contradictory information to her "confused" friends and asked for the Society's help. In reply, the Society wrote a letter dated March 15, 1983(desk ER:ESZ). This letter to me is revealing. In it they stated:
No doubt you have had opportunity to read the comments in our letter dated December 31, 1982, to Brother Jack Gottfried, secretary of your congregation. In our letter we addressed the issue of the propriety of the Society in quoting Johannes Greber's translation as an example of another translation that agreed with the New World Translation. It was stated that it was not our concern to go into the background or religious convictions of each translator. Who really can say if Mr. Greber was under the influence of the demons when translating a particular verse or portion of his translation? If he was under demon influence in translating John 1:1, then it is not beyond the Devil or the demons to tell the truth on occasions, if doing so will advance their evil ends in some way, such as giving opposers some excuse for claiming that the translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses must not be correct because it happens to translate John 1:1 in a manner similar to the way the translation in question does....
You also mention in your letter a tape recording which mentions a "thank you" letter to the Greber Foundation from the Society.... Our having this Bible translation in our library by no means indicated that we agreed with everything in it. We have a large number of books written by a wide range of religions. We keep these simply for reference.
I do not want to analyze this response to death, but it is interesting to me for a number of reasons. They said it was not their "concern" to go into the background of the translators they quote in support of their translation. This is simply shoddy scholarship. Also, in saying that it is not beyond the Devil or the demons to tell the truth about how John 1:1 is to be translated if it will further their cause "such as giving opposers some excuse" for claiming the JW's translation must be incorrect or suspect is incredibly paranoid and myopic.
Think about it. Greber's translation was printed in 1937, thirteen years before the Society released its New Testament translation in 1950. Demons had Greber translate John 1:1 correctly, unlike most translations, as "the Word was a god", simply so opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses starting thirteen years later would have an "excuse" for calling into question such a translation! A JW could argue that the Society believed in the "a god" translation years before Greber's translation, so the demons were trying to discredit the JW interpretation by giving the "correct" translation to a spiritist like Greber! This is simply myopic in the extreme. What about John S. Thompson's similar translation from 1829 when he was influenced by spirits? This is well before JWs were around. Did the demons influence Thompson to translate it as the "Logos was a god" just so opposers of JWs would have an "excuse" to call into question the Society's translation over one hundred years later?
Questions from Readers
As a result of these numerous letters, the Society formally ended their use of Greber's New Testament in 1983. In the April 1, 1983 Watchtower they printed the following:
Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?
This translation was used occasionally in support of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on "God's Spirit World" to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: "His wife, a medium of God's Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber." The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber's translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament. [10]
This "official" statement by the Society contains several problems. First, by saying "But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition" to his New Testament he relied on spirits in the "translation" process, they are implying that the 1937 edition they had and used before did not contain this information or that they were not aware of it. This is further born out by the later statement that they have "deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism". If they did know during the 1960s and 1970s that he was a spiritist, then they wouldn't have used it in the first place. That appears to be the implication.
However, the 1937 edition's introduction said the same as the 1980 edition. This can be demonstrated by the Society's quoting from it in the 1956 Watchtower quoted above. They quoted the introduction as well as his Communication With the Spirit World book to show he was a spiritist. The Society appears to be saying in this 1983 article that they had just found out that Greber was a spiritist based on the introduction of the 1980 edition. This was directly stated by the Australian branch of the Watchtower. John Pye wrote a letter to the Australian branch shortly after this Questions from Readers item appeared. Going by the name of John Richards for the sake of privacy he asked them in a letter dated June 3, 1983, when they first found out about Greber's spiritism. They replied with a letter dated June 14, 1983. The respondent was desk "SA:SP" who said:
We are replying to your letter of June 3, 1983, in which you inquired as to the time the Watchtower first discovered that Johannes Greber relied on the spirit world to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. As soon as we found out that he had connections with spiritism, we ceased using his translation as an authority and openly made this known in the April 1, 1983 issue of the Watchtower. Some may wish to impute wrong motive in regard to our original use of this translation, but please be assured we take an honest approach to our study of God's Word. Jehovah's Witnesses have always been opposed to any form of spiritism....
The rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation is no way dependent on the translation by Johannes Greber. It is based on good scholarship and a sincere desire to render the text according to the original Greek used by the writer. If individuals or other organizations wish to analyze our motives and present these in a critical and negative manner, we leave that to them. We stand before our God with a clear conscience as we promote true worship...
Here the branch correspondent, going by the April 1, 1983, Watchtower claimed that as soon as they found out about his spiritism they stopped using his translation. This is not true. They knew he was a spiritist in 1955 and 1956! By "they" and "the Society", I mean Watchtower Society writers. Is it possible they all forgot about Greber's spiritism? Did the author(s) of the 1955 and 1956 material die or forget five years later who Greber was? This could be possible. This writer asked Ray Franz, one of the compilers of the Society's Bible Encyclopedia Aid to Bible Understanding which quoted Greber twice, if he was responsible for either of those two references and if he knew who Greber was. He replied:
On the Aid material, all articles were always read by and, if considered necessary, edited by at least one other person on the project staff. So I am certain to have at least reviewed the writeups of the two articles you list. And I am equally certain that in doing so the thought of Greber's being connected with spiritism never entered my mind. I was doing circuit and district work in the Caribbean at the time the October 1, 1955 and February 15, 1956, articles came out with their information on Greber. I read them of course, but in the years that followed between then and the start of the Aid project in 1966, I also read thousands of articles in the 240 other Watchtowers and the 240 Awakes published during those ten years, plus many other publications. I would no more remember his name than I would remember the name of Doctor Rumble or Jean Brierre, mentioned on the same page with him in the 1955 magazine, or Bishop Samuel Fallows, mentioned on the same page with him in the 1956 issue. Had I remembered the brief mention of him in the 1955 and 1956 articles I am sure it would have caused me to express concern over the use of his translation. It was not until after leaving the Brooklyn headquarters that the issue of the propriety of quoting from Greber's translation ever came to my attention. What is true of me is, I believe, true of the others working on the Aid project.... I believe most of the staff members I knew would have conscientious qualms about quoting anything connected with spiritism, other than in discussing the wrongful aspects of spiritism... [11]
I believe these statements are true. Most people would forget a mention of an individual in an article years later. However, it doesn't address the question of why the society's authors quoted his translation in the first place. This to me indicates the shoddy nature of Watchtower scholarship and research.
Watchtower Scholarship
Why did they quote him if they didn't know who it was they were quoting? It seems to me in reading thousands of pages of their literature, that the writers do not do much serious research. Nor do they present their material in a scholarly or scholastically sound manner. It is hard to escape the impression that what they do many times is simply look for evidence that supports the Society's position and present that without fairly analyzing the evidence or presenting competing views in addition to their own.
This appears to be the case with their quoting Greber and their material on John 1:1 in general. A writer probably simply went to the Bethel library and quoted a few things (including Greber's translation) that they could use and didn't do much if any research on who they quoted and why they held their position. This seems to be indicated by the response to Marilyn Zweiful's letter to the Society. The response she got as quoted above was that it was not their habit of going into the "background and religious convictions" of the translators they quote. Given this, it is easy to see why something like this could happen. Since this shortcoming apparently hasn't been corrected, it is easy to see why this still happens, such as their quoting John S. Thompson's translation.
I will make an even harder statement about Watchtower Society material. I can't think of anything they have produced that evidences serious, sound scholarship and research on their part. This is true of all subjects, not just translation questions such as John 1:1. A few JWs and ex-JWs have tried to defend the Society on some of this, but unsuccessfully in my judgment. [12] As Jerry Bergman in a letter to the author stated:
... the Watchtower's historical archives provide a seemingly inexhaustible pool of craziness, superficially written articles, and naive acceptance of in vogue ideas. One would think that a person who was Biblically oriented would have stayed closer to the wealth of scholarship that had been completed up to that time.... Much of the Society's problem is their incredibly superficial research, and the fact that the attitude of "God directs us" tends to cause one to be lazy--why work hard if God directs your ways, for God will insure that only what is true will be published... [13]
References and notes
1. See the articles, "The American Quarterly Review and John S. Thompson" and "Johannes Greber" in this issue.
2. Ignatious, Magnesians, chapter ix; Trallions, chapter ix.
3. What do the Scriptures Say About "Survival After Death?", 1955, p. 88. These comments were repeated in The Watchtower, October 1, 1955, p. 603, ¶33.
4. The Watchtower, February 15, 1956, pp. 110, 111.
5. The Communication book was retitled Communication With the Spirit World of God with the 1980 edition.
6. For a photo copy of this letter see: Cetnar, William, Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 53 (hereafter Questions); Magnani, Duane and Barrett, Arthur, Dialogue with Jehovah's Witnesses, Vol. 1(Clayton CA.: Witness, Inc.), 1983, p. 62. (Hereafter Dialogue.)
7. Letter from the Watchtower Society to Keith Morse, December 10, 1981. For a photo copy of this letter see, Dialogue, vol. 1, p. 61; Questions, p. 53.
8. See Waters, Randall, Thus Saith the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1982, 1987, pp. 56-59.
9. Letter from M. Kurt Goedelman to Watchtower Society, September 27, 1982, pp. 1, 2.
10. The Watchtower, April 1, 1983, p. 31.
11. Letter from Raymond Franz to author, March 8, 1993. Ray in the letter also stated [page 2]: "That does not mean that the handling of inquiries by the Watch Tower's offices is consistently straightforward, for it obviously is often not. The 1983 letter and also the Questions from Readers... clearly exemplify a degree of deviousness. The inquiries sent in plainly set out the facts so that the writer of the reply would not be dependent on a photographic memory to see the connection."
12. Herle, Nelson, The Trinity Doctrine Examined in the Light of History and the Bible, 1983; Penton, M. James, Apocalypse Delayed, 1985, pp. 174-5. Penton also says on pages 196 and 197 that the Society's writings on evolution such as Did Man Get Here by Evolution or Creation? from 1967 "are among the best published by the Watch Tower Society" as they relied on JWs who had "scientific and technical knowledge". Such publications are examples of the Watchtower's shallow scholarship. The Evolution book is a collection of misrepresentations, quoting out of context, and other typical Society misuses of sources.
13. An excerpt of this letter was published in the Vol. 1, #4 issue of JW Research, "Angels and Women", p. 28.
And the Greek word common used for Resurrection (anastasis) was not used in these verses.
So... the Greek wording does matter after all?
As I already suggested above, egeirôis the less "physical" of the two verbs used in the NT for "resurrect" -- naturally, Paul's favourite, but, as far as the verb is concerned, also Matthew's. If we want to stress (and exaggerate) the difference with anistemi, it is similar to the difference between "to wake up" and to "rise". Of course practically they do overlap a lot, but it is still a very poor choice of words for the Greber-Franz-Malik scenarii -- especially with the metaphor of sleep for death (kekoimèmenôn, 52a), which precisely calls for egeirô as "waking up" (cf. 1:24 etc. for the literal sense). Note that the related egersis (a NT hapax legomenon in the awkward harmonising addition, v. 53) corresponds to egeirô and clearly refers to Jesus' resurrection.
Other clear uses of egeirô (the verb used in 27:52) for resurrectin Matthew (leaving aside the allusions): 10:8; 11:5; 12:42; 14:2; 16:21; 17:9,23; 20:19; 26:32; 27:63f; 28:6f. Bottom line: it is Matthew's standard Greek verb for resurrection, and in connection with the dead the meaning is unmistakable.
Narkissos,
Once again this is admittedly your opinion. Is it a poor choice of words or a better understanding of their proper use? It tickles me when someone in modern times thinks they know more about how such words may be used. Somehow they know better than the person that lived, breathed, spoke, witnessed and wrote in the language at the time. Even street talk today uses words differently than schooled individuals and we may not find such definitions in the dictionary. Proper use does matter as I have stated many times before. Dictionaries do not always work and may need updating. Everyone keeps ignoring the truth right in front of their face and that is that Jesus was dead. They insist on making their own doctrine by insisting that they understand such words and their use better when verses and doctrine already clearly established flatly teach otherwise. But that is also something we need to consider when investigating this matter. So now you know the rest of the story.
Joseph
PS. What Greber or the WT teach does not matter to me. If for some reason they get close to the truth so what? We are working with the text and I stay with what is written in it.
It tickles me when someone in modern times thinks they know more about how such words may be used. Somehow they know better than the person that lived, breathed, spoke, witnessed and wrote in the language at the time.
Lol. Isn't it exactly what you are doing? Does putting the dictionaries away when you don't like what you find in them make it any better?
I didn't quote any scholarly authority, I gave you a list of references illustrating how the same book uses the same verb in a similar context (the dead). That means homework -- the same kind which has been done upstream of the dictionaries you lightly dismiss.
Once you have ascertained that Matthew's use of egeirô in all similar contexts does mean "resurrect", the burden of proof is yours to show why it should mean something else in 27:52. And your only argument at this point is extra-contextual: because it clashes with Paul (as the editor of vs. 53 probably felt already). But why shouldn't it?
Btw, your point that Jesus couldn't resurrect the dead because he was dead is moot -- not only on the basis of contemporary beliefs about the dead, which I know you also dismiss. Check 2 Kings 13:20f (which may well lie somewhere in the background of the Matthean story).
