(June 24, 2016 at 12:49 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Because you'd think something like that would have made enough of an impression that someone besides that Gospel writer, a known historian (which Jerusalem at that time was not lacking) for instance. Why would you be surprised that we would go to a mass uprising of the dead rather than one particular instance? The bigger the event, the more problematic lack of corroboration is.
First, we don't know that it was a "mass uprising." The possible range of the word translated "many" is very wide. Consider this other usage of the word by Matthew:
Matt 9
9 As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. 10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.
That "many" is the same underlying word as in the passage in question, and it refers to a number that could sit down together for a meal. In other words, it's not necessarily a large number.
Second, consider the time at which this occurred - Passover. IIRC it's estimated that Jerusalem's population was around 5 times the normal during Passover.
So, you have a number which could be as few as a dinner party, at a time when the city was flooded with strangers anyway.
No, it's not something that would make an impression on a secular historian.
