The Fourth Commandment

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

] ……Here is the crux of our disagreement in regard to Matthew 28:1-4. You see this as describing Christ’s resurrection on Saturday evening based on Matthew 28:1 while you see Mark 16:1-8 as a different visit on Sunday morning. [/I]

[COLOR=“DarkRed”]In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

However, I agree with many great Greek scholars in the past and present who translate the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” they came to the tomb on Sunday morning.

There are several contextual reasons why this is the proper interpretation.

In Matthew 28:7-8 as they quickly departed from this visit and went toward the disciples Jesus met them. (vv. 9-10) to calm their fears as they were not going to tell anyone (Mk. 16:8). Hence, Matthew 28:9 occurs immediately after Mark 16:8. This special appearance to the women as they ran away gave them the boldness to go ahead and tell the disciples proving that Matthew 28:1-9 is parallel with Mark 16:1-8 and not two separate visits.

Hence, the supposed objection that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone is countered by Matthew 28:9 as Jesus relieved their fears and they did go tell the disciples.

GE:
Re: Dr Walter, “Here is the crux of our disagreement in regard to Matthew 28:1-4. You see this as describing Christ’s resurrection on Saturday evening based on Matthew 28:1 while you see Mark 16:1-8 as a different visit on Sunday morning.”

Re DW: “Here is the crux of our disagreement in regard to Matthew 28:1-4.”
GE:
I am glad you noticed the Text-demarcation, “Matthew 28:1-4.” Remarkable properties separate this pericope from the foregoing and following Text. Find my discussion of this phenomenon, here, http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%202.%20Resurrection.pdf . That was many years ago. Only for about two years of late have I begun to stress the interrelationship of verse 28:5a as Matthew’s connective interpolation in the angel’s ‘explanation’ or ‘answer’ or ‘story’ or ‘witness’. See various articles, inter alia, http://www.biblestudents.co.za/docs/html/Appeared%20at%20no%20visit.htm.

Re DW: “You see this as describing Christ’s resurrection on Saturday evening based on Matthew 28:1”.
GE:
If you rectify this, you will see that I ‘see this’ as describing Christ’s resurrection on ‘Saturday’=”Sabbath’s-time”-‘sabbatohn’, NOT “on Saturday evening” which would have been 1) after “afternoon”; 2) after sunset; 3) on the NEXT having started day the First Day of the week (‘Sunday’)— and NOT what I believe or what Matthew says in “Matthew 28:1”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Re DW:
“…while you see Mark 16:1-8 as a different visit on Sunday morning.”
GE:
You have failed to see that I do nothing of the kind because “Mark 16:1-8” contains Mark’s relating of TWO completely ‘different’ EVENTS— A) the first, in verse 1, NOT a “visit” but a purchase at the trader; the second, in verse 2-8, a “visit” at the tomb; B) in verse 1 by the three women only “when the Sabbath had run out / had passed”; in verses 2-8 “very early dawn / before sunrise”.

But it is fully true, “the crux of our disagreement” is in fact, that I “see this” – “Matthew 28:1”, “as describing Christ’s resurrection”, “Sabbath’s fullness in Sabbath’s being mid after noon daylight BEFORE the First Day of the week”. Refer everything almost I have ever written, but here this will be helpful and quick, http://www.biblestudents.co.za/docs/html/A.T.%20Robertson%20Mark%2016,2.htm and http://www.biblestudents.co.za/docs/html/A.T.%20Robertson%20Matthew%2028,1b.htm

Re DW: “......the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” they came to the tomb on Sunday morning…….
In Matthew 28:7-8 as they quickly departed from this visit and went toward the disciples Jesus met them. (vv. 9-10) to calm their fears as they were not going to tell anyone (Mk. 16:8). Hence, Matthew 28:9 occurs immediately after Mark 16:8. This special appearance to the women as they ran away gave them the boldness to go ahead and tell the disciples proving that Matthew 28:1-9 is parallel with Mark 16:1-8 and not two separate visits.

Hence, the supposed objection that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone is countered by Matthew 28:9 as Jesus relieved their fears and they did go tell the disciples.”

GE:
Re: “......the term “opse” to mean “after” the Sabbath was completed and “into the twilight of sunrise” they came to the tomb on Sunday morning”, see above two and many more.

Re:
“as they quickly departed from this visit (In Matthew 28:7-8) and went toward the disciples Jesus met them. (vv. 9-10) to calm their fears as they were not going to tell anyone (Mk. 16:8).”
GE:
It is untrue “as they … went toward the disciples Jesus met them …as they were not going.” Mark EMPHATICALLY tells “they FLED and told NOBODY NOTHING they were too AFRAID!” Matthew tells they “with great and fearful JOY DID GO EVEN RAN to bring his disciples word.”

Mark tells NOT of an appearance; Matthew DOES tell of Jesus’ appearance. And what is more, Jesus tells of SEVERAL women who physically were confronted by Jesus. Now if “this” was not Jesus’ SECOND appearing, how could He have “appeared to Mary Magdalene, FIRST” (ACCORDING TO Mark16:1 to _9_ a la Dr Walter)? According to Matthew, Jesus met women among whom Mary Magdalene was ABSENT, but Dr Walter declares: “Here”, viz., the SAME and NO “different visit on Sunday morning”, “is the crux of our disagreement in regard to Matthew 28:1-4”. Dr Walter should have said in regard to “Mark 16:1-8” as well! Therefore, Dr Walter maintaining, “Matthew 28:1-4” and “Mark 16:1-8” are the SAME and ONLY “visit on Sunday morning”, DIRECTLY is contradicting HIMSELF not even mentioning the Scriptures!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So what does Dr Walter do because he is so acutely aware of his self-contradiction? HE INVENTS! “Jesus met them. (vv. 9-10) to calm their fears.” Dr Walter is forced to force the Scripture to say, “as they were not going to tell anyone”. Mark says they DID ‘go’, “they FLED FROM THE TOMB BECAUSE THEY WERE SO AFRAID”. And Mark says “they DID not TELL anyone anything so afraid were they” after all!— Dr Walter says, No, that was only how they felt for so long as it took them to run a few hundred meters. But then they were stopped in their tracks by Jesus “to calm their fears”. Then they ran on, and told the disciples…. “This special appearance to the women as they ran away gave them the boldness to go ahead and tell” ….while Mark EMPHATICALLY STATED “They did NOT TELL anyone anything!” Mark, you liar! Matthew, you liar, because you wrote, the women, believing, and with God-fearing “fear-and-great-joy, did run TO, BRING WORD”!

“IMMEDIATELY FROM the tomb, they departed and did run to bring word believing and with God-fearing fear-and-great-joy.” We must take up the cudgels for Matthew, and stress that that’s what he said, and not what Dr Walter said he lied. And so we shall take up the cudgels for Mark also, who claimed “that the women ran away and didn’t tell anyone”, and emphasize that he “countered Matthew” in no manner whatsoever.

To close, it should be noted where – according to Matthew – the women got their “boldness” from “to go ahead and tell the disciples”. It was NOT from no “special appearance to the women as they ran away” or rather according to Mark “fled from the tomb”. The women got their “boldness” from “the angel”, who, “EXPLAINING / ANSWERING / GIVING RECORD, told the women: Be YOU not afraid (as those guards who fell down like dead for fear of the angel’s brilliance, verse 4)! I know, Jesus is the One you are looking for…. He is not here…. He is risen, just as He said— just, as He said! (‘gar kathohs eipen’) Come on in, let’s go see the place where the Lord lay” and take courage and receive boldness “and go quickly and tell….!”

Hence, indeed, “Matthew 28:9” DID “occur after Mark 16:8”, but not “immediately”, for it would be impossible; but some time after Mark 16:2-8. Because — according to the time of day Jesus “first appeared to Mary early on the First Day” Mk16:9 when the gardener could be expected in the garden Jn20:15 — “Matthew 28:9” must have been about one to three hours AFTER “very early before sunrise dawn” when the women “fled from the sepulchre in such terrible fear they did not tell anyone anything”. So, one may conclude Matthew 28:1-9 in actual event, chronologically had to have occurred about one night or 12 hours after Mark 16:1; about one to three hours after Mark 16:2-8 “very early before sunrise dawn” ‘on Sunday morning’; and, a little while after Mark 16:9 “early” ‘on Sunday morning’— and therefore are in fact THREE ‘separate’ anecdotes of events two of which were “separate visits” at the tomb and one, no visit to or at the tomb at all.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The real miracle would be that the days of the week were accurately tracked for 6000 or more years.

GE:
THE REAL miracle was that the very Maker of all the days and seasons and years was born in the flesh and personality of man, and that this very ONE and the SAME, confirmed "all the works of God" in that He rose from the dead "In the Sabbath Day" so that "GOD, the Seventh Day (of "ALL HIS WORKS" in Christ and through Jesus Christ, "RESTED". Who can still be confused for which day in our lives of believers in This One, is the "Seventh Day" of the completion, blessing, sanctification and "RESURRECTION / REVIVAL / UP-LIVING" of --- "GOD --- on the Seventh Day"?

For it declares in Is57:15 that He, "whose Name is the Most Holy Place", "RESTED-UP", that is, "revived" exactly Ex31:17 the very day "the Seventh Day".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I think your chronology as well as your interpretation of John 20:1 and Matthew 28:1 is completely messed up.

John 20:1 does not record a separate instance where Magdalene does a solo trip to the tomb. If you will notice that John gives no visit to the tomb by the women and their return to tell the disciples but THIS ONE. This is like the difference between the gospel accounts about the blind beggars. One gospel mentions two while the other mentions only one. Why? Because the focus is upon the one begger not because there was not another beggar. Likewise in John 20:1. The focus of John is on Mary as she is the main character in all of the gospel accounts becasue she was the first one that Jesus appeared to (Mk. 16:9). However, all the rest of the women were with her when she left in the dark early (proii) Sunday morning on the same day Jesus rose fromt the grave (Mk. 16:9).

GE:
Al right, let's see whose "chronology is messed up".

DW:
John 20:1 does not record a separate instance where Magdalene does a solo trip to the tomb.

GE:
John, "Mary Magdalene cometh" - 'erchetai' SINGULAR etc. is directly MADE A LIAR by DW.

DW:
"John gives no visit to the tomb by the women and their return to tell the disciples but THIS ONE."

GE:
Well, what could more or better be "messed up" than this within itself most glaring CONTRADICTION IN TERMS? I virtually choked in the disgust I almost expressed but thank God did not.

DW:
"This is like the difference between the gospel accounts about the blind beggars. One gospel mentions two while the other mentions only one. Why? Because the focus is upon the one begger not because there was not another beggar. ...."

GE:
Totally irrelevant, inept and obstinate. No, this is unoriginal tedious parroting of scholars your peer. I would almost guarantee you earned your doctorate with some thesis on the subject, Dr Walter.


DW:
"Likewise in John 20:1. The focus of John is on Mary as she is the main character in all of the gospel accounts becasue she was the first one that Jesus appeared to (Mk. 16:9)."

GE:
"The focus of John" is on Mary; "However," he does not focus on Mary; he focuses on "all the rest of the women" who "were with her". Mary saw Jesus in the garden, Jesus spoke to Mary in the garden; he commands Mary in the garden. "However," "all the women with her" in the garden John has no eye for, no word for, no concern for. Rubbish!

Why, if the focus of "all of the gospel accounts" ('accounts' of what, by the buy?) is on Mary (not on Jesus or his resurrection, o no!) on Mary-- Dr Walter should become or all the while has been a Roman Catholic.

DW:
"when she left in the dark"

GE:
John says Mary "comes", that is, "got TO …".
"when she left" --- 'left' for what? For the tomb? John says she "comes AT the tomb", and AT the tomb Mary "comes and sees". Or: 'comes to see' 'to find out' (llke Nero, 'comes, sees')

"Mary comes, sees, finds: the STONE" --- 'The focus of John is on the STONE! As was Mary's.

DW:
"In John ... Mary ... left in the dark early (proii) Sunday morning..."

GE:
Your LYING "interpretation", Dr Walter!
John wrote "WHILE BEING EARLY DARKNESS", not, "in the dark early (proii) Sunday morning..."

You are a liar Dr Walter, and you take away as you add to the WORD OF GOD. You act God, Dr Walter; you have a swollen head, Dr Walter. You, as Paul said a Christian should not, "Think above what is written". I am getting very tired of you and your almightiness, Dr Walter. This is the end of my conversation with you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The way you write is difficult to follow. Must be a South african English style. I read your responses and I don't think you provided any evidence to overturn my position at all. You are welcome to your intepretations and that is exactly what they are - interpretations. However, Christ was raised between 3am. to 6am Sunday morning (Mk. 16:9). The women came just after he rose from the dead, including Mary (Jn. 20:1; Mt. 28:1-2) and got there just before sunrise. The women fled in terror not speaking to anyone along the way but Christ appeared to them, calmed their fears and reaffirmed the command of the angel to them and they went and told his disciples with great joy. The disciples ran back and Mary followed them and Jesus appeared to mary.

GE:
Re: Dr Walter, “Here is the crux of our disagreement in regard to Matthew 28:1-4. You see this as describing Christ’s resurrection on Saturday evening based on Matthew 28:1 while you see Mark 16:1-8 as a different visit on Sunday morning.”

Re DW: “Here is the crux of our disagreement in regard to Matthew 28:1-4.”
GE:
I am glad you noticed the Text-demarcation, “Matthew 28:1-4.” Remarkable properties separate this pericope from the foregoing and following Text. Find my discussion of this phenomenon, here, http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book%202.%20Resurrection.pdf . That was many years ago. Only for about two years of late have I begun to stress the interrelationship of verse 28:5a as Matthew’s connective interpolation in the angel’s ‘explanation’ or ‘answer’ or ‘story’ or ‘witness’. See various articles, inter alia, http://www.biblestudents.co.za/docs/html/Appeared%20at%20no%20visit.htm.

Re DW: “You see this as describing Christ’s resurrection on Saturday evening based on Matthew 28:1”.
GE:
If you rectify this, you will see that I ‘see this’ as describing Christ’s resurrection on ‘Saturday’=”Sabbath’s-time”-‘sabbatohn’, NOT “on Saturday evening” which would have been 1) after “afternoon”; 2) after sunset; 3) on the NEXT having started day the First Day of the week (‘Sunday’)— and NOT what I believe or what Matthew says in “Matthew 28:1”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

http://www.biblestudents.co.za/books/Book 2. Resurrection.pdf

5.3.3.3.5.6.
The Guard

“It is difficult to see how … the guards (could have gone) to the city …on a late Sabbath afternoon”. (Incidentally, Matthew does not so much speak of a late afternoon as of a late time of the day, which could be quite early in the afternoon.) The Sabbath is understood as the day of resurrection, but the guard went to the city on Sunday morning. The Sabbath is least imagined when they went. The guards on the Sabbath were struck down like dead by the appearance of the angel and would certainly not come by soon. Matthew continues the guard’s history from only much later … on the Sunday morning. And what they could tell the Jews was nothing of the resurrection. The only information they were able to supply was the fact that the seal was broken, the stone removed and the body missing. They did not know of Jesus’ resurrection. He did not appear to them and they did not even see the grave being opened. They were like dead!
Greater “difficulties” “arise” for the supposition of a Sunday resurrection than for the supposition of a Sabbath resurrection as a result of Matthew’s story of the guard. See par. 5.3.4 and 5.3.3.1.1.3.2.5. A Sabbath resurrection does take into account the event of the Saturday night. A Sunday resurrection approach does not. A Sabbath resurrection does not assume though that the night “intervened between the beginning of their vigil and the resurrection”, but between the resurrection and their meeting with the priests. Had Sunday been the day of resurrection – “the third day” – the excuse of the guard’s sleeping would have been no excuse but as good as asking to be crucified because it would have meant that they slept on duty. Their excuse would have been nonsensical. “The third day” was the Sabbath – for the Jew to end with sunset, for the Roman guard to end with midnight. On the Sabbath afternoon the Marys went to have a look at the grave not realising a guard was appointed. They obviously did not reach their aim – most probably because of the earthquake. As soon as they had left their home they in a thousand ways could have learned of the guard. Having heard of the guard they knew not to even attempt a visit before midnight. The women not knowing of the angel’s arrival at the grave and its consequences could not know that the guard was out of action. Mary Magdalene, however (Jn.20:1), might have tried to steal a glimpse of the grave despite knowing of the guard. If “early darkness still” indicates early in relation to the night as a whole she might have come to the tomb before midnight. If “early darkness still” indicate early in relation to the morning hours after midnight it must have been very soon after midnight. In any event the guard was gone by the time she actually saw the stone, away from the sepulchre. If Mary Magdalene expected a guard at the tomb, she now knew there was no guard any more. She would have told the others if they thought it necessary to ask her about it. Fact is that with the women’s visit to the tomb recorded by Luke, they were not concerned about a guard – there is not a word about the guard recorded. This fact gives sceptics reason to discredit Matthew who is the only one who mentions the guard. Their doubt would be founded if the resurrection occurred on the First Day because it would still have been “the third day” on Sunday – and still time on duty for the (missing) guard. The usual explanation of the resurrection and the women’s visit as simultaneous or separated with but at most a few minutes gives so much more substance to the sceptic’s protestations because the guard must have been still at the grave – conscious or unconscious – while the women arrived. But again the women clearly never met or noticed or expected the guard, and it is never mentioned in connection with any appearance of Jesus. Either one makes Matthew a liar or one accepts a Sabbath’s resurrection.
The guard would have had enough time to recover and to leave before the women arrived – even before Mary had seen the stone. They were supposed to watch till midnight because midnight, for Roman guards, ended “the third day”. The guard may even have stayed on post at the grave after they recovered till their watch expired at midnight, and then could have left – the women shortly after arriving.
Nothing suggests reason to allege that a Sabbath’s resurrection implies that the guard “told the people on Saturday-evening that the disciples stole Christ’s body …” “when no night had yet intervened between”.Bacchiocchi is quick to suppose a night where no night is suggested, but stops dead before recognising a night where it is mentioned in so many words and supposed for many and tangible reasons – the night that “intervened between” Jesus’ crucifixion and interment and here again between the resurrection and the Sunday mornings’ events! The guard did not tell “the people on Saturday-evening that the disciples stole Christ’s body”. (Who said so?) The guard told nobody that – they told the priests of the empty tomb on the Sunday morning. The guards also didn’t tell anybody, whether “people” or priests “that the disciples stole Christ’s body”. “Some of the watch coming to the city explained to the high priests everything that happened”. The guards told them just the truth, and that could not have been much seeing they were unconscious during the events. They had lots to explain which they couldn’t tell for sure. (Incidentally, the soldiers “fabricated” no story. Their story originated with the Jews on the Sabbath’s morning at Pilate, 27:64. Nestle obviously overlooked this inference where he omits the recurrence in 28:13. See par. 5.3.3.)
The time on the Sunday morning of their meeting cannot be deduced from Matthew itself. Matthew supplies no time indication of this event. The time of the resurrection is given independently and has nothing to do with the time of the guard’s meeting with the Jews. The time of the meeting can only be concluded from taking into account information from other Gospels, as follows: Jesus’ first appearance was to Mary Magdalene (Jn.20:11-16); and the time of his appearance to her was “early on the First day” (Mk.16:9). John says it was when the gardener was in the garden already. He would begin to work with sunrise. The appearance mentioned by Matthew being the only appearance to women in general mentioned in the Gospels, it had to have been Jesus’ second appearance, and consequently was later than the first. Matthew then implies that the guard assembled with the priests about the time Jesus appeared to the women, and the time of the guard’s discussion with the Jews had to be some time after sunrise. A Sabbath-resurrection accommodates these inferences perfectly. But a Sunday-resurrection, by “attaching the time designated in verse one” to the “many events which are described in Matthew 28:2-15” (inter alia the event of the guard’s meeting with the Jews) as well as to the resurrection, implies a time for the resurrection, later, than the time given for the appearances in the other Gospels! Which is absurd and which is why the Gospels are ridiculed! This traditional explanation of things forms the basis and origin of every and all and distinct contradictions that – according to the Sunday resurrection perception of things – can and must be pointed out in the narratives of the appearances.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

5.3.3.4.
Connection and Relation

Between Matthew 28:1-4 and verses 5 further
5.3.3.4.1.
Single Approach

To translate “Now when he rose early the First Day of the week, he appeared”, Revised Standard Version – also Modern Language and Authorised Version, simply is incongruous. The New Afrikaans Bible renders Mt.28:1, “After the Sabbath when it began to get light the Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went and looked at the grave. Suddenly there was a tremendous earthquake. An angel of the Lord came from heaven, went to the tomb, rolled the stone away and sat on it. His appearance was as bright as lightning and his clothes as white as snow. Of fright for him the guards trembled and became like dead. Then says the angel to the women, …”. The impression created by all these translations is an immediate and single event at the one moment of the angel’s opening of the tomb, of resurrection and appearance to the women – an impression which contradicts every of the many and unambiguous indications that such a coincidence was impossible.
5.3.3.4.2.
Continuous Narrative But No Unbroken Chronology

As has been noticed on numerous occasions thus far, it is clear that a break occurs between verses four and five of chapter 28. The whole chapter is no continuous history of events, which took place at the time given in verse one. It has also been indicated above that the Gospels made each its own choice of tradition or source from the resurrection accounts available at the time they were written. Matthew used different sources or traditions. The source used for the first four verses obviously is unique.
5.3.3.4.2.1.
Only Matthew

Matthew, in the first four verses of chapter 28, is the only Gospel to write of Christ’s resurrection – or at least of the occasion and time of the resurrection, because he does not describe the event per se. Only Matthew tells how the grave was opened. Only he tells of the great earthquake. Only he tells of the resurrection of the many dead and the opening of their graves when Jesus died and who appeared after his resurrection. Only Matthew mentions the time of the opening of the grave, the great earthquake and the women’s setting out to go and look at the grave. Only Matthew does not mention the time of any realised visit to the tomb. For him the important moment in the unfolding of God’s purpose was the moment of Christ’s resurrection. That initiated God’s challenge to man to believe in the Jesus who by the power of God was declared Son of God through resurrection from the dead (Paul). Matthew’s account is a lively and dramatic description. No mortal could experience what Matthew describes as if told by an eyewitness. It can for certain be stated that his source was not the guard, or the women as eyewitnesses. But the women could have learned from the angel at first hand to become the source of Matthew’s source. Simply nothing in the other Gospels can be compared with what Matthew narrates in 28:1-4. These verses must be accepted for what they are and should not be identified or confused with the other Gospels, or every detail supplied by all the Gospels creates irrefutable inconsistencies and constitutes contradictions never-ending – which can only be reconciled in a dishonest manner, nothing to the benefit of the Christian faith.
5.3.3.4.2.2.
Sequence of Times

John records the earliest time of the Saturday night. Mary sees the grave opened “early darkness still being” – prohi skotias eti ousehs. Then Luke records “morning deep being” – orthrou batheohs, the several women led by the Trio coming to anoint the body. Mark says, “very early sunrise” – lian prohi anateilantos tou hehliou, “They came upon the grave” – 16:2. “They”is a relative pronoun that refers to either the three women mentioned in verse one, or, independently, to any number of women. That Mark has The Three in mind is suggested by the fact that the Marys and Salome only “after the Sabbath had gone by”, went to buy spices for salving Jesus’ body – 16:1. They came to ascertain their findings of earlier (Luke) when they wanted to anoint the body. And lastly Mark (16:9) says that Jesus appeared “early … to Mary first (of all)” – prohi. John implies the same time of day through mention of the gardener who would have been there to start work from sunrise on of course. John, Luke and Mark state that the visits to the grave were “on the First Day of the week”– tehi miai hehmerai sabbatohn.
Here is more than remarkable coincidence. Deliberate attempt at supplement and agreement between the Gospels is apparent and undeniable. The attempt could have lasted over many years and could have undergone redactory changes, and needs not to be restricted to the period of initial composition of each Gospel. Nevertheless historical sequence of Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, seems to have been the order of first genesis while the chronological order of their source-stories was John, Luke, Mark, Matthew.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

5.3.3.4.2.3.
Independence and Relations

The total independence of Mt.28:1-4 is unmistakable although resemblance with the other Gospels from verse five on is just as unmistakable. Mt.28:1-4 contains no indication to the effect that the women, on the First Day, came to the tomb – once, or, once more – and that Jesus, on the First Day, appeared to them on their way. These verses have the infinitive for a prospective and tentative event – the women went to see the grave. The time these verses give is not intended as the time of the women’s intended action, but of the realised event of the resurrection. In contrast, the other Gospels all mention an accomplished fact – the women came upon the grave. The time these Gospels give is intended to state the time of an accomplished visit to the grave. In all the Gospels, remarkable coalescence is a hallmark of the narratives of the visits and appearances – all being distinctly separated from the resurrection per se. The resurrection, the visits and the appearances clearly are not the same or a single event, but several. They are not of one point in time, but of consecutive days and moments in time. No contradiction or discrepancy can be pointed out if they are understood accordingly. But the moment these narratives are forced to agree with Mt.28:1-4 whether as pertains the time mentioned there or whether as pertains the events mentioned there, chaos results.
5.3.3.4.2.4.
Appearances Can Be Deceiving

No large and learned treatise is needed to explain or to exclude the chaos. Translation does it all. The chapters can be so divided that the appearance only will lead to conclusions different from conclusions the present division of chapters lead to. For example, if the first four verses of Matthew are read in conjunction with the incident of the sealing of the grave, as explained above, the chances for misunderstanding the event and time of the resurrection for the time of Jesus’ appearance would be avoided. The same can be said of Mark 16:1. This verse belongs with the story of the burial. The Marys – on Friday – “saw where Jesus was buried”, and, “when the Sabbath was over” they and Salome bought spices. If, translations could begin by visibly to combine the related passages and to visibly separate the unrelated passages, any reader will associate events accordingly where he used to blindly follow the visibly misleading divisions of chapters and verses.

5.3.3.4.3.​

Matthew’s Source in 28:1-4

5.3.3.4.3.1.​

Sources Clarify

The characteristic use by Matthew of different source-materials (Mark, to the present writer’s judgement Luke also, “G”, and at least one other written source – see many “Introductions” and commentaries) can be seen in the change between passages of dialogue and narrative. For example, in chapter 28, verses one to four are narrative, and five further are dialogue. Matthew also uses his sources by omitting!
The above already abundantly provides indication to the effect that Matthew used another source besides the one (or those) he used for his story of the visit to the grave and the appearance, 28:5-15 (or even 5-20), and besides any source the other Gospels might have used. If Matthew for both his stories – of resurrection, and of appearance and visit – used the same source the other Gospels used for their stories of the visits and appearances, then the differences must be attributed solely to the own interpretation of each writer or author. If the events were reduced to the one, reliability and historicity are sacrificed. The differences would then be impossible to solve. But the sources are different being derived from traditions of different events of different times and days.
Also the original oral informers were several. In the case of Mt.28:1-4 (and even from 27:62 on) the original teller of the story was the angel to the women (so Calvin), who again told the disciples (apostles) on whose authority the traditions of the Church were based – which the writers of the Gospels used.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

5.3.3.4.3.2.
Peculiar Usage

Therefore, If Matthew says opse, he does not mean “after” – meta, or, “past” – diagenomenou, but, “late”. If Matthew says sabbatohn, he means not, “no longer Sabbath” – meta sabbaton, but, “in / on / of the Sabbath’s (time)”. If Matthew says tehi epifohskousehi, he means not “while becoming light” – fohs anetelein, Mt.4:6 or, lian prohi anateilantos hehliou, or, “toward light” – heohs hou diefause / pros ton orthron, but, “while being of the essence of light”. If Matthew says eis mian sabbatohn, he does not mean “on the First Day of the week” – tehi miai sabbatohn / miahs sabbatohn, but, “toward the First Day of the week”. If Matthew says “there came a great earthquake” he does not mean such an insignificant tremor that the other Gospels could see fit to ignore it. If Matthew says the Marys went to look at the grave, he does not mean Salome included and / or other women as well. If Matthew says the two women went to see the grave he does not mean that they saw the grave or that they actually “came upon the grave”. If Matthew tells of one angel that descended from heaven and rolled the stone away and sat on it, he does not mean two angels coming from behind the women or an angel already in the tomb sitting on the bench. If Matthew mentions the guard he thinks of them as present while the angel descended and unconscious afterwards and not in conversation with the Jews.




5.3.3.4.4.
Matthew Compared with Matthew

These are not seeming differences between Matthew and the other Gospels, but real and factual. If they don’t indicate the obvious solution to the problem of a different source based on a different event and announcer, nothing else will. Nevertheless comparison of Matthew with Matthew will firmly establish the finding that in 28:1-4 an independent source was used. Between, on the one hand, the foregoing and following context, and, on the other hand, 28:1-4, the following preference of words, is found,

SEE APPENDIX p. 277, ‘VERSES 1 AND 2 A UNIT’​

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

NOTICE THE CHANGE I HAD TO COME TO MAKE AS MY STUDIES OF THIS SUBJECT PROGRESSED THROUGH YEARS AND YEARS AT THE HAND OF SHOLAR UPON SCHOLAR AND VIEWPOINT UPON VIEWPOINT .... it did not come at or by impulse....

..................5.3.3.4.2.2.
Sequence of Times

John records the earliest time of the Saturday night. Mary sees the grave opened “early darkness still being” – prohi skotias eti ousehs. Then Luke records “morning deep being” – orthrou batheohs, the several women led by the Trio coming to anoint the body. Mark says, “very early sunrise” – lian prohi anateilantos tou hehliou, “They came upon the grave” – 16:2. “They”is a relative pronoun that refers to either the three women mentioned in verse one, or, independently, to any number of women. That Mark has The Three in mind is suggested by the fact that the Marys and Salome only “after the Sabbath had gone by”, went to buy spices for salving Jesus’ body – 16:1. They came to ascertain their findings of earlier (Luke) when they wanted to anoint the body. And lastly Mark (16:9) says that Jesus appeared “early … to Mary first (of all)” – prohi. John implies the same time of day through mention of the gardener who would have been there to start work from sunrise on of course. John, Luke and Mark state that the visits to the grave were “on the First Day of the week”– tehi miai hehmerai sabbatohn.
Here is more than remarkable coincidence. Deliberate attempt at supplement and agreement between the Gospels is apparent and undeniable. The attempt could have lasted over many years and could have undergone redactory changes, and needs not to be restricted to the period of initial composition of each Gospel. Nevertheless historical sequence of Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, seems to have been the order of first genesis while the chronological order of their source-stories was John, Luke, Mark, Matthew.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The real miracle would be that the days of the week were accurately tracked for 6000 or more years.

GE:
Why only 6000 years ago? Because Mrs E. G. White said so? hie hie hie

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

......re: ......Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

[

GE:
Re: “......Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee.”

Preciseness saves from pretentiousness.

Matthew says nothing like it. Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. “set out to go have a look at the tomb”, “BUT”, that “THEN SUDDENLY / UNEXPECTED” God intervened and “THERE WAS (THIS) GREAT EARTHQUAKE”, when “the angel of the Lord descending from heaven approached and hurled away the door-stone from the grave”. So when could the Marys ever have got “to see the tomb”? THEY COULD NOT!

And what about the guard who were set to keep away specifically “the disciples of his”?

No! The women – AFTER Mary already MUST have seen the Lord (Jn20:11-17) and THEY not yet had seen Him, “was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr. Walter,

re: "John 20:1; Mat. 28:1 and Mark 16:1-2 are the same not different accounts."

They can’t be the same. If John 20:1-2 is correct, then Matthew 28:1-8 and Mark 16:1-7 are either incorrect or they are referring to a later visit by Mary M. to the tomb.

Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

GE:
Re:
“Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen….” Please quote? No; it’s not said. Mary was never told anything like this. The only angels Mary had seen were first, the TWO angels as she CAME OUT of the tomb, according to Lk24:4-6. Then the one angel like a “young man sitting on the right hand” after she had gone into the grave (a second time a NEXT time). And again, two angels after “she had had remained standing after next to the tomb-door” outside, whom SHE spoke to, and never THEY, to her. Directly hereafter as she had “turned away” from the tomb and had seen Jesus, “Jesus, said to her, Mary ….!” = Mk16:9. JOHN then tells, Mary “came and told the DISCIPLES (men) that she had seen the Lord 20:18. No ‘running’, no ‘they’ – other women. No emotions or promises or commands. (But, allege some people, ‘John’s focus was on Mary’. No, John’s focus was on the Resurrection of the Lord, read verse 17!

No, not “In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.” The other way round! In JOHN she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in MATTHEW she didn’t BECAUSE SHE WASN’T WITH THE OTHERS.

Re:
“John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was.”

GE:
John does not say Mary “didn’t find the Messiah there”; John says what he says and ONLY what he said must be attributed to John; not what tradition tells he supposedly also is telling us.

 

[rstrats]

GE,

re: "‘Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen….’ Please quote? No; it’s not said. Mary was never told anything like this."
　
In the immortal words of John McEnroe - "You Cannot Be Serious!!!".

 

[Dr. Walter]

Gentleman,

If your position of John 20:1 is correct then John had NOTHIN to say about any other women EVER coming to the tomb except Magdalene! Why would John omit all references to ALL of the women but Mary when every other gospel includes them??? John would be guilty of failing to give his readers the whole story if that were true. John's account of Mary in John 20:1 is the same account given by all other gospel writers of Mary with the women as Mary is also highlight by the other gospel accounts.

The women were frightened and did not tell anyone as they went back of fear UNTIL Jesus met them along the way. Ask yourself why would Jesus meet them along the way and reaffirm what they had already been told by angel IF that was sufficient and nothing warranted that special additional reaffirmation? Just use common sense!


I will tell you why you can't see the obvious, is because of your unscriptural Saturday resurrection theory. The first three hundred years of Christianity disagree with your interpretation. Those who were disciples of the Apostles disagree with your interpretation. The consistent use of "the Lord's day" until 300 A.D. was with qualifiies as "eighth day" or "first day of the week" or "Sunday."

Ignatius says about A.D. 70 – “Let every one who loves Christ, keep holy the Lord’s Day, the queen of days, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.”

Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp says, “On the Lord’s Day, every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath.”

Barnabas in about A.D. 120 says, “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead”

Matthew 28:1 can be genuinely interpreted differently than what you are suggesting. Mark 16:9 separates the time of the resurrection of Christ betweem 3am to 6am from the return trip of Mary with disciples (Jn. 20:11-18).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Please disregard post 194 and accept this revised post instead, Thanks.

rstrats[/B];1563615]......re: ......Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

GE:
Re:
“......Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee.”

Preciseness prevents pretentiousness.

Matthew says nothing like it. Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. “set out to go have a look at the tomb”, “BUT”, that “THEN SUDDENLY / UNEXPECTED” God intervened and “THERE WAS (THIS) GREAT EARTHQUAKE”, when “the angel of the Lord descending from heaven approached and hurled away the door-stone from the grave”. So when could the Marys ever have got “to see the tomb”? THEY COULD NOT!

And what about the guard who were set to keep away specifically “the disciples of his”?

No! The women – AFTER Mary already MUST have seen the Lord (Jn20:11-17) and THEY – the other women, according to Matthew – not yet had seen Him, “was told by an angel --- in Mt28 --- that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee”.

Re:
“Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).”

GE:
No, “this” – according to Jn20:18 –, when “she ran”, occurred before the Lord had appeared to Mary, before she even knew the grave was empty. And “this” – according to Mt28:8 –, when “THEY, ran”, occurred AFTER the Lord had had appeared to Mary, “first”, Mk16:9 = Jn20:14-15, because in Mt28:8 it tells of Jesus appearing to MORE than one women, on their way into Jerusalem and not in the garden. Which is confirmed that in John Mary did not touch Jesus, but in Matthew, all the women held Him at his feet. In John Mary say Jesus first, then He spoke to her; in Matthew “Jesus met them”.

Re:
“However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.”

GE:
Re:
“However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there,”

GE:
John doesn’t say that “she … didn’t find the Messiah”. It says she “comes … sees the STONE taken away from the sepulchre; THEN (without any further ‘finding’) runs …”. She did not enter or see the tomb was empty; only opened.

Re:
“Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen….” Please quote? No; it’s not said. Mary was never in “Matthew 28:1-8” told anything like this. The only angels Mary had seen were first – according to Lk24:4-6 – the TWO angels as she CAME OUT of the tomb,. Then – according to Mk16:5 – the one angel like a “young man sitting on the right hand” after she had gone into the grave (a second time a NEXT time). And again – according to Jn20:11 –, two angels after “she had had remained standing after next to the tomb-door” outside, whom SHE spoke to, and never THEY, to her. Directly hereafter as she had “turned away” from the tomb and had seen Jesus, “Jesus, said to her, Mary ….!” = Mk16:9. JOHN then tells, Mary “came and told the DISCIPLES (men) that she had seen the Lord 20:18. No ‘running’, no ‘they’ – other women. No emotions or promises or commands. (But, allege some people, ‘John’s focus was on Mary’. No, John’s focus was on the Resurrection of the Lord, read verse 17!

No, not “In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.” The other way round! In JOHN she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in MATTHEW she didn’t BECAUSE SHE WASN’T WITH THE OTHERS.

Re:
“John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was.”

GE:
John does not say Mary “didn’t find the Messiah there”; John says what he says and ONLY what he said must be attributed to John; not what tradition tells he supposedly also is telling us.

 

[rstrats]

GE,

re: Your post #197.

And in other immortal words of John McEnroe - "You Have Got To Be Kidding Me!!!".
　
　

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE, re: "‘Matthew 28:1-8 says that when Mary M. went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen….’ Please quote? No; it’s not said. Mary was never told anything like this."

　
In the immortal words of John McEnroe - "You Cannot Be Serious!!!".

GE:
I'm sorry, this post was ambiguous and unclear. See lower down, as I corrected it -- before having seen this post of yours, Strats, Sorry! Mary was never told anything like this in Matthew 28:1-8!

My 'point' here was (or is), There are TWO stories in Matthew 281-11, BOTH the angel's "Information" or "Explanation" or "Answer to the women" 5a, namely the story of the Resurrection “Sabbath’s”— verses 1-4; and the story of the SECOND Appearance in 5b-11a— NOT TOLD WHEN IN MT28 AT ALL!

Refer also if you like Book 2, ‘Matthew according to Matthew’ etc. references given above in this thread for ‘source-technicalities’, and many other studies. It is not that I have changed my mind, on the contrary….

‘My point’ with this post is simply Mary M. was _not in 28:1-8_ “told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen…” because by the time the angel told the OTHER women that, Jesus had already appeared to Mary M. (So, it’s impossible to ‘quote’ because it ain’t there ….) IF THE APPEARANCE IN Mt28:5b-11 WERE Jesus’ first, it would be UNTRUE “He appeared to Mary M first” as BOTH Mk16:9 and Jn20:11-17 state.

Mary M was in fact told that Jesus had risen, as I have said MANY times, first by TWO angels when she visited the tomb the first time to salve the body which she must have thought was in the grave still; and a second time according to Mk16:2-8 when she and some other women had gone back to the grave to ascertain the things she and they must have thought about after their first visit – Lk24:6 and 8 and 22 and 23! After the Mk16:2-8 visit Mary M must have “had had stood after” as Jn20:11 clearly states and Jesus appeared to her alone, “first”!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.....Why would John omit all references to ALL of the women but Mary when every other gospel includes them??? John would be guilty of failing to give his readers the whole story if that were true. .......

GE:
Re:
“Why would John omit all references to ALL of the women but Mary when every other gospel includes them???”

Simple. Because “He the Risen, APPEARED TO MARY FIRST OF ALL early on the First Day of the week.” Mk16:9.

Compare Jn20:11-17. Do not compare with Jn20:1-10 because that section contains no less than two stories OF EARLIER THAT NIGHT, verses 1 to 2 and verses 3 to 10!

Re:
“John would be guilty of failing to give his readers the whole story if that were true.”

GE:
NOT ONE Gospel or Gospel-writer gives “his readers the whole story”. In fact NO Gospel-writer except Matthew --- or rather the angel of 28:5a --- gives the story of the RESURRECTION!
And ONLY John in ONLY 20:11-17 and Mark in ONLY 16:9 tell of the FIRST appearance;
And ONLY Matthew in ONLY 28:5-11 tells of the SECOND appearance.
So what in principle is here supposed against John for that matter must be brought against every Gospel.

What is here brought against the ONE Gospel story is NO argument and has NO substance whatsoever except the preconceived idea the Resurrection MUST have been on the First Day of the week.