A.T. Robertson on Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:2.
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (opse de sabbatwn, th epipwskoush eiί mian sabbatwn). This careful chronological statement according to Jewish days clearly means that before the sabbath was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the women was made "to see the sepulchre" (qeorhsai ton tapon). They had seen the place of burial on Friday afternoon (Mark 15:47; Matthew 27:61; Luke 23:55). They had rested on the sabbath after preparing spices and ointments for the body of Jesus (Luke 23:56), a sabbath of unutterable sorrow and woe. They will buy other spices after sundown when the new day has dawned and the sabbath is over (Mark 16:1). Both Matthew here and Luke (Luke 23:54) use dawn (epipwskw) for the dawning of the twenty-four hour-day at sunset, not of the dawning of the twelve-hour day at sunrise. The Aramaic used the verb for dawn in both senses. The so-called Gospel of Peter has epipwskw in the same sense as Matthew and Luke as does a late papyrus. Apparently the Jewish sense of "dawn" is here expressed by this Greek verb. Allen thinks that Matthew misunderstands Mark at this point, but clearly Mark is speaking of sunrise and Matthew of sunset. Why allow only one visit for the anxious women?
“In the end of the Sabbath / Late on the Sabbath Day …”, Mt.28:1
My friend from
Many of us have years of study and we are not ignorant of scripture, as you presume. End of argument from my point of view. I shall continue to regard Sunday, the first day of the week, and the day our blessed Lord rose from the tomb, and the day we honour our Lord with worship and the gathering of the saints. The scripture is plain to me.
Robertson in his ‘Harmony’ renders opse sabbatohn, ON THE SABBATH LATE or words to the effect - I haven't now got the time to go fetch them exactly. And he in his Grammar gives explanation in favour of "late on the Sabbath", only to propose that if the meaning is determined not by grammar, but by exegesis, it may either be “after the Sabbath” or “late on the Sabbath”.
And Calvin argued Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath, and in the very event of His resurrection – according to Calvin – abolished the Sabbath.
James Bailey, 19th cent.?
QB: The Bible Union renders the term by "late in." Meyer gives, "Late upon the Sabbath;" Lange, "But about the end;" Robinson, in Lexicon of Greek Testament, gives, "At the end of," "at the close of," "late,' "late evening," "at the end of the Sabbath;" De Wette and others, "After the Sabbath had ended;" Bloomfield, "After the Sabbath." While seeming to differ, critics substantially agree, as some begin where the others end.
Dr. Schaff, in a foot note on Lange, says: "The usual translation of opse (sero) Sabbatown is, toward the end of the Sabbath, or late in the Sabbath, meaning the closing period, near the end, but still during the Sabbath or late in the day. The Vulgate, vesperi sabbati; Beza, extremo sabbato; Tyndale, the sabbath day at even; Coverdale, upon the evening of the sabbath holy day; Cranmer, Genevan and Bishops versions, “in the latter end of the sabbath day”."
phrase translated "As it began to dawn" occurs but twice in the New
Testament. In Luke 23: 54, it is rendered, "drew on" in the sense as
given by Robinson, "to begin." Of Matt. 28:1, he says, "Trop, of
the Jewish day beginning at sunset." Casauhon, an eminent critic and
Check Lightfoot, Coleridge, Young and Knoch!
Revised Version: "Now late on the Sabbath Day".
AT Robertson, 'Grammar' - see www.biblestudents.co.za, 'Prof. Bacchiocchi refuses to hear these questions'.
I say we don't even need a direct reference to Jesus' resurrection on the Sabbath Day to know it was on the Sabbath Day – all the Scriptures from the nature of the Sabbath in them, show it would and should have been "In the Sabbath's-time"!
Robertson's Word Pictures ("Harmony"?) of the New Testament: Quote Part
Now late on the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (opse de sabbatwn, th epipwskoush ei? mian sabbatwn). This careful chronological statement according to Jewish days clearly means that before the sabbath was over, that is before six P.M., this visit by the women was made "to see the sepulchre" (qeorhsai ton tapon). Part QE
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible (in which Calvin played a major role), Mt.28:1, "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."
What day of the week Jesus died is trivial. What is important is that Jesus rose. I tend to adhere to the traditional burial on Friday/empty tomb on Sunday observance, but it is strictly my own pov. The one thing Scripture is clear on is that the empty tomb was discovered on the morning of the first day of the week (which would to us be Sunday).
No sure, clean and innocent and may God help me never to judge you for what you hold fast to.
But do you hold fast? No, you are most self-contradictory. Say you, “Irrelevant! ... trivial ...”, yet, “I shall continue to regard Sunday, the first day of the week, and the day our blessed Lord rose from the tomb, and the day we honour our Lord with worship and the gathering of the saints. The scripture is plain to me.”
Nevertheless, God has a way of doing things, and one of His ways is to make important an opportunity for the worship of Him BY HIS CHILDREN. It has always been like that, and it has always been just the one day, "God thus concerning spoke", and that Day was "the Sabbath Day of the LORD your God", or, in NT terminology, "the Lord's Day". ONLY THAT, explains the importance the matter has FOR GOD, and then, "for the PEOPLE of God" – “YOUR God”. Hb.4:9 uses the word 'apoleipetai' - "stays important", or, "remains valid".
The importance of God's Sabbath Day derives from the Lord of the Sabbath, 1, and 2, the People of the Sabbath.
I have but one concern - where is it? In the SDA-Church? I don't think so! Then where SHOULD it be? In the Reformed, Protestant Churches, in the General Assembly of Believers, in the Church Universal! "He that despised Moses' Law, died without mercy ... of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who ... hath ... counted (unholy) the blood of the covenant ..." - whereby the New Testament Sabbath - "... was sanctified"?
Is mine a preposterous use of Hb.10:29 with reference to the Sabbath seeing the NT Sabbath is sanctified by only the blood of Jesus' mercy?
ONLY THAT, its NAME – “the Lord’s Day” / “Sabbath of the LORD your God” – explains the importance the DAY has FOR GOD, and then, "for the PEOPLE of God".
“Scripture is VERY CLEAR that the tomb was found empty on the morning of the first day. Kindly refrain from hijacking this thread into yet another one of your dead horse beatings.”
Have I ever denied? Scripture is VERY CLEAR that the tomb was found empty on the morning of the first day, can't YOU see it? Scripture is VERY CLEAR that Jesus was raised before the morning of the first day. Clear?
Then why call it MY dead horse? My faith is built upon the LIVING TRUTH of CHRIST RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD – as the Scriptures promised and as the Scriptures confirmed – "in the Sabbath's fullness of day the First Day of the week pending ..."
I appreciate your quote from A.T. Robertson (on the previous page), but to my knowledge Dr. Robertson was not a Bible translator. I therefore repeat, I know of no Bible translators (hence Bible translations) who attribute to "οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων" the meaning you have ascribed to it in Matthew 28:1.
I say A. T. Robertson was a “Bible
Robertson was a respected Greek scholar in the late 1800s and early 1900s, so I
will address his remarks on the text.
Dr. Robertson is correct that the text, standing alone, could have the meaning he suggests.
Which “text”? The whole phrase, "οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων"; or just the Adverb, ‘opse’-‘late’? I, in my “quote from A.T. Robertson (on the previous page)”, have made reference to both the Adverb ‘opse’-‘late’ “standing alone”, and the phrase in whole.
Whichever, does A. T. Robertson in my ‘quote on the previous page’ treat on ‘οψε’ / ‘οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων’ as “standing alone”, or in its actual context within Matthew 27 to 28?
In that case (standing alone) "οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων" would be understood as "late on the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week."
So what YOU are saying, is that “understood as .... standing alone .... οψε .... would be understood as "late on .... the meaning he (Dr. Robertson) suggests”?
Thanks for the admission.
Alright then, what YOU are saying, must be this, that “understood as” in context “in Matthew 28:1”, “οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων”, “would be understood as "late on ...."”, “the meaning he (Dr. Robertson) suggests”, and “the meaning” I, “have ascribed to it in Matthew 28:1.” You are, in fact, CONFIRMING, what both Dr. A. T. Robertson and I are claiming “οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων” should mean, “standing alone”, and, “hence”, in context in “Bible translations”; or, vice versa, what “οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων” (in context) in “Bible translations”
should mean, and “hence”, “standing alone”.
The alternative .....
Pardon me, which “alternative .....”?
The alternative ..... and the one preferred by all Bible translators I know of, is to take οψε as an irregular preposition meaning "after." That is, "after the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week."
“Preferred by all Bible translators” .....? Do you want to tell us you don’t know of each and every of all English Bible Translations before the twentieth century which use virtually the same words with which to
..... translate “οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων”
TO MEAN, “Late IN the Sabbath” or “Late ON the Sabbath”;
..... translate “οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων”
TO MEAN, “as it (DAY, the SABBATH Day) BEGAN to dawn”, or,
“as DAY (the SABBATH Day), BEGAN, to DECLINE towards”;
..... translate “οψε δε σαββατων τη επιφωσκουση εις μιαν σαββατων”
TO MEAN, “TOWARDS the First Day” or “BEFORE the First Day”—
..... “towards the First Day” which would begin
SUNSET, and NOT sunrise— or
TO MEAN, “towards the First Day as the SABBATH, DAY, BEGAN, to dawn TOWARDS .....” “6 p.m.”— to use the exact words and letters A. T. Robertson wrote?
You did not know of ANY of these honest, Christian, PROPER Translations of Matthew 28:1? Here are some of them .....
425 Vulgate, Vespere autem sabbati quae lucescit in primam sabbati venit Maria Magdalene
Wyccliffe 1395, But in the euentid of the sabat, that bigynneth to schyne in the firste dai of the woke
Tyndale 1526, The Sabboth daye at even which dauneth the morowe after the Sabboth Mary
? In the ende of the Sabbath, as it began to dawne towards the first day of the weeke, came Mary
Mile Coverdale 1535, Upon the euenynge of the Sabbath holy daye, which dawneth ye morow of the first daye of ye Sabbathes
Bishop’s 1568, In the later ende of the Sabboth day, whiche dawneth the first daye of the weke
Webster’s Bible 1833, In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week
JN Darby 1890, Now late on sabbath, as it was the dusk of the next day after Sabbath
Douay-Rheims ?, And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week
American Standard Version 1901, Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week
Young’s literal, In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first [day] of the week
The Bible in Basic English, Now late on the Sabbath, when the dawn of the first day of the week was near
Jay P. Green’s Literal Tr., But late in the sabbaths, at the dawning into the first of the Sabbaths
English Revised Version, Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week
“The alternative ..... and the one preferred by all Bible translators .....”
That is the tragedy, ‘Bible translators’ preferences’.
Preferences at the cost of what? Tyndale declared that if he translated but ONE WORD against his conscience his part in Christ must be taken away from him ..... And he also declared that the Sabbath-keepers had some ground the Sunday-keepers did not have to stand on— to whatever his insinuation might have been aimed at.
Suddenly as a result of technical advancement, the ‘translators’ awakened to the implications the ‘old’ English Translations had for their preferences! It takes no wild guess to realise just what their true preference was. It takes no wild guess to realise the reason protests are expelled, and the Protestant gets himself thrown out of the councel and sitting.
The alternative ..... and the one .... I know of, is to take οψε as an irregular preposition meaning "after."”
We are talking of A. T. Robertson, and my quote from his ‘Word Pictures’ on the previous page, re the meaning of ‘opse’ within the phrase in Mt28:1, “opse de sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn’.
Now A. T. Robertson mentions one “classical” writer as representative of the occurrence of opse with the meaning of “late”, “late on”, or, “late in”, the period concerned, Thucydides. “Of Athens, c. 460-396 B.C., the classical historian who as a contemporary wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War, edited by C. Hude, 1898”. Kittel The soldiers had to take position for battle because “it indeed was already late in the day” – ehdeh ghar kai tehs hehmeras opse ehn.
This is the usual meaning of opse— as the ADVERB it is. Compare opse tou kairou, “late in the season”, Dionysius, De Aucurio 1, 6 . It is the simple Genitive of time, or, the Partitive Genitive “late (part) of season”. There is no suggestion of opse being a Preposition, “after the season”. That definitely means that “it was LATE IN the season”. It literally and contextually indicates, “late in the (bird-catching) season before the hunt begins” – pros argan hormahn.
Exactly the same logic and linguistics apply in Mt.28:1. “Because it was late in the Sabbath”; or, “because it was late Sabbath’s”; or , “Because it was the Sabbath LATE / RIPE / FULLY / in its ACME”. “It was” not, the First Day! Even without the word opse, the meaning is Genitive of kind, quality, or Possession, “The Sabbath / Sabbath proper / the Sabbath’s” in Mt28:1 like in “The season proper” in Thucydides.
The English, without inflection shows time belonging to “the season” / “belonging to the Sabbath”. It is the Genitive. The Greek words are inflected, meaning “The season’s” / “The Sabbath’s”, or, “In the season” and “On /In the Sabbath”.
Opse in Mt.28:1 would still have meant nothing but “late”, even in the time of Philostratus. It would still have meant “late in /on” the day— and forever will. Even if in another thousand years it may mean “apples”, ‘opse’ will still have meant and still will mean “late Sabbath’s (time) / Late on the Sabbath Day / Late in the Sabbath Day” in Mt.28:1.
How stealthily Bacchiocchi employs his subtleties that “the usage of opse” “supports” “the broader meaning” of “after”, 51a and 49d TRC gets strikingly apparent when his quote from A.T. Robertson is compared with the passage as it appears in Robertson’s “Grammar”. What Bacchiocchi OMITS from Robertson’s paragraph makes it say a lot different from what Robertson really said.
Bacchiocchi’s reference, p. 51b TRC, reads:
“Late Greek Usage (of the term opse with the meaning of “after”). The latter conclusion (“after the Sabbath was over”, 51a) is supported by the usage of opse in late Greek writers as meaning “after”. While in the ancient Greek, as A.T. Robertson explains, “opse ... occurs as a preposition with the Genitive (Thuc. 4, 93) with the sense of “late on”, later Greek authors, like Philostratus, use the word in “the sense of “after”, like ... “after these things”. 4 “
Here is A.T. Robertson’s own “explanation”: (p. 62, A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, 1923, p. 645, 646)
“31. Opse. This word seems to be another variant of opis and occurs in the ancient Greek, both as an adverb and as a preposition with the Genitive (Thuc. 4, 93) with the sense of “late on”. But Philostratus shows examples where opse with the ablative has the sense of “after”, like opse toutohn = “after these things”. 3. Blass, Gr. of N.T. Gk., p.312.
Philostratus uses it also in the sense of “late on”. The papyri use it in the sense of “late on” with the Genitive. 4. Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. So opse tehs hohras. 37 (ii/B.C.) Hence in Mt.28:1, opse sabbatohn may be either late on the Sabbath or after the Sabbath. Either has good support. Moulton is uncertain, 1. Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f while Blass 2. Gr. Of N. T. Gk., p. 97 prefers “after”. It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide. If Matthew has in mind just before sunset, “late on” would be his idea; if he means after sunset, then “after” is correct. Cf. dis tou sabbatou (Lk.18:12).” (Emphasis CGE)
First) ‘Just before’
Next) A. T. Robertson gives NO reason nor does he have reason, to just allege, “It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide”.
This supposed ‘issue’ is first of all ‘decided’ by the Scriptures in its entire whole, and by taking into account things like prophecy and eschatology, typology and symbolism;
then by the immediate context of historical events related in Matthew 28;
then by the usual meanings of the words;
then by ‘special effects’ like grammar and etymology;
and in the last place, by these things, together— which combined with the perception and approach of the researcher to form his ‘exegesis’, may be a very subjective variable for deciding the point of exgesis.
1, Says A.T. Robertson, “Philostratus shows examples where opse with the ablative has the sense of “after” ”. (and no other, GE)
Says Samuele Bacchiocchi, “Later Greek authors (assuming many, GE), like Philostratus, use the word in “the sense of “after”, like … “after these things”.”
2, Bacchiocchi unreservedly concludes that the meaning ““after the Sabbath was over” 51a is supported by the usage of opse in late Greek writers as meaning “after” ..... as A.T. Robertson explains”. But A.T. Robertson supplies NO example and NO explanation of the kind, himself, but refers to Blass and Debrunner only! (See book 2 or study, ‘Late in the Sabbath’.)
3, Bacchiocchi also does not mention that Robertson qualified the instances of the use of opse “in the sense of “after””, as being cases of the Ablative, only!
Robertson does not like Bauer, describe opse as an “improper preposition”, OR, like XX here, as an “irregular preposition”.
He wrote, “Opse ..... occurs both as an adverb and as a preposition with the Genitive with the sense of “late on”. But Philostratus shows examples where opse with the ablative has the sense of “after” .....
“.... as an ADVERB, AND, as a Preposition with the sense of “late on””.
Robertson says that when “this word ‘opse’ occurs” – whether “as an Adverb (or) as a Preposition” – it occurs “with the Genitive”!
Robertson wrote, “Opse ..... occurs both as an adverb and as a preposition with the Genitive with the sense of “late on”. But Philostratus shows examples where opse with the ablative has the sense of “after” .....”
“.... with the GENITIVE .... with the sense of “late on””— not ‘after’.
“But PHILOSTRATUS shows examples where opse with the ablative has the sense of “after”.” Not, A. T. Robertson.
Robertson secondarily supposes some instances of the use of opse within a case-function that determines the Ablative! “Case is a matter of function rather than form.” ‘Function’ though is not visible; while ‘form’ is. While there may be doubt it’s an Ablative, there cannot be doubt it is a Genitive. Whichever, it does not matter; both Ablative and Genitive means and can only mean or imply, “on the Sabbath”; it is only a ‘case’ of how “after the Sabbath”, is UNDERSTOOD; understood “where opse with the ablative HAS THE SENSE OF “after””— the ‘feeling’, of ‘after’, like in the phrase, “after the season”, which is the exact equivalent of “late in the season”, in its end or last part.
4, Bacchiocchi only tells of Robertson’s reference to opse’s use by Philostratus meaning “after”. He DOES NOT MENTION that Robertson also says that opse is used “both as an adverb and as a preposition with the Genitive with the sense of “late on””. He keeps it mute!
I have just watched Henry
of the French soccer team handling the ball deliberately to score the ‘winning’
Spot the ball and win a Mazda.....
B: ““opse ... occurs as a preposition with the Genitive”
R: “both as an adverb and as a preposition with the Genitive with the sense of “late on”.”
Where is the ball? Where are the words, “both adverb and”?;
B: “later Greek authors, like Philostratus”;
R: “But Philostratus”
Where is the ball? Switching hands from Greek author to Greek author;
B: “like Philostratus, use the word in “the sense of “after””;
R: “Philostratus shows examples where opse with the ablative has the sense of “after””;
Where is the ball? Where is “opse with the ablative”?
B: “authors like Philostratus, use the word in “the sense of “after””;
R: “Philostratus uses opse ALSO in the sense of “late on””.”
Where is the ball? Where is “ALSO “late on””?
See where’s the ball? It’s by foul play “in “the sense of “after” ..... with the Genitive”!
Who got the ball, Ahura Mazda or Ahriman?
Four times square, careful, premeditated, deliberate handling of the ball!
Is the whistle blown on foul play? It’s blown for goal!
5, Robertson concludes the meaning of opse in Matthew from Philostratus’ use. Going to two centuries AFTER New Testament times could not be accepted a legitimate method of interpretation. Robertson in any case certainly does not take sides in favour of the meaning “after” in Mt.28:1. Robertson being the great scholar he is, affirms the fact that Philostratus “uses opse ALSO in the sense of “late on””. Had other researchers but have the courage to also call attention to this fact. Bacchiocchi keeps this, mute, again! He either deliberately keeps silent of this statement of A. T. Robertson or has never consulted him first-hand. (Which I am absolutely sure he never did, or he blatantly lied— or both.)
Robertson is of the opinion that “either (of the meanings “after” and “late”) has good support”. He mentions “the ancient Greek”, “Philostratus also” and “the papyri” as sources that use opse “with the sense of “late on”” – mark, “with the sense of “late on””: NOT, with the sense of ‘AFTER’! Robertson says of Moulton that he is “uncertain” in the case of Mt.28:1 whether opse should mean “late” or “after”. That implies that Moulton, in the other cases of opse’s occurrence with the meaning of “late”, is certain. “Blass prefers “after””, says Robertson. Blass’ preference applies for Mt.28:1 and for no other occurrence of the term. (Like with Walter Bauer.)
This appears to be a very uneven weight of “evidences” in favour of the meaning “late on”, and Blass’ discretion, quite subjective pertaining the only alleged exception, Mt.28:1!
The – nonexistent – “matter” for Robertson, must be resolved on the basis of which method Matthew used to reckon the day – not on the basis of what the meaning of the word opse is, and therefore “It is a point … not for grammar” for Robertson. Says Robertson, “If Matthew has in mind just before sunset, “late on” would be his idea; if he means after sunset, then “after” is correct.” Now that is neither grammar, nor exegesis. That is subjectivity and apathy.
Robertson actually admits defeat and admitting to HIMSELF, “It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide”.
Approaching the question then from the angle of exegesis, it must be determined whether Matthew “means after sunset” or “has in mind … before sunset” in Mt.28:1. Whether or not Matthew means the dawn of the next morning, is irrelevant. Bacchiocchi’s attempt at an overall investigation of Matthew to indicate his use of the sunrise reckoning proved futile while the incidence of the sunset reckoning in Matthew was shown to be abundant and convincing (Par. 188.8.131.52.). Specific investigation of the terms opsia and opse in Matthew and the whole New Testament underscored the finding of a sunset reckoning in Matthew as well as of opse’s meaning in Mark to be “late on”.
Robertson unambiguously states that opse is used “as a Preposition with the Genitive with the sense of “late on””. It should never be argued that because opse is a Preposition it must mean “after”. No factor of grammar or syntax makes it an exigency in Mt.28:1 that opse should be a preposition, or that, because a preposition it must mean “after”. Bauer admitted this absence of necessity by having described his concept of opse’s use in Mt.28:1, as an ‘one-timer’ “improper” (“irregular”, “uneigentliche”) Preposition. An ‘improper’ Preposition’ is no Preposition. Opse, meaning “after”, according to Robertson, would imply the Ablative “with the sense of “late on””.
And FINALLY, an ablative in Mt.28:1 would be of means, thereby further confirming time on the Sabbath, and not “after” the Sabbath. How can the Sabbath be at play as a means but already be 12 hours past?
“BY late Sabbath’s afternoon as it BEGAN to dawn toward the First Day started out the women to go see the grave when suddenly there was a great earthquake.....”
The text can be read either way (“on / in the Sabbath”, and, “after the Sabbath”), but all translators (that I know of) prefer the latter reading with good reason.
Tell us, what ‘good reason’? Remember A. T. Robertson’s retort, Why allow the women one visit only to the grave?
As Robertson reads it, the women would have attended the Lord's tomb before sunset on Saturday as it was growing dark, but it is most improbable they would have walked the entire distance (some two miles from their home to the tomb) on the Sabbath because it would have meant breaking the Sabbath rules.
So that is your ‘good reason’?
But just wait a while, let us look at all your UNREAL suppositions before your best ‘reasons’ prove a disappointment!
1) “..... the women .....” WHO were they?;
2) “..... attended the tomb .....” It is not written THESE women “attended the tomb” in Mt28:1; it is written THESE women, “Set out to (go have a) look at the grave”;
3) “..... before sunset .....” It is not written “before sunset” in Mt28:1; it is written, “Late in the Sabbath as it mid-afternoon / BEGAN to dawn towards the First Day of the week”— three hours to and before sunset;
4) “..... as it was growing dark .....” It is not written “as it was growing dark” in Mt28:1; it is written “In the fullness of the Sabbath middle-in-the-daylight-being-as-it-began-to-dawn, towards the First Day”— “as it was growing dark” will be after sunset; not “before sunset”; c.f. Jn20:1;
5) “..... two miles from their home to tomb .....”
Who says so? From where came they? Where was their home? How often is it in the Gospels said, “they returned to Jerusalem” – ‘returned’, to where they stayed, in the city— by far no ‘Sabbath’s journey’ was it to and fro from the grave, Mary and the older disciple could make short shrift of it. (1st reason to know that they did go but did not arrive.)
If for Sabbath’s restrictions, the women would not have set foot out of door; but the fact it says they “went”, it means no restrictions kept them back. “Attended the grave” they would but as it was, “mid of afternoon there suddenly was an earthquake great”, and terrible so that the rocks were rent. Who, “would have walked the distance”, regardless? It would be much, much worse than ‘Sabbath’s journey’, to the grave. (2nd reason to know that they did go but did not arrive.)
And, they must have heard, no further than round the first corner, of the Jews and guard who were on look-out after “his disciples”, that they would not get near the tomb or after the Sabbath “come after night-fall* and steal him away”. That explains, nothing came of their INTENTION “to see the tomb”! [* ‘nuktos’ ‘by night / using nightfall’, ‘Ablative of means’] (3rd reason to know that they did go but did not arrive.)
That the women’s plans were thwarted, is obvious also, because two were they who “went to see when suddenly there was a great earthquake” at the tomb “mid-afternoon”, but later, “when early darkness still, Mary”, despite rumours and in the face of danger “comes and sees”, and what she saw was on her own, and no more than “the stone from the sepulchre away. Then she took flight and ran”, and in no time for her at all got “back to Simon and Peter, and told them, They have taken the Lord away”. For so she must have thought. (4th reason to know that they did go but did not arrive.)
But what Mary had seen, told that what the Jews most feared and KNEW would be but tried their best to stop, “by* Sabbath’s mid-afternoon bright day before the First Day of the week” — already in fact when at first “set out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go see the grave and there was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord descending from heaven rolled away the stone from the door and sat down on it” —, HAD HAPPENED: yea, EVEN BEFORE any of his disciples may “by night” have “come and steal him away”. [* ‘Ablative of means’]
At best, they might have started out before sunset on the Sabbath and arrived at the tomb sometime after sunset.
The ‘best’ is that we are actually perfectly well informed by Matthew himself on WHEN the Marys “have started out”. “On the Sabbath” was it indeed! But not so late “on the Sabbath .... before sunset” that they “arrived at the tomb sometime after sunset” or even just after sunset. If they would have “arrived at the tomb”— which they did not, see above— they should have arrived at the tomb about the same length of time that it took Mary to run back from the tomb to where she found Peter and John, after “Sabbath’s mid-afternoon bright day before the First Day of the week” which is 3 p.m. exactly. Say, quarter past three at a pace of about six miles per hour— if, they had “arrived”? But NOTHING tells they “arrived”! They did not arrive; no one arrived or had arrived, before Mary ALONE “came, and saw” (Past Present), and came back and TOLD of the stone that was removed. Which was “while early darkness still”, ‘proh-i skotia eti ousehs’ according to John 20:1. Don’t forget the ‘proh-i’ – “early” which everybody seems to have gone BLIND for.
To have arrived at the tomb sometime after sunset would have put them in the most unlikely position of trying to find someone in the twilight hours to roll away the stone (cf. Mark 16:3,. and then going inside the tomb in the dark of night to embalm the Lord's body.
The “the most unlikely position” did not arise.
But even had it, why would it be “most unlikely in the twilight hours .... sometime after sunset”? Was it not “That Night to be solemnly observed”?
And what would “the most unlikely position” have been different if it were ‘the position in the twilight hours’ of the morning— “going inside the tomb in the dark of night”, “deepest of morning”, Lk24:1, “carrying their spices ready and prepared”, “to embalm the Lord's body”?
“..... the most unlikely position of trying to find someone to roll away the stone.....” BUT THEY ALREADY KNEW the stone was away from the opening? You think Mary did not tell them? That everyone came along with Mary but she had not informed them about what she had seen, the moved away STONE? That those who had had spices and ointments prepared went to the tomb ignorant about this, but Mary was one of them?
No one was in the least concerned about the door stone when they “came, carrying their spices”, Lk24:1. “They came unto the sepulchre .... and they found” – as Mary must have told them Jn20:1-3 – “the stone rolled away from the sepulchre, and they went (straight) in ....” no hassles! Therefore the women’s question and conclusion about the rolled away door-stone was at another occasion than anyone’s first visit at the tomb.
“They conversed among themselves” about the door-stone, not ‘asking’ in the normal sense of “to find someone to roll away the stone”, but ‘asked’, “Saying to one another”, overawed at the size of the stone and the way they found it away from the grave, “Who will have rolled away the stone for us? It is so BIG!” Mk16:2-3! Not John or Matthew or Luke tells about this, because they told about other visits of women at the tomb!
So again, the women never found themselves in “the most unlikely position of trying to find someone to roll away the stone .... in the twilight hours sometime after sunset”— never— and it never can be raised in argument in denial of the stated fact the Resurrection occurred “When have started out late on the Sabbath Day mid-afternoon bright daylight before the First Day of the week Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go to see the grave.” Because this is absolutely true.
Then too, all the events that immediately followed would have occurred in the dark of night: Mary running back to tell the disciples that the tomb was empty, then Peter and John running back to the tomb, and Peter going inside the tomb and noticing how the burial cloths were arranged inside the tomb—all in the dark of night.
Not quite so. John says “While it was EARLY darkness still”, from after sunset until dark— and everything you list here, XX, is recorded in John 20:1-10 where the time of night is said to have been “while it was early darkness still”.
And besides, Is this not what the Sunday morning resurrection theory teaches? You think the people who say Jesus resurrected on Sunday morning, say these things happened in bright daylight? I have never seen or heard one who teaches that!
Then Peter and John would have returned home, leaving Mary (who had returned to the tomb) alone, weeping in the dark, and far from home (John 20:1-11). It is far more reasonable to adopt the second reading wherein the women wait until the early morning after the Sabbath.
“After the Sabbath” in Mark 16:1 is the first and only ‘reading’ of “After the Sabbath” in any Gospel. And it is no ‘reading’ of ‘opse sabbatohn’, but of ‘diagenomenou tou sabbatou’.
Where do you read this, “Then Peter and John would have returned home, leaving Mary (who had returned to the tomb) alone, weeping in the dark, and far from home”? In “John 20:1-11”? Where do you read Mary went to the tomb with John and Peter? John takes great care to in the finest detail tell just what actually happened. He says Peter and John went to the tomb, and Peter and John “returned to their home”. That John mentioned nothing about Mary means she did not go with them to the tomb or stayed behind after. As simple as that. “It was early darkness still”, not even properly night; Mary would not have stood behind from then until next morning sunrise!
Where do you read of “the women” in “John 20:1-11”?
Where do you read of “wait until” in “John 20:1-11”?
Where do you read of “the early morning” in “John 20:1-11”?
Where do you read of “early morning after the Sabbath” in “John 20:1-11”?
“..... the second reading .....”, “the second reading” of what? “The second reading” in A. T. Robertson’s statement above. “The second reading” which according to you, XX, is “preferred by all Bible translators I know of”; which “second reading” then, was, “after the Sabbath”.
Then the question I have for you, XX, is, In which of these ‘translations’ implied do you find in Mt28:1, these words, or this idea, “the early morning after the Sabbath”?
For as far as I know, all translators without exception who employ “after the Sabbath”, STILL reserve the idea of the King James Version, “as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week”— they never import the idea of “the early morning” since ‘the day starts’ in the Bible with ‘the early darkness’ (as in Jn20:1) after sunset; not with “the early morning” after sunrise.
Luke mentions the first visit of the women to the tomb because when the women came they already must have known that the grave had been opened, and because they came prepared with their spices and ointments to embalm the body which they thought was still in the tomb. So they could not have been in the tomb before. Also the two angels told the women to go think about what Jesus had told them before He died, the most natural thing after discovery of the empty tomb. And so the women went and told all the others, and must have given all things much thought.
The women must have gone back to the tomb after a few hours thinking, in order to go and make sure about what they have been experiencing that night— when they conversed about who would have moved such a big stone away. That visit is recorded in Mark of course. There, it reads, that the women in unbelief and shock fled from the tomb and told nobody anything of what the – one – angel, inside the tomb just to be absolutely sure, “on the right hand side” as when they last had left the scene, had told them this time.
All the women – this time – fled ..... “But Mary had had stood after”. From here, John picks up the story, 20:11-17. Here, Jesus appeared to Mary only, “first, early on the First Day of the week” Mk16:9 when about, the gardener would have begun to work.
Mary left, “and came and told the disciples”. But meantime the other women for the third
time, must have gone back to the tomb, and this time, “The angel
(outside the tomb) ANSWERED AND EXPLAINED TO THE WOMEN”, the
circumstances of the Resurrection exactly as it happened, since “the morning
after the preparations” (of the Jews the Friday before), “saying ..... ON
Sabbath’s mid-afternoon before the First Day of the week”. Now
that “the angel (had) explained to them” these things “WHEN
God by the exceeding greatness of His Power raised Christ from the dead .....
the women with great joy”, could go to
Matthew 28:1-4 is in truth the angel’s explanation of WHEN Christ rose from the grave rather than of HOW Christ rose from the dead. “The angel of the Lord descending from heaven swirled the stone away FROM the door AND SAT ON IT”.
The EVENT that occurred inside the grave no created being could see or visualise— could only be explained. Sinful mortals could imagine His Resurrection neither after they had seen for themselves the tomb was empty; nor at the authoritative “witness of two” “imposing men standing” (Luke, ‘andres duo apestehsan’), or even at the reassuring avouchment of youth and innocence in the place where He was raised up from the dead. (Mark, “a young man sitting” ‘neaniskon kathehmenon’).
Every Gospel seems to fill in on information found in the others. It shows no one of them was written first time final without knowledge of one another. Every compiler was busy with composing or compiling his Gospel over several years with the other Gospels at his constant disposal for comparison and confirmation. The writers kept contact. That the Gospels followed one after the other with years separating them, is no less a theory than that the time of their writing and editing overlapped. Certain ‘sources’ – manuscripts and traditions – laid the foundation, but it is not to say they were what in the end turned out to be Mark. All the Gospels are the latest of The New Testament documents; also Mark. Parts of Mark may were published first; but Mark’s ‘second ending’ shows it was finished last. Every Gospel and especially John clearly tries to avoid to merely repeat what the others say, which shows the Gospels were every one composed and compiled over the same period of time until as late as the first decade into the second century, and that the differences between the end products should rather be ascribed to the personal selections of each Gospel-writer/s from all the sources generally available— for example as Luke described his method.
Not only are all the events more plausible during the early morning hours on the day after the Sabbath, but that reading (“after the Sabbath”) also agrees with Matthew's later statement:
Matthew 28:11-13 11 While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 After they had assembled with the elders and formed a plan, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came at night and stole his body while we were asleep.’
and with the other resurrection accounts.”
What better ‘plausibility’ can be expected of “all the events” if they happened “during the early morning hours on the day after the Sabbath” than if they happened “on Sabbath’s mid-afternoon before the First Day of the week”? If light meant plausibility, “ON the Sabbath mid-afternoon” (literal for the Greek, or “Late in the Sabbath” of for example the KJV), would mean better ‘plausibility’ than for example “early morning hours” (XX) or “deepest dark morning” (literal for the Greek Lk24:1).
Yet the real plausibility or implausibility of your view does not depend on whether the Resurrection happened in the darkness of night or “in the twilight hours” or in bright daylight; it lies in CONFUSING every time-specific and every visit-event and every appearance-event, for the Resurrection and the time and day of the Resurrection. That is what you are trying to do and that is your problem. You try to allocate “all the events” and all the times mentioned in all four Gospels about the women’s visits and Jesus’ first two appearances – having referred to Luke 24, to Mark 16, to John 20, and to Matthew 28 – as if they were “all the events” of the Resurrection in the “early morning hours” of Sunday.
This is your basic mistake. Fact remains after everything else, the Scripture Mt28:1-4 describes, or rather tells of how the angel described the events and the time of the events of the circumstances of Jesus’ resurrection “mid-afternoon Sabbath’s in being bright daylight as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week.” End of all contradiction.
Mark 16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb.
Luke 24:1 Now on the first day of the week, at early dawn, the women went to the tomb, taking the aromatic spices they had prepared.
John 20:1 Now very early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance.
See what I mean? Am I unreasonable? Am I unreasonable if I asked you, Where is the Resurrection the subject; where is it mentioned; just hinted at in these TIME-INDICATIONS? Even worse: Where is Jesus’ appearance the subject? What these time-references refer to is neither the Resurrection nor an Appearance; they are each a reference to one of several VISITS to the tomb— visits of AFTER the Resurrection and of AFTER the day of the Resurrection.
Now take a look at the same A.T. Robertson's comments on Mark 16:2.
A.T. Robertson wrote:
When the sun was risen
(anateilantos tou hēliou). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though
some manuscripts read anatellontos, present participle. Luke 24:1 has it “at
early dawn” (orthrou batheos) and John 20:1 “while it was yet dark.” It was some
two miles from
Re, A. T. Robertson, “When the sun was risen (anateilantos tou hēliou). Genitive absolute, aorist participle, though some manuscripts read anatellontos, present participle. Luke 24:1 has it “at early dawn” (orthrou batheos) and John 20:1 “while it was yet dark.”.....”
So? Same argument, Where is the Resurrection the subject; where is it mentioned; just hinted at in these TIME-INDICATIONS? Even worse: Where is Jesus’ appearance the subject? What these time-references refer to is neither the Resurrection nor an Appearance; they are each a reference to one of several VISITS to the tomb— visits of AFTER the Resurrection and of AFTER the day of the Resurrection.
However learned Dr. A. T. Robertson was, by having sorted John 20:1 with Lk24:1 and Mk16:2-3, he erred.
1) “While it was yet dark” is wrong; where is the word “early” of John? It should be: “While it was yet EARLY darkness”.
2) And “While it was yet early darkness” is the beginning-part of night, while “at early dawn” is the ending-part of night.
3) Who are the women in Mk16:2-3 or in Lk24:1-10? Then who is Mary in Jn20:1-2?
4) What are the actions or events in Mk16:2-3 or in Lk24:1-10? Then what are the actions in Jn20:1-2?
Yet Dr. A. T. Robertson correctly maintained “Luke 24:1” and “Mark 16:2” “has it” the same as “John 20:1” and erred not? The learned man erred! And he ERRED because traditional prejudice of the WHOLE of Sunday-believing Christianity “has it” the same— “has it” the same about the ONE thing that no single Sunday-protagonist shall ever relinquish and for the protection and defence of which Sunday-Christianity as one man stand UNITED against opposition or protest— which one thing is that Christ rose from the dead on the First Day of the week .... Yes; but not so much “it”; but that Christ did NOT rise from the dead on the Sabbath— that, in the last analysis, is “it” about which Christianity “has it” the same. Strangest of all, Christianity INCLUDING the Sabbatharians “has it” the same!
“It was some two miles from
Fine, now we can all see A. T. Robertson makes the same basic mistake as does all Christianity. He has CONFUSED every time-specific and every visit-event and every appearance-event, for the Resurrection and the time and day of the Resurrection. He tried to allocate “all the events” and all the times mentioned in all four Gospels about the women’s visits and Jesus’ first two appearances in Luke 24, Mark 16, John 20, and “Matthew 28:11-13 11”, to the Resurrection in the “early morning hours” of Sunday.
I repeat my question of earlier, Who says,“It
was some two miles from
Re: “..... “very early” (lian prōi), “when the sun was risen.””
In your quote, XX, there is no Greek for what Robertson defined as “when the sun was risen”, ‘anateilantos tou hehliou’. It should be “very early sun-rising”— before sunrise because Jesus had not yet appeared, and “He first appeared to Mary ..... very early on the First Day” Mk16:9, sunrise when a gardener should come on duty Jn20:14-15.
Re: Robertson: “Mark himself gives both notes of time, “very early” (lian prōi), “when the sun was risen.”” Sure he does. Who says he doesn’t? Me?
But you / Robertson don’t mention the fact Mark also gives both things DONE. Far worse, you / Robertson don’t mention that Mark himself gives THREE, ‘notes of time, “very early” (lian prōi), “when the sun was risen.”’, not just the two of the women’s visit at the tomb, ““very early” (lian prōi)” and, “when the sun was risen”!
Yes, it is so, “Mark himself gives both notes of time, “very early” (lian prōi), “when the sun was risen”” to pinpoint the time of night when the several women “had arrived at the tomb and asking among themselves, exclaimed, Just who would have rolled the stone away from the door for us, because having looked properly they saw it is very large and was cast uphill away!” The women did not as if they had found the tomb still closed, or as if they had not yet known, ask, ‘Who WILL NOW remove the stone for us?’. No, they had arrived and were at the tomb first, and, after having “looked up” or “investigated” the stone, “said” – or rather – “exclaimed, Who for the life of us would have rolled the stone away, it is so large!?”. They rhetorically ‘asked’, “very surprised” at the size of the stone and the impossible feat of having removed it from the opening.
Now that was another event than when the three specific women much earlier that night had “bought spices, SO THAT, WHEN THEY WOULD GO, THEY MIGHT anoint Him”. From the nature of the case, it had to have been BEFORE, and not nearly at the same time as when they actually had gone to anoint the body— which event after all not Mark recorded, but Luke, because it is Luke and not Mark who tells that the women “arrived at the tomb carrying their spices and ointments prepared and ready” to anoint the body and therefore as soon as circumstances and opportunity allowed their first visit at the tomb.
To argue as if Mark only tells of the women’s visit at the grave and uses the two “notes of time” of their visit only, is confusing. Although the different times and events of the buying of the spices and of the visit at the tomb are in unbroken sequence in the text, it does not mean they in context of time were so near one another. The plain and obvious meaning of the words of
1) the different actions,
2) the different times of day, and
3) the different women mentioned,
speak much louder than proximity and visible word-order.
The division between the chapters was most unfortunate;
Mark 16:1 should have been Mark 15:48.
Re: Robertson: “Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb.”
Respected scholar he is, Dr. Robertson is speculating; and he admits that he is speculating. He is speculating on the false premises of “they .... probably .... started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb”.
The only place where the idea, “they started while” is possible, is Mt28:1, “While Mary Magdalene and the other Mary started out to go see the tomb, there was a great earthquake”. It does not say or mean or intend to say, “they arrived at the tomb”.
The idea “they arrived at the tomb” is possible in Mark 16:2-3 and Lk24:1, and in these texts only. It is not possible in Mt28:1, and it is not possible in Jn20:1, or in Mk16:9, or in Jn20:11, or anywhere else. Dr. Robertson’s “probably” is totally improbable.
After all, there is nowhere the slightest suggestion of some journey made by women. The only actual ‘journey’ to the tomb described anywhere, is that of Peter and John in Jn20:3-10. But in Jn20:1, it is, “Mary comes, she sees....”; in Jn20:11 it is, “Mary had had stood after.....”; in Lk24:1, “Now.... they came / got to / upon the sepulchre....”; in Mk16:1, “They come / get to / upon the tomb....”. Arrival as such – no walking over any distance to the tomb – is being described.
Re: Robertson: “Probably they started while it was still dark and the sun was coming up when they arrived at the tomb. All three mention that it was on the first day of the week, our Sunday morning when the women arrive.”
Which is an obvious contradiction: “....they started ....” vs. “.... the women arrive(d) ....”. But that is a minor matter ....
What is “it”?, is what matters! WHEN was “it”?, is what matters! “.... it was on the first day of the week”— the Resurrection? No!
First, “It”, was visits (not ‘journeys’) by the women at the tomb at different times of the Saturday night, Lk24:1 “deep darkness”; Mk16:2-3 “very early sun’s rising”; and
Next, “It” was Appearances— “to first, Mary Magdalene early on the First Day of the week .... at the sepulchre” Mk16:9, Jn20:11-17; and after, to the other women— “as they went to tell his disciples” Mt28:9.
“It”, was NOT the Resurrection! The Resurrection was “Described / explained / answered them (by) the angel” in Mt28:1-4,5a!
24 November 2009
Private Bag X43