Tony Zbaraschuk in Conversation
with Gerhard Ebersöhn on the Subject of the Days of the Resurrection
and Appearances of our Lord Jesus Christ
I refer you to 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace', especially the first three books, obtainable free from http://www.biblestudents.co.za
I'm asking you for the short
version. Convince me, in ten pages or less, that the four Gospels, when
they refer very specifically to the dates of the Resurrection, are actually and
specifically saying that it was on Saturday.
If you can't, find an editor who can.
I don't need ten pages; Matthew in Mt.28:1-4 has ‘edited’ it in one sentence.
‘Dates of the resurrection’:
(Where had this day begun? In Mk14:12-17, Mt26:17-20, Lk22:7-14 and Jn13:1f – with the Last Supper!)
John 19:14 says, "It was Preparation of the Passover" on which Pilate "delivered Him unto them". After that He was crucified and died, says Luke, "everybody left and went home", leaving the scene of the crucifixion deserted . . . . until . . . .
Day two had begun:
With Mk15:47 and Mt27:57, which say that after He had died, and "after that evening had come" – the body still being on the cross – "Joseph came" (Jn19:31).
Joseph came and “removed” the body and “prepared” it, "after these things".
After these things, referring to Jesus who had "given up the ghost", and, to "the Jews (who) therefore besought Pilate”.
The Jews asked Pilate “because it (now) was the Preparation” . . . “the Preparation which is the Before-Sabbath" (or Friday), as Mark says. It was the seconf day of Passover, beginning.
The Jews besought Pilate that the bodies should not remain on the cross on that, still prospective, “sabbath day”. Their reason for asking? "For that sabbath day was an 'high day' ”. What ‘high day’? It was the Passover’s, “Sabbath Day”. That
Friday, was that Passover’s, ‘sabbath day’ . . . . ‘sabbath day’ just as the day before it had been the Passover’s, “Preparation Day” (John).
So Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus, and finished Joseph closing the opening "when day tended/turned towards the Sabbath" (Lk23:54) on Friday afternoon.
the women started to rest the Sabbath Day according to the Commandment",
from its beginning, after sunset. Until, "In the fullness of the
Sabbath's Day when light tended/turned towards the First Day of the week",
when "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went, intending to go have a
look at the grave", "there suddenly was a great earthquake and
the angel of the Lord descended and rolled away the stone from the opening and
sat down upon it". It was the moment of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead! And of the opening of the grave, and of victory over death and grave once for all.
a few sentences instead of ten pages, telling you what all the Scriptures in
essence has to tell as to "the Seventh Day God thus concerning did
speak" (Hb4:4-5) "through the Son",
"in these last days". "For I deliver unto you first of
all (above all else) that which I also received (from the
Scriptures), how that Christ died for our sins according to the
(Passover-)Scriptures, and that He was
buried (the second 'first day' of Passover), and that he rose again the third ('first') day according to (the same Passover-)Scriptures." (Paul is the king of the ellipses!)
Might I point out that the vast majority of Christians, of whatever translation, were Sunday-keepers. It's not like the KJV was a specifically Sabbath-promoting Bible and we all came along and started keeping Sunday only after the NIV was invented.
Well answered! It explains a lot, does it not? You remember what Tyndale had to say to the Sundaydarians?
Not at all. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what he said, and where?
He said something to the effect that Sunday sabbatharians had no case for Sunday in the Scriptures whereas the Sabbath enjoys a much better Scriptural basis. I read it in a SDA-book. I haven't got the time now to get the precise reference.
This is another problem with your approach -- you keep throwing at me things I've never heard, instead of answering my statements at the Bible. You simply assume that I have read everything you have, and seen it in the same light, and therefore that you don't have to explain anything.
Sorry! I'll try to pay more attention to detail.
Wonder if he (Tyndale) perhaps had some Scripture-facts in mind he did not disguise in his translation of Mt28:1-4, but rendered to his honest best. Said he also, may God take his part in Christ away, were he to translate anything against his conscience. The KJV is Tyndale's eventually. Also, changes started to be brought in, only recently and since the translators have become aware of the implications for Sunday-observance. Sunday observance depends on the Resurrection on that day.
This does not mean that everyone who thinks that the Resurrection was on Sunday is therefore necessarily a Sunday-keeper.
Maybe; but do you know of Sunday-keepers who don't? Only the Catholics claim they sort of 'possess' Sunday because of the Church. The previous Pope though connected Sunday with the resurrection like nobody before.
The official and collective decision of the Bible Societies about the middle of the previous century was to translate away from the literal and according to WORLDVIEW and the general understanding of CONTEMPORARY opinion and culture.
I think you are vastly oversimplifying a long and complicated debate.
No, they had the audacity to say without blinking just what they had in mind. Here are some examples:
Blye Boodskap' (The Glad
Tidings), 'Preface', "The understandability of the translation has
been considered of greater importance than the literal rendering of the basic
'The New Afrikaans Bible', 'Preface', "The purpose has been a translation that keeps tract with the developments of recent years in Afrikaans and the results of scientific investigation, that would as far as possible be faithful to the ground text . . . . a translation that would appeal to Afrikaans speaking people outside as within the Church . . . . within our present situation."
were the direct results of the activities in
"At the session of the National Sinod of the Reformed Churches, 1973, declares the Rev. J.T.M. de Jong van Arkel, Secretary of the South African Bible Society, on
behalf of the Society, that ". . . . they don't
desire a form-translation, but instead a dynamic and contemporary Afrikaans, in
agreement with the decision taken on 5 July 1968 during that translation
seminar. An understandable translation is aspired, which avoids
theological-technicalities, traditional-institutional ('Kerklike')
grandiloquence and literalness."
So it fared right across the globe. Thick books have been written on the issue.
Most important development to me though, has been the latest critical re-evaluation of the priority given to the NA text (later editions) to the detriment of the merit of the TR. Life hasn't allowed me the time yet to make a study of this revolutionary return to the Reformation values.
Furthermore, you keep using the word "remember". Please remember that I am not God and my knowledge is not infinite, and therefore I may not have read everything you have, so do me the grace to either quote an adequate section of what was actually said on the occasion, or else at least give me a direct reference so I can find it myself and judge whether it says what you think it says.
First: One finds it in texts with bearing on the Sabbath and the 'passion-week' specifically (besides other aspects not of my immediate interest) – and is there for everyone to see . . . . if they wanted. I won't unnecessarily repeat them all here.
Next: Why so many and radical changes exactly pertaining to the time and day of the resurrection?
You have yet to establish that they _were_ changes. You have yet to establish that, if there were changes, they were changes for the worst. In particular, as far as I can see, you have not even _begun_ to address the question of how to accurately translate the passages (by which I mean, in enough engagement with the original language that you can show me where the NIV -- and the several other translations I have been known to use from time to time is wrong in its understanding of the critical passages in question).
are specifics. They are all dealt with extensively in 'The Lord's Day in the
Covenant of Grace'. They are dealt with almost exhaustively from the sources
that were available to me – which included of the greatest and most
authoritative. (Mostly obtained from the 'Hans Merensky Library' of the
I still maintain that 'you don't want to accept it in each case was a conscious effort of the 'translators', "to change time and law". But I still do. The Church turns most wicked when it acts to what it thinks its best interest; they (we) are not angels.
I agree with your last sentence, mostly; but show me that this _is_ such a situation.
Please, it is exactly what I have been busy with all along. It is the negative purpose of my studies. The positive purpose was and is to Scripturally show the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ also as pertains to the Sabbath of the LORD your God.
In any case, proof by assertion means nothing. If you want to convince me that my translation of those verses is incorrect, go ahead and show me how it works out from the Greek and how it's best translated into English.
I have already answered you on this, but do go read the old Versions and compare them with the newer ones.
Which? KJV? Something else?
Simple and ready! I have on my shelves 'The Layman's Parallel Bible' – you probably too. Just read Mark 15:42 and Mt27:57 and compare KJV, ML and RSV with 'Living Bible'. Well, they cannot all be correct; one, or more, must blatantly be lying there! To me it is obvious which one. So I could go on. And I could have mentioned a number of the greatest scholars.
Who, specifically? Where?
AT Robertson, 'Gr. Grammar', 'Word Pictures'; John Calvin: Gospels Commentary. They all (like in addition Knoch and Young) in effect say this, to be literal: 'Opse Sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn ...' : "In Sabbath's ripeness epi-daylight-it-being (like in 'epicentre'- the very centre) towards/before the First Day – Accusative, NEVER relinquishing or compromising the concept of "in" or "on" in verses 1 to 4.
Justin switched the concepts 'in/on' and 'towards/before' of Mt28:1 about, in order to be able to say "after Friday which is Saturday", and "on the Day of the Sun". He compromised truth with the lie for political and social expediency.
Even the KJV translates Mt28:1 as "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...", which doesn't agree with your translation at all.
Now I don't understand you at all! I say the KJV says exactly what it should! And it does not say what the perverted Versions say – it says its opposite. It does not, like in the New KJV, say: "After the Sabbath . . . . on the First Day", but it says just what it should and does say, which translates correctly and in truth, "ON/IN Sabbath's fullness of Day in the very light being (now) turned towards the First Day" which simply and literally means 'afternoon' – "afternoon of the Sabbath", that is; “mid-afternoon” in fact.
There's a myriad of other factors involved, all unanimously supporting the idea of "ON the Sabbath BEFORE the First Day".
What, so they were violating the Sabbath by carrying a fairly heavy load of spices?
No. They did that on Sunday during night after midnight.
The whole point of the original hasty burial was because the Sabbath is nearly upon them.
You mean Friday afternoon. How do you get haste in there? The burial itself wasn't "hasty"; haste is the false impression created by tradition: He must be buried before sundown, to get to Sunday for the resurrection.
The burial started with Joseph's initiative the evening before already – Mk15:42 / Mt27:57, and lasted until Friday exactly the same time of day as described by the use of the word 'epifohskoh' in Mt.28:1. Here is one of the great faults in the traditional view; it makes no provision for the second first day of the Passover Season, the first day of Unleavened Bread or Feast or Sabbath or High Day of Passover.
. . . . so they wait over the Sabbath and they're going to the tomb _after_ the Sabbath,
Yes, but not in Mt28:1 though – only in Mk16:1. So, "In the Sabbath's fullness of day BEFORE the First Day – eis mian sabbatohn”, the women “set out to (go) look". These verses both mean the weekly Sabbath; Mk15:42 / Mt27:57 has the Passover-sabbath in mind.
The three mentioned women did not, ‘get to the tomb’; they intended, quote: "to go have a look at the tomb – theohrehsai", Infinitive of purpose or intent.
They obviously were prevented to actually ‘get’ to the tomb, by the “great earthquake” that “suddenly”, occurred. They obviously were prevented to actually ‘get’ to the tomb through having learnt of the guard that –in any case– would have prevented them to ‘get to the tomb’.
. . . . and they're going near dawn on Sunday (instead of after sunset Saturday evening) because they (a) need light to work . . . .
It was full moon.
. . . . and (b) don't want to go outside the city after dark.
The women anyway ‘after sunset Saturday evening’ “while deep(est) darkness” went to and came from the grave – see Luke and Mark. They experienced no hindrance then; why would they anywhere else?
But why would the women not ‘want to go outside the city after dark’? It was the festival of night-activities after all, the Passover. Nothing safer; nothing more according to custom – which from Mark 16:1 is as clear as daylight.
However, here in Mt28:1-4, it was, to quote literally and exactly, “fullness of daylight being”. Who talked about when it was dark or after sunset?
Can we at least agree that the _women's visit to the tomb_ is on Sunday morning?
No, because you presume one visit only; I recognise several visits from the Gospel accounts. I cannot assent to any realised visit to the tomb on the Sabbath Day before. For then the women had to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection – which no mortal eye beheld. For then an Indicative, finite, verb of accomplishment would be used instead of the Infinitive in fact used. For then all the Gospels would have been in chaotic disagreement. No, we cannot agree the women's alleged visit to the tomb allegedly mentioned in Mt28:1-4, was on Sunday morning for no such thing is mentioned there.
We, however, at least, can agree, that the women's visit to the tomb on Sunday morning after sunrise, as nowhere being mebtioned in Mt28:1-11, is being implied there undeniably, thereby admitting two events that on two consecutive days, occurred, the first event being that of Jesus’ resurrection, the second that of His second appearance.
To clinch it all, read how Justin Martyr, had to, change, the Greek in 28:1 in order to say what is nowadays 'translated' as Matthew 28:1, "meta" plus Acc. instead of the Gen.; and "tehi hemerai hehliou": Dative instead of Matthew's 'eis' plus Accusative – a direct switch about!
In your words, It's me, ‘looking at the Bible and seeing what it says and not what Gnostics and compromisers say’. ‘Discovery is seeing what everyone else has seen, then to think what no one else has thought.’ Everyone has seen the ‘translations’; no one has thought about the text or divine fulfilment.
I'm going to suggest, as gently as possible, that just maybe they had a better understanding of the Greek original than you do, since they were native speakers.
You couldn't have said it gentler nor clearer! That, exactly, was why Justin and almost everyone after him, had to change the text in order to accommodate a Sunday-resurrection ideology (or nightmare).
Very few of the 'native speakers' had the Gospels at their disposal – if at all they were able to read them. The 'scholars' of the day, like Justin, could do with them just like they liked, and no one else would be able to notice. (Chances were much better for manipulation than with the 'old' Scriptures of the establishment.) So Justin knew letter for letter and idea for idea how to word and phrase his apologies to the emperor and please both sides Christian and secular. The methodology of 'translation' then, resembled that of today ('dynamic equivalent'), closely. "The dynamic-equivalence translation theory owes its influence and effect to the blending of modern theological prejudices regarding the Bible with data borrowed from communication theory, culture anthropology and modern sociology – rather than to insights from linguistics." Dr. J. van Bruggen (Rushdoony). Only, Justin had such clear 'insights from linguistics', that he exactly knew how to persuade all interested but equally ignorant parties.
. . . . verse 2, Angel comes down and goes to tomb, verse 3, he looks dazzling, verse 4, guards are afraid, verse 5, angel speaks to women.
Not so smoothly and uninterruptedly though did the angel speak to the women.
How does one explain the many and drastically different source-materials both visible and invisible?
How does one explain the angel's 'answer' to the women? Where is their question or questions? They are all clearly implied in the fore-going verses! Had the women just seen the resurrection, they wouldn’t ask about it and the angel wouldn’t need to answer them.
How does one clarify the contradictions-a-plenty if of the one and only 'visit' it speaks in the various Gospels?
Besides, the guards were struck down like dead before they could see anything happening – "like lightning" – when it hits it's not noticeable. They knew NOTHING of the resurrection or of its circumstance.
I think that's going too far -- the angel's appearance is that way, sure, but I think you're forcing it to say that they were necessarily rendered unconscious immediately. KJV: "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow" -- this is a description of his appearance, not of the way in which the men are rendered unconscious.
You (intentionally?) leave unmentioned what the text in clearest possible terms states for fact: that the guards fell down “like dead”, when “like lightning” they were struck by the angel’s “appearance”. They weren’t just ‘dazzled’! It says, "Then suddenly", and that 'suddenly' means everything that followed – the guard's falling down like dead included. One doesn't go down and is 'rendered unconscious' slowly when struck by lightning. There are survivors to tell; they without exception suffered loss of memory, even of being struck, or of being struck down . . . or to pieces for that matter, “like dead”!
Why will you argue and keep on disagreeing on such detail even?
In any case, the temporal implication of the sequence still applies.
Exactly! The big issue here is, what are these ‘temporal implication of the sequence’?
I admit that it is POSSIBLE that the resurrection happened earlier than the visit and the angel shows up just to roll away the stone and meet the women, but I don't think that's the most plausible interpretation of the text as I read it.
The grave is opened, the moment of Jesus rising from the dead, the very moment of His defeating the grave as well; not before or after. “There! Look!” (kai idou).
And nowhere is it mentioned or was it possible “the angel shows up just to .... meet the women”! What next?!
To me there's no possibility things could happen all at once or immediately following one another. It was all the event of the single moment, 'in the twinkling of an eye', as Paul describes the general resurrection. It also applies to Jesus' resurrection. Again, it is explicitly stated: "Then suddenly". Matthew describes the event of Jesus' resurrection and gives the single time-span during which it occurred: "It being afternoon of Sabbath's fullness of day there suddenly was . . . .". This is the literal and exact rendering of the text of Mt28:1.
But where one is supposed to see things happen in sequence, the one after the other during the relatively longer time-span of the Saturday-night, everybody all of a sudden refuses point blank, and say, no, it was one visit of all the women collectively on Sunday morning. That baffles me uttermost.
The natural implication of those verses is that the women arrive at the tomb and see the angel there.
"Those verses" may, include verses from three of the Gospels; it may, even include verses 5 to 11 from Matthew 28 – but not from Matthew 28 verses 1 to 4.
Your observations are assumption – mine are not.
First, the women did not "arrive"; they "set out to go have a look" – Infinitive of intent, and so on, as before pointed out.
You need to look at all the parallel accounts, not just Matthew. For instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen. I am trying to include _all_ the Biblical evidence here, not just one of the four versions we have. Luke 24 has the same sequence of events. Does that not enter into your thinking at all?
It obviously hasn’t entered your thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events “in Mark 16” at all! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, 'parallel accounts', but sequential in terms of time and development.
“For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.” Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15.)
1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who "bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through" (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!
2) Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary only, who only, "when only early darkness still" (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.
3) In Luke, more than three women arrive, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.
4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.
5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14-18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),
6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have had returned to the grave, in detail what, without anybody's presence or knowledge, happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And while they went to tell the disciple, Jesus appeared to them.
Private Bag X43