[GMark] GMark Digest, "Abomination of Desolation" thread

Khbonnell at aol.com Khbonnell at aol.com
Wed Jul 12 01:56:47 EDT 2006


 
The "A of D" thread has moved into a new theme:  
Matthew versus Mark on the time of the  "resurrection"  
It must be taken into  consideration that Matthew has Mark as its main 
source, but that the writer  of Matthew interprets Mark to fit his own agenda.   
Notice first  that where Mark has "after three days rise" (or slight variant), 
Matthew has  "on the third day be raised."  This means we cannot use Matthew's  
elaboration of the Jonah reference (12:38-41) to "explain" Mark's prediction  
nor its effect on the crucifixion through empty tomb sequence.  I am  sure 
that the writer of Matthew recognized the disorder of Mark,  "after  three days" 
not fitting "when the Sabbath was past." He  probably fitted his scenario to 
Hosea 6:2:  "After two days he will  revive us; on the third day he will raise 
us up . . .  "    In order to make his "on the third day"  prediction come to 
pass, he shortened the events of Mark's Passion Week,  combing Mark's day 2 
with day 1, Mark's day 3 with day 2, etc. such the  trial and crucifixion and 
entombment occur on Wednesday, that being the  first of day, Thursday being the 
second day, and Friday being the third day,  on which Jesus would be raised.  
That is why he says that the women go  to the tomb "as the first [day] of the 
week was coming on," to discover the  empty tomb.  The Greek of Mat. 28:1 
literally translates as "Late in  the week [sabbaton, plural, = "week"] as the 
first of the week [sabbaton]  was dawning ["coming on"] . . ."  This puts "on the 
third day" on the  day of the sabbath.  Those translations that say "after 
the sabbath,"  which started to appear in editions about the turn of the 
nineteenth century  into the twentieth, from certain commentaries (references to 
which I did not  preserve in two articles I have written and saved) made late in 
the  nineteenth century that  sought harmonize Matthew with the other  gospels. 
   It seems to be de rigueur for commentators to  ignore the differences 
between Mark's and Matthew's versions of Passion  Week.  In discussions on the 
_errancy at ii_errancy.com_ (mailto:errancy at ii_errancy.com) , sometime  ago, it was 
not accepted that there were  differences. Since Mark's prediction had said, 
"After three days,"  then Monday, or after would have been when the dead Jesus 
would rise after a  Friday death.  As for the women's going to the tomb and 
finding it  empty on Saturday evening (or Sunday morning, as you will), even the 
writer  of Matthew found it nonsense. 
Ken Bonnell, Los  Angeles


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/gmark/attachments/20060712/1e4280ab/attachment.htm 


More information about the GMark mailing list