Matthew 28:1

Matthew 28:1 Interpretation Jonathan Owen jonathan5 at coolgoose.com
Thu Jan 3 01:24:15 EST 2002

Septuagint Letter S Hi! I have a question about the interpretation of Matthew 28:1a. Thephrase “opse de sabbaton” is a bit difficult for me to understand what isgoing on in the Greek. We have an adverb (opse) along with a pluralgenitive (de sabbaton).BAGD takes opse as an “improper preposition” with the genitive, so theinterpretation would be “after the Sabbath.” In a later discussion onefellow said the phrase should be interpreted quite literally into “latterof the Sabbaths.” When I pointed out BAGD’s use of opse, he saidBlass/Debrunner (and Thayer too I believe) interpreted opse as “latter” or”later,” as well as used the plural “Sabbaths.” However I don’t haveaccess to Blass/Debrunner or Thayer. What are the possible interpretationoptions for Matt 28:1? Also,is the “literal latter” interpretationconsidered a valid option by either references or your opinion?ThanksJonathan Owen

SeptuagintLetter S

Matthew 28:1 Interpretation Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Thu Jan 3 10:39:08 EST 2002

Letter S Letter S In a message dated 1/3/02 6:04:16 AM, jonathan5 at coolgoose.com writes:>Hi! I have a question about the interpretation of Matthew 28:1a. The>phrase “opse de sabbaton” is a bit difficult for me to understand what>is>going on in the Greek. We have an adverb (opse) along with a plural>genitive (de sabbaton).> >BAGD takes opse as an “improper preposition” with the genitive, so the>interpretation would be “after the Sabbath.” In a later discussion one>fellow said the phrase should be interpreted quite literally into “latter>of the Sabbaths.” When I pointed out BAGD’s use of opse, he said>Blass/Debrunner (and Thayer too I believe) interpreted opse as “latter”>or>“later,” as well as used the plural “Sabbaths.” However I don’t have>access to Blass/Debrunner or Thayer. What are the possible interpretation>options for Matt 28:1? Also,is the “literal latter” interpretation>considered a valid option by either references or your opinion?> Thayer in the 1963 printing gives the interpretation of this as “after the sabbath” with the comment that in this context no other interpretation is possible. There there are several illustrations from biblical and non-biblical uses of this “adverb” as an improper preposition. I agree.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

Letter SLetter S

Matthew 28:1 Interpretation Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Jan 3 12:11:28 EST 2002

Letter S Matthew 28:1 Interpretation In a message dated 1/3/2002 7:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonathan5 at coolgoose.com writes:> BAGD takes opse as an “improper preposition” with the genitive, so the> interpretation would be “after the Sabbath.” In a later discussion one> fellow said the phrase should be interpreted quite literally into “latter> of the Sabbaths.” When I pointed out BAGD’s use of opse, he said> Blass/Debrunner (and Thayer too I believe) interpreted opse as “latter” or> “later,” as well as used the plural “Sabbaths.” However I don’t have> access to Blass/Debrunner or Thayer. What are the possible interpretation> options for Matt 28:1? Also,is the “literal latter” interpretation> considered a valid option by either references or your opinion?> I think that, at least in part, your puzzlement is due to the plural SABBATWN. BAGD and BDAG point out that TA SABBATA is used of one Sabbath.B. TA SABBATA for a single Sabbath day (Zen.-P. Cairo 762, 6 [III bc]; Plut., Mor. 169c; 671e THN TWN SABBATWN hEORTHN; 672a; Ex 20:10; Lev 23:32 al.; Philo, Abr. 28 THN hEBDOMHN, hHN hEBRAIOI SABBATA KALOUSIN; Jos., Ant. 1, 33; 3, 237; 12, 259; 276.—Bl-D. §141, 3 w. app.; Rob. 408; ESchwyzer, Ztschr. f. vergleich. Sprachforschung 62, ’35, 1-16; ASchlatter, Mt ’29, 393) OYE SABBATWN Mt 28:1a (s. OYE 3). Also prob. Col 2:16. hH hHMERA TWN SABBATWN (Ex 20:8; 35:3; Dt 5:12; Jer 17:21f; Jos., Ant. 12, 274) Lk 4:16; Ac 13:14; 16:13; Dg 4:3. (EN) TOIS SABBASIN on the Sabbath (Jos., Vi. 279 TOIS SABBASIN, Ant. 13, 252 v.l. EN TOIS SABBASIN) Mt 12:1, 5, 10-12; Mk 1:21; 2:23, 24; 3:2, 4; Lk 4:31; 6:2; 13:10. hH PERI TA SABBATA DEISIDAIMONIA superstitious veneration of the Sabbath Dg 4:1 (only extreme danger to human life can cause the Sabbath law to be suspended: Synes., Ep. 4 p. 162b, c). TA SABBATA the Sabbath feasts B 2:5 (Is 1:13).-JMeinhold, Sabbat u. Woche im AT ’05, Sabbat u. Sonntag ’09; JHehn, Siebenzahl u. Sabbat bei den Babyloniern u. im AT ’07, Der israelit. Sabbat ’09, Zur Sabbatfrage: BZ 14, ’17, 198-213; EMahler, Der Sabbat: ZDMG 62, ’08, 33-79, Handbuch der jüd. Chronologie ’16; GBeer, Schabbath ’08; WNowack, Schabbat ’24; MWolff, Het ordeel der helleensch-romeinsche schrijvers over. . . den Sabbath: ThT 44, ’10, 162-72; ELohse, Jesu Worte über den Sabbat, Beih. ZNW 26, ’60, 79-89. S. also KURIAKOS, end.gfsomsel————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20020103/8e99746f/attachment.html

Letter SMatthew 28:1 Interpretation

Matthew 28:1 Interpretation c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jan 3 14:38:34 EST 2002

Matthew 28:1 Interpretation Dungan, David L (OFF TOPIC – NO Discussion!!) on 1/2/02 10:24 PM, Jonathan Owen wrote:> Hi! I have a question about the interpretation of Matthew 28:1a. The> phrase “opse de sabbaton” is a bit difficult for me to understand what is> going on in the Greek. We have an adverb (opse) along with a plural> genitive (de sabbaton).> > BAGD takes opse as an “improper preposition” with the genitive, so the> interpretation would be “after the Sabbath.” In a later discussion one> fellow said the phrase should be interpreted quite literally into “latter> of the Sabbaths.” When I pointed out BAGD’s use of opse, he said> Blass/Debrunner (and Thayer too I believe) interpreted opse as “latter” or> “later,” as well as used the plural “Sabbaths.” However I don’t have> access to Blass/Debrunner or Thayer. What are the possible interpretation> options for Matt 28:1? Also,is the “literal latter” interpretation> considered a valid option by either references or your opinion?Jonathan, Carlton and George have given useful readings on parts of this question. Iwill add that Thayer, while agreeing adamantly with Carlton about Mt 28:1,also states later that: “OYE followed by a genitive seems always to bepartitative, denoting late in the period specified by the genitive (andconsequently still belonging to it) . . . .”Two noteworthy 19th century guys H.A.W. Meyer and H. Alford are strongly infavor of limiting OYE with the genitive to “late in the period specified bythe genitive.” They solve the problem in Mt. 28:1 by reckoning the dayaccording to the Roman(?) system where it begins at sunrise.Another 19th century guy, Alfred Schmoller in his Handkonkordanz renders OYEin Mt. 28:1 as vespere. Agreeing it appears with Alford and Meyer.CDF Moule (Idiom Book, p.86) waffels on this question. A.T. Robertson has agood discussion (p. 645-6) where he claims that there are examples of OYEwith genitive meaning “after . . ” in Philostratus (3rd cent. AD). Dankergives other citations supporting this use.L. Morris (Matt, Pillar) has a significant footnote on this question. Hethinks that Matt. would most probably have reckoned the days according tothe Jewish system and that the context strongly suggests the the sense”after . . . . ” I find myself leaning towards Morris’ solution but am left wondering whyMeyer, Alford and Schmoller didn’t know about Philostratus, etc.. Perhapsthey weren’t impressed by 3rd cent. data. I haven’t looked at all ofDanker’s references, some of them are probably earlier than Philostratus.Anyway, a diversion from my study of 1Enoch which is considered too obscureto merit discussion by most people.greetings, Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Matthew 28:1 InterpretationDungan, David L (OFF TOPIC – NO Discussion!!)