stephan huller

I have been reading a number of scholars claim that the Gospel of Peter can be reconciled with the Gospel of John or the synoptics account of the Passion.

I don't see how that is possible.

The problem is that the GofP has the women appear at the tomb on at the dawn of the Sunday which is also the last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread:

Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things. But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'

And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' Then the women fled frightened. Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over.

So I started asking myself. How does this reconcile with what is described in the gospel. Well, it all depends. If 'final day' means (Nisan 21) then the first day of Unleavened Bread was Monday (Nisan 15). Then Nisan 14 fell on Sunday.

I tend to think that the Gospel of Peter should be read as follows:

Sabbath (Nisan 14)
1st day (Nisan 15)
2nd day (Nisan 16)
3rd day (Nisan 17)
4th day (Nisan 18)
5th day (Nisan 19)
6th day (Nisan 20)
Sabbath (Nisan 21)
1st day (Nisan 22) - the day that the narrative of the GofP takes place

Yet here's the part that bothers me and I can't believe no one else hasn't noticed it before.

You know how Jesus keeps saying that the Son of Man will be 'raised on the third day' and the like? All these experts can only think in terms of days of the week being named 'monday,' 'tuesday,' 'wednesday' - you know - days with interesting names.

Do you want to know how you say Friday in Hebrew? 'Sixth day' = Yom shishi - יום ששי (abbr. יום ו׳)

And Tuesday? 'third day' = Yom shlishi - יום שלישי (abbr. יום ג׳)

Does everyone see where I am going with this? Could it be that the European tradition obscured the meaning of Jesus's original prediction?

I would argue that the importance of Sunday can still explained in the GofP.

bacht

Isn't this the story of the last 1900 years or so?

show_no_mercy

I think that Hebrew tradition found itself in the NT. For example at John 2.1 we have "on the third day" (τη ημερα τη τριτη). However, most references to Jesus' resurrection have him say "after three days" (μετα τρεις ημερας) and not "on the third day" as in Jn 2.1.

Chili

But John 2:1 is the Cana event that takes place IN the netherworld prior to his return to reason called Capernaum to make this distinction clear.

stephan huller

show no mercy

The Greek is actually 'the third day he shall rise again"

KJV Mark "And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again." Mark 10:34

Another point I just realized while driviing today. If Sunday is the eighth day

i.e. Sunday Nisan 15 -Sunday Nisan 22

Then it is noteworthy that the ratio here is sesquitertium or a diatessaron i.e. 3:4. Could this finally be the solution to why the gospel was so-called? Was it a reflection of the context of the resurrection narrative? In other words, those gospels that placed the Resurrection on 'the third day' with the ladies in the tomb on the octave/ogdoad? I strongly suspect this is the secret I have been looking for - for some time. Under this scenario, the gospel of Peter would necessarily be called 'a Diatessaron' gospel.

Definition of 'diatessaron'
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Diatessaron_(interval)

"In harmony, the diatessaron is a ratio of 4:3 (sesquitertium) between a pair of frequencies or, equivalently, a ratio of 3:4 between a pair of wavelengths."

stephan huller

Actually there is an even better solution. Its the one I originally had in mind
If Friday is 14 Nisan then 15 Nisan falls on the Sabbath. The Feast of Unleavened Bread would end on Friday BUT it would effectively continue into the next Sabbath (22 Nisan) because of the travel restrictions on the Sabbath.

The women would still have appeared in the tomb on the eighth day ("Sunday" for us "first day" in Hebrew)

The "third day" resurrection however now is a perfect diatessaron (the fourth day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread but also the fourth in a set where the discovery of the tomb is the octave or ogdoad

stephan huller

And that's why the first addition to Secret Mark appears here. There must have been something "mystic" (ie Pythagorean) about the reference to Tuesday resurrection. The youth revealing himself as the Christ on the eighth is the "resolution" to the diatessaronic resurrection

show_no_mercy

I'm pretty sure τρεις ημερας is accusative plural. There's also a μετα (after) in the sentence.

stephan huller

You're right of course. Nevertheless there is still a problem here which the translators apparently tried to resolve. The gospels still remember the saying in the original prediction in the resurrection on "the third day" AFTER the resurrection occurs. And that's not all as Koester notes

Mark's phrase “after three days” instead of “on the third day” is peculiar. It contradicts Mark's own dating of the resurrection: the empty tomb is found on the morning of the third day.*

There only appears to be a contradiction however if you try to force the meaning here into 'the Sunday immediately following the crucifixion.' Most people of course read meta in the Passion narratives asif meta (after) means hen (on). What's the difference between my scenario and their interpretation of meta:

Thursday (Nisan 14)
Friday (Nisan 15)
Saturday (Nisan 16)
sunday (Nisan 17)

Sabbath (Nisan 14)
Sunday (Nisan 15)
Monday (Nisan 16)
Tuesday (Nisan 17)

It's the same. The only way that 'after the third day' actually means what it is supposed to mean is under the scenario of John's gospel where Jesus is sacrificed on the 14th. Maybe the GofP has the same thing. But 'after three days' necessarily means 'four days'

stephan huller

And the clincher is that Hosea is clearly being cited and Hosea reads

He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him. - Hosea 6:2

Interestingly Hosea 6:2 wholly supports and explains Eznik's description of the Marcionite resurrection. The Creator kills and tortures (repents then resurects) and then sends the apostle (who is the paraclete)