Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:54 am**

Matthew 23:27 :

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

According to ''Matthew'' ('Judaizer), the color ''white'' is related to the outside part of the tomb.

While in Mark the color white is found inside the Empty Tomb, for the dress of the young man.

I think that there is a link between the two passages:

This, he says, is what has been declared, "Ye are whited sepulchres, full," he says, "of dead men's bones within," because there is not in you the living man. And again he exclaims, "The dead shall start forth from the graves," that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again spiritual, not carnal. For this, he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead.

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm

So the color white is found inside the Jesus Tomb since the divine Christ is in the man Jesus.

I think that Matthew didn't like the idea found in Mark, since he:

1) converts the 'young man' in an angel
2) this angel comes from the heaven and enters in the tomb, against the presence of the young in Mark already inside the tomb,
3) the idea found in Mark was too much Gnostic for a judaizer à la Matthew.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:12 am**

Why do you always make these strained connections? Whitewashing means treating a wall with whitewash, that is lime, to make it look pretty. Look at any pic of a Greek island village, and you get the idea.

I would look more into Malachi etc., where the clothes are washed white with blood. Or look in other Christian texts, where white is the color of the garment the newly baptized wear.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:22 am**

So why do you think that Matthew replaced an angel (who enters) for the young man (found already in the tomb) ?

It seems that you have lost the sense of wonder for these alterations apparently of no significance.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:28 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:22 am So why do you think that Matthew replaced an angel (who enters) for the young man (found already in the tomb) ?

This one is pretty easy. Matthew has created an event, the opening of the tomb, visible to the women and to the guards:

Matthew 28.1-7: 1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Later, Peter will make the resurrection itself visible to the guards. The story keeps growing.

It seems that you have lost the sense of wonder for these alterations apparently of no significance.

Outlandish hypotheses can sap my sense of wonder more quickly than virtually anything else.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:48 am**

But your "outlandish hypothesis" is more a description of what Matthew does basically (=to make visible the event otherwise invisible as in Mark). Without to explain why Matthew decides to do so.
I think we all can agree about what Matthew does.

Only my hypothesis continues alone to explain the strange differences listed above between Mark and Matthew.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:52 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:48 am But your "outlandish hypothesis" is more a description of what Matthew does basically (=to make visible the event otherwise invisible as in Mark). Without to explain why Matthew decides to do so.
I think we all can agree about what Matthew does.

Only my hypothesis continues alone to explain the strange differences listed above between Mark and Matthew.

Here are the differences you listed:

1) converts the 'young man' in an angel
2) this angel comes from the heaven and enters in the tomb, against the presence of the young in Mark already inside the tomb,
3) the idea found in Mark was too much Gnostic for a judaizer à la Matthew.

The first two are easily explicable by what I said. The third is simply nonsense, Giuseppe. Nonsense. How can you not see that?

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:56 am**

Evidently you are ignoring deliberately the allegorical meaning of the color white related to the inside/outside of a tomb as found in Hippolytus.

This has too much sense.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:02 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:56 am Evidently you are ignoring deliberately the allegorical meaning of the color white related to the inside/outside of a tomb as found in Hippolytus.

Your quote from Hippolytus speaks of whitewashed tombs, same as in Matthew. The white is on the outside; inside are bones, same as in Matthew.

The white worn by the young man in the tomb probably reflects Daniel and similar apocalyptic motifs.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:10 am**

It is easy to infer the contrary case from Hippolytus and detect it in Mark: when the "white" is inside and the "bones" (the spiritually dead) are outside. Even more so when you realize the Matthew's desire to show the "white" the most possible out of the tomb, in this case, and not more inside.

So I may ignore your appeal to a "more probable" appeal to Daniel etc.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:18 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:10 am It is easy to infer the contrary case from Hippolytus and detect it in Mark: when the "white" is inside and the "bones" (the spiritually dead) are outside.

Nonsense. Tombs are meant to hold bones. If a writer should like to make a point of those bones lying outside of the tomb rather than inside, s/he would have to do exactly that: make a point of it. Neither Matthew nor Hippolytus does this.

Even more so when you realize the Matthew's desire to show the "white" the most possible out of the tomb, in this case, and not more inside.

Perfectly explained by making the event visible to the women and to the guards, who (as living humans) are naturally outside the tomb.

So I may ignore your appeal to a "more probable" appeal to Daniel etc.

Taking my suggestion away entirely does nothing to rescue yours from being nonsense.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''

Re: Why the young in the Empty Tomb had to be ''dressed in white''