Thank you....no apology necessary.
I see right away, part of our problem. Your internet definition for the Greek word epiphosko, is different then the one I find on Blue Letter Bible
Luke 23:54 The same word "Epiphosko" meaning to draw on is only used in scripture one other time. And that other time is here.
It is my contention that the translators had a bias....to try and show a Sunday morning resurrection. If the word "EPIPHOSKO" means "to draw on" (begin) in Luke why does it mean "the dawn of the first day of the week" here?
Matthew 28:1 in the Greek say nothing about early morning. It simply says This.
To reiterate an earlier post....in both cases when this word is used it means a new day is about to begin. In Luke it is the First High Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. In Matthew it is the first day of the week. Both instances would be about sundown.
The way I recall Jewish understanding of days is not in total number of hours (24 hours=1 day, 48 hours=2 days, etc.). Rather it equates more to how a plumber bills you (any part of the hour gets charged for an hour...any part of a day gets billed as a day)
There is indeed a Hebrew idiom that counts part of one day as a whole day......unless both days and nights are mentioned....and then the meaning is literal.
It sounds like you are saying that Mark is not truely part of the inspired Word of God. That logic sounds similar to some Catholic logic, plus if some of Mark is wrong, then how can you trust any of it?
I am not saying that at all. What the Apostle John was cautioning folks about was that Mark sometimes did not have the events in proper sequence.
Read it again.....[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]