Leolaia:
Thanks for that detailed explanation on the rendering.
You're right. It does take ALOT of reworking to get the chronological effect that I proposed. To the point where you could hardly call it a translation.
I guess I tend to think along those lines because the idea of the holy ones being resurrected then is otherwise unaccounted for.
CageFighter suggested a possible grammer error. If Matthew were originally Aramaic or Hebrew and then translated into Greek that might account for some of that. I was thinking possibly of the example of Petros/petras from Matthew 16 as an example. In that instance, it is not so much a translation error, but going from Aramaic to Greek causes "the rock" to become feminine and opens up the possible argument that "the rock" is not Peter on the gender issue. But I confess that I don't know enough to consider whether that is a valid possibility in Matt 27.
Thanks again for your comments and take care.