Posted on 01/11/2008 10:59:47 AM PST by DouglasKC
Now I figure you are looking for the magic bullet to exclude AD 34. I feel your angst at the lack of an easy out. But your "citations" aren't going to work. I did cite my sources already because that is just what Parker and Duberstein represent. I fully realize that successful apologists for the Friday-Sunday tradition have to bluff their way to victory with wool but now days you've got Daniel 12:4 foiling such attempts. I hope that's not your methodology. Otherwise, this discussion won't be the challenge I hope for.
Bluff my way? Nah, I’ll let you do all that. Angst???
Magic bullets? There are plenty. For starters, your date is too late in light of the date of Paul’s conversion to Christianity in AD 32/33. Gallio Inscription verifies that the Apostle Paul was in Achaia, Greece about AD 51 to 52. Calculating backwards, from his writings, he was converted approximately AD 32/33 – a whole year before that would theoretically be possible under your dating. Yes, this is an argument against AD 33 as well, but is deadly to AD 34.
You claim the women purchased burial spices on the day after Passover, this being essentially Friday and then came back on another day to anoint the body.
The gospel narrative clearly states two thing – the women followed Joseph and Niccodemus to the tomb, then returned and prepare spices prior to celebrating the weekly Sabbath.
Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. – Note, no mention of an extended period of time between the two events
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
I’ve seen it argued that this purchase HAD to have occurred on the intervening Friday – why? I find you logic on this humorous and circular and totally devoid of common sense of the era. First, Luke makes it clear that they had time to prepare the spices prior to the Sabbath but is silent on whether they purchased them on the way back from the tomb. Because decomposition of the body is rapid in that area, this would have been done as quickly as possible under normal conditions. The materials necessary would be readily available if not in some circumstances pre-made and ready for purchase. The fact that Nicodemus was able to obtain 75 pounds of ‘spices’ between the time of death and burial clearly shows pre-made materials to be available. Thus Wednesday cruxification folks have to speculate and make up an event that is not justified by the context of the narrative.
But the second point is that the preparation of the spices by the women was completed before the Sabbath. IF there was an intervening non-sabbath day they would have gone then to finish anointing the body. The gospel account is completely silent about this alleged event – any attempt to force this interpretation is simply speculation necessary to support a Wednesday crucifixion. To wait another day would become very repugnant for anyone to do – for by then he ‘stinketh’. Jewish burial customs were geared to get them buried as quickly and efficiently as possible – meaning same day – meaning spices were readily available for purchase or quickly made in less than a day. Infact, there is evidence that there were exemptions to the Sabbath rest in order to accomplish burial. Circular logic for a Wednesday – Saturday timeframe.
Were spices and necessary ingredients available on short notice? Of course, death was common and the requirement to quickly bury the individual would logically lead to sellers maintaining the necessary materials available on short notice. Niccodemus had no difficulty procuring 75 pounds on short notice.
Fourth, you claim the women came to the tomb on Saturday (Sabbath) morning and that resurrection was on the Sabbath after Passover, i.e. the "first of the sabbaths". I find your insistence to be rather humorous. I have yet to see conclusive evidence from sabbatarians that contradict the multitudes of Greek and Hebrew scholarship to the contrary. You have referenced to the htmlbible and strongs in other posts to support your cause. Even Strongs #4521 from that same website states “sabbaton- of Hebrew origin (shabbath 7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:--sabbath (day), week.” Now, I may not have a similar mastery of Hebrew as you seem to, others have a better founded interpretation.
“The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 1859, 2:375). Examples cited by Lightfoot include Maccoth which alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath”(Lightfoot, Maccoth, Chapter 1)
R.C.H. Lenski, observed “the Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 1943, p. 1148)
"Other nations count the days of the week in such a manner that each is independent of the other. Thus they call each day by a separate name [Sunday, Monday, etc.], but Israel counts all days with reference to Shabbos: the first day after Shabbos, the second day after Shabbos, etc." (Ramban, Commentary to Exodus 20:8)
In fact, this identification method is specified in Lev. 23:15 –. . you shall count your days from the Sabbath.
What sabbath is being spoken of here – the weekly sabbath. Therefor your assertion - Sabbath after Passover, i.e. μια των σαββατων, the "first of the sabbaths" is falsified by scripture, because the days are numbered from the weekly sabbath, not the passover or other feast. You way violates Lev 23:15. You have already shown to be aware of this-.
However, the word "Sabbath" does not mean "week". The proper translation is "one in connection with Sabbath". It was a pious usage for Jews of the Mishnaic period to refer to the Sabbath when they designated days of the week.
You may try to make the argument that the days of the week were identified in connection with the sabbath in the Mishnaic period (70-200 AD), Lev 23:15 makes it clear that it was the method since Moses. Trying to tie the use with a later date only works if you can clearly eliminate the same usage during the time of Christ. This is glaringly absent. (While I may not be fluent in Hebrew, it is a fact that the Jewish people referenced the days of the week by reference to the sabbath (and that being the weekly sabbath, not an annual one). Fact - the Jews of that time through today used only cardinal numbers to designate the days with the exception of Sabbath and later paraskeu for Friday. For example, if I have it correct, in Hebrew, the first day of the week could be called Yom Rishon B'Shabbos - the First Day of Shabbos. This method identifies exactly what I have been stating – a Hebraism – that was carried over into the greek. "The first day of the month or week is designated in the NT as in the LXX, not by prote, but by mia...The model was Hebraic where all the days of the month are designated by cardinals." (Blass/Debrunner/Funk, topic 247, 'syntax of numerals").
In Greek would be μια των σαββατων (the one of the sabbaths). Now much of what I see coming from your argument is that Sabbath does not or cannot also equal ‘week’. That is a weak argument considering that the context of the usage (σαββατων) as identifying the day of the week is defined in respect to the Sabbath is being done here. While semantics game can be fun, you have confirmed the use of this Hebrew idiom that was carried over to the Greek - μια των σαββατων relates to the first day of the week (Sunday) as counted from the Sabbath (even Ramban agrees with that). As such, it also confirms that the women arrived at the tomb on Sunday morning. You may desire to further define by trying to apply a pious usage, however, I haven’t found that from the Jewish sources I have looked at as well as from scripture itself. If only pious usage is acceptable – certainly the writers of the gospels were pious in reciting the events of the resurrection.
Thus when Mt 28:1 states In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. - the translation of first day of the week is confirmed by usage yourself as well as other sources – can only be Sunday.
Another count against a Saturday/Sabbath resurrection is the account of the two disciple’s trip to Emmaus. Jewish sabbathical travel restrictions limited one to approximately 1 mile, 2 if there was an emergency IIRC. Even Jesus followed these restrictions. However, Emmaus was 7 miles away. The gospel account shows the men traveling there on the same day the women went to the tomb. There is no justifiable reason to claim that they were being rebellious to the pharisaical law – had they wanted to travel this distance with undue problems as such, they could have made the journey during the alleged intervening non-sabbath day the women spent preparing all the spices. Gospel account shows the day to be a non-work restricted day. Second – they are referring to the crucifixion events as being ‘three days ago’. Since it would have been a sabbath violation to travel that far, the only day other than Friday would be Sunday – and as such would have referred to the events as being 4 or 5 days ago – depending on the degree of inclusive reckoning they would have applied.
You can't make logic go away so simply. The 15th of Nisan annual Sabbath was made greater by all accounts than the weekly Sabbath due to Israel's Exodus on that day. The weekly Sabbath was never called great by itself (except by religious revisionists), so it is ludicrous to apply great to the annual Sabbath only when it lands on the weekly Sabbath. Since the Gentiles in Asia Minor were still observing Passover by the Jewish Calendar, and not by the Roman Easter innovation, they would know the importance of this annual Sabbath. But I suppose one has to actually observe it to understand why it is great.
Try as you may, you cannot make the logic go a way, cute :) As I said earlier, who were the people John was writing to at the time – primarily gentiles. Did they have the same understanding of Passover as the Jews – no. Were they commanded to observe Passover – no. Were they familiar with the term ‘sabbath’ – probably.
In the gospels, it is clear that the writers wrote clarifying comments to explain various aspects of jewish life and customs – that is fact. John 19:31 states The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,). . . he was making clear to his predominantly gentile readers that it was a Sabbath day, but not just an ordinary weekly sabbath but a high (or great) Sabbath as well. Made ‘great’ because Passover fell on the same day. Romans would have kept (and did) the bodies up in the event it was a weekly Sabbath. John was not saying the reason it was a ‘great’ Sabbath was because they occurred the same day, he was clarifying that the regular Sabbath also occurred in conjunction with the great Sabbath. Out of curiosity, where outside of the law, is Passover referred to as a Sabbath?
Mark makes this same clarification in 15:42 to gentile Christians - And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation (paraskeuē), that is, the day before the sabbath,( prosabbaton). (I can almost see your curled lip with this – so what). Gentiles were used to using the deity named days of the week, and were therefore not familiar with these terms. Yes, I accept the interpretation that paraskeuē is a term used and accepted for Friday. Paraskeue was the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic of "arubta-eve," or Friday. Yes, the Didache uses the term for “Friday”, and while I agree that 70 may be too early, 90-100 AD is the more commonly held date. In conjunction with John (80-90 AD) and Mark (60-70AD), the identification of the day Jesus was crucified is set well to Friday. Torrey states there is no evidence that paraskeue was used for anything other than the weekly Sabbath. Your buddy Bacchiocchi wrote -- The term "prosabbaton-Sabbath-eve" was used by Hellenistic Jews to designate explicitly and exclusively "the day before the Sabbath, i.e. Friday" (Judith 8:6; 2 Macc. 8:26). I prefer Torrey, Moulton, Milligan and even Bacchiocchi and their scholarship to your say-so.
Since the only chronology that explains the facts adequately puts the annual Sabbath on Thursday, Nisan 15, it deductively follows that your argument from silence and against common sense for the meaning of "great" is error. It also deductively follows from the Wednesday-Sabbath chronology that explains all the facts, that Nisan 15 was called "great" regardless of the day of the week it fell upon.
You clearly didn’t understand my point earlier, hopefully you see it better now. I can understand your potential confusion regarding John’s terminology (‘great”) since you are programmed to read it otherwise. deductively follows great chuckle. It explains the ‘facts’ only by subjective speculation (for example, women spending all day Friday buying and mixing spices, etc).
So far you've lost every point we've contended over. It doesn't take a leap to see that your side seriously violates Okcham's Razor.
Occam’s razor – so far your theory has worse standing than ever with new material it must account for, plus it necessitates the fabrication of additional events that are neither necessary nor supported by the text. In AD 34 the preparation of the Passover was on Nisan 14, a Wednesday. That is all that is required.
No, you have to fit the rest of the gospel and New Testament narrative to boot. Sorry, AD 34 is the least likely of years and theories. First Strike is Paul’s conversion.
It cited Mark 8:31 and 9:31, so your last sentence above is misrepresentation of what I said. Mark 8:31 says "after three days" he would rise, a fact that fits Wednesday to Sabbath, but cannot fit Friday to Sunday. I already posted a chart showing as much.
A chart, a chart, wow argument ended. If this is the same chart you’ve posted in #121 this thread, your case is even weaker than I thought. Even your chart fails to depict a true 72 hour period. So we should believe you just because you say so? I’ve seen plenty of “charts” that would show otherwise. Sorry FRiend, Mark 9:31 says “on the third day” so the scripture needs to be reconciled to a common denominator – and that denominator is that these were figures of speech and not a literal 72 hour period, but is inclusive reckoning as becomes apparent below:
on the third day
Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Mk 9:31; 10:34; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7,21,46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4
in three days
Mt 26:61; 27:40; Mk 15:29; John 2:19-20
after three days
Mt 27:63; Mk 8:31
three days and three nights
Mt 12:40
So as one can see, the overwhelming citations indicate a period of less than 72 hours. Inclusive reckoning is also documented from the period by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a) teaching about the “Onah”. This is further confirmed through Jewish practices even to day - In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day.
You probably don't know much Hebrew. Otherwise you would not have made the gaff you did in the above paragraph.
I will admit my Hebrew is limited. So you scored a gotcha.
What you need to realize is that all your arguments are a form of circular reasoning. You use a document from an apostate Church to prove your point. You use the mistranslation "first day of the week" executed by apostate Christianity to prove your point. All circular reasoning that disagrees with the whole chronology of Passion week and the literal meaning of the words, and totally disagrees with Daniel 9.
Wow, I have been totally overwhelmed. Should have know the epithets would be flying sooner than later (aPOState, aPOSate). Lessee -
1. Your 34 AD scenario has Paul being saved before the crucifixion / resurrection.
2. Your 34 AD scenario has to fabricates a story that the women spent Wed evening and all the day light hours Friday making spices that were readily available for purchase, forcing them to return after the next Sabbath, ignoring Jewish burial requirements and customs.
3. The gospel narrative overwhelmingly indicates that a literal 72 hour period in the tomb was not the be the case, but that inclusive reckoning was being used.
4. To get your scenario to work, you must ignore the Passover type represented by the wave offering of First fruits (16 Nisan) as the type of the Resurrection. Paul describes Jesus’ Resurrection as the first fruits of the new creation in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. With a Wednesday crucifixion, First fruits (16 Nisan) for your scenario would fall on Friday, meaning the resurrection should also be on Friday. Lev. 23:11 makes it clear that a Saturday/Sabbath ‘First fruits’ is not possible for AD 34. So we see an AD 34 Wednesday-Saturday scenario running into another dead end.
5. Finally, you claim that I (as well as other far more qualified scholars) mistranslate first day of the week to mean Sunday, even though you (and Lev 23:15) show that the days of the week are counted towards Sabbath from the last Sabbath, in essence tying the week to the Sabbath as its reference point. Literal meanings of words indeed.
6. One other little point, should one apply the 72 hour hyperliteral interpretation, Jesus would have been resurrected at 3 PM Saturday afternoon (literal 72 hours) The gospel accounts are clear that it was dawn when the women arrived to the tomb. This could not have been Saturday morning – Jesus would not have been risen. The only alternative under your scenario is Sunday morning. So what was Jesus doing between Sat 3 PM and Sunday 6 AM – playing dominos with the angels?
********************************************************************* Regarding the Daniel 9 passage, another hit below your AD 34 water line.
I can confirm for you that Nisan 14 in AD 32 was on Monday, but the only value of this is that it destroys Anderson's theory. The data you give for AD 34 is a false statement—the truth be that it squarely and fairly puts Nisan 14 on Wednesday. Now the Addaru II you correctly discovered before the correct Nisan in 444 destroys the 444-33 AD Daniel 9 explanation.
Not really, makes the math a little more challenging. And how ‘firm’ is this date? It was my understanding that the current method of calculating the jewish calendar was reformed/finalized in 135 AD AD? Apparently we agree that the decree was given in 444 BC some time during the month of Nisan.
Parker and Dubberstein's tables show Nisanu going from 4/3-5/1 in 444 BC. (However, I do believe they admit that their dates could be off by as much as 30% - page 23 of their paper) It appears Nehemiah tracked Artaxerxes' regnal years from the Babylonian month of Nisanu using the ‘Persian method’, hence the 444 BC interpretation. Since Nehemiah mentioned the Jewish month of Nisan (by name, not by number) and the regnal year did not change, it is probable that Nehemiah's Nisan fell one month earlier that year than the Babylonian month of Nisanu, when the Persian regnal year would have changed (otherwise it would have been the 21st year of his reign). Unless there was a scribal error, this would cause the Jewish Nisan to have fallen between 3/4 and 4/2, 444 BC. A similar separation between months is evident in Parker and Dubberstein’s table for 33 AD. It is evident that Nehemiah was using a fall-fall calendar year, thus basing the start of the Jewish year with Tishri, not Nisan. You dismissed this earlier, but this is why it is important. Since the start of Tishri is not very well established, the Jewish calendar of the era could migrate from the Persian. Interestingly, using a Gregorian to Hebrew calendar conversion program I found, using March 8, 444 BC and it calculated the corresponding hebrew date of Nisan 1. Converting March 10, 444 BC into a Julian date, adding 173880 days comes out to March 10, AD 33, Nisan 10 – the day Jesus entered Jerusalem.
You may probably argue that Addaru II was present – my question to you is from what do you base this on Addaru was a Persian month, Hebrews had their own. – elephantine materials or current jewish calendar methods?
As for the date of Neh. 2:1 being in 444 BC there is no doubt. VAT 5047 in the 11th year (454) of Artaxerxes I takes care of that. And I should remedy an oversight from your last post. You suggested that the sabbatical year be 31/32 AD, and that 33 AD be the terminal year. However that would imply that 446/445 BC would be the sabbath year. Since the walls were rebuilt in 444, that reduces the count to 68 instead of the required 69 (7 + 62 = 69). So plainly AD 33 does not work with ANY proposed Sabbatical year. But like I said the correct Sabbatical year is 32/33. BC 445/444 was the first and AD 32/33 the 69th.
This is where you shoot your own theory of AD34 in the foot. I may have fumbled the earlier calculations, but not this time. For starters, it is illegitimate to deduct the first sabbatical ‘year’ with the completion of the walls in 444 BC, same year as the decree was issued. That is absolutely the lamest of all your justifications. But is is clear why you have to do that – otherwise the numbers don’t work out for you. Had you followed the method specified in Daniel 9 (which does not credit the completion of the wall with 7 years of time), the end of your 69th sabbath ‘year’ would be AD 40 – far too late to support AD34, so you fudge the numbers by dropping this first ‘year’, leaving you with only 68 to count for – arriving in AD 33. You cannot just drop those years so nonchanlantly and remain honest to the context and conditions found within the prophecy. AD 34 is dead in the water even using sabbathical years.
Enjoy your week, I’m headed out of town for most of the next month. If you reply I’ll try to get to it as I can.
Godzilla said:
“Magic bullets? There are plenty. For starters, your date is too late in light of the date of Paul’s conversion to Christianity in AD 32/33. Gallio Inscription verifies that the Apostle Paul was in Achaia, Greece about AD 51 to 52. Calculating backwards, from his writings, he was converted approximately AD 32/33 – a whole year before that would theoretically be possible under your dating. Yes, this is an argument against AD 33 as well, but is deadly to AD 34.”
I’ll read the rest later. There’s going to be some delays on this side too. For the record, I already suspect the likely mistake you made, however, I’ll humor you a bit. How do you figure that say AD 36 to AD 51 isn’t enough time for Paul?
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. – Note, no mention of an extended period of time between the two events
Yes, Mark mentions the time between. See below. So your argument is simply a false tradition.
"Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.
_________________________
Now they rested the one Sabbath, [[according to the ordinance,]] 24:1 But upon the first of the Sabbaths, at deep dawn, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them" (DLT: torahtimes.org).
the one Sabbath: το μεν σαββατον. This was the annual Sabbath on the 15th of Nisan, Thursday that year. The ordinance to rest on this Sabbath is specified in Leviticus 23:7, however Codex Bezae omits the words in brackets. The annual Sabbath is called, "the Sabbath" in Lev. 23:11, 15, השבת. It was the annual shapattu that came on the 15th of the first month. Luke 23:56b actually goes with Luke 24:1. The words "the one" here translates the Greek article το which sometimes has a demonstrative meaning. In fact, BDAG 3rd edition, "1. this one, that one, the art. funct. as a demonstrative pronoun...b. ο μεν... ο δε the one...the other" (pg. 686).
comment: Chapter 23 is supposed to end at the "." after the word "ointments". The effect of properly ending chapter 23 after the word 'ointments' is that it ends the chronology of that chapter. Chapter 24 then beings a fresh chronological description of events jumping backward in time to reference their resting on the annual sabbath, and then progressing to the weekly sabbath after it. Luke 23:54 introduces the annual Sabbath in vs. 54, "But it was the day before a Sabbath", ην δε η ημερα προ σαββατου, (Codex Bezae), and 23:56a ends the chapter saying "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments" which of course, was after the annual Sabbath. However, Codex Bezae (D) omits the words "according to the commandment". The western text D is the best here. Perhaps the Byzantine Scribes edited the text to make it look like the weekly Sabbath, counting on people being ignorant of the ordinance to rest on the annual Sabbath? At all events, 23:56b goes with the next chapter, and introduces the two sabbaths, between which, the spices were bought and prepared, but which are not mentioned again since the reader will assume that they waited till after the annual Sabbath to do this.
comment: "23:56b-24:1. το μεν σαββατον ... τη δε μια των σαββατων—The μεν ... δε construction links these two days together and prompts consideration of a literary and theological link. (In Nestle-Aland25 23:56b begins a new paragraph that continues with 24:1-11; 23:56b is separated from 24:1 only by a comma. In Nestle-Aland26 and Nestle-Aland27 23:56b has been separated from Luke 24 and ends with a period.) The close relationship between 23:56b and 24:1 forms the transition from Luke 23 to Luke 24. The double use of σαββατον and the way Luke has phrased the sentence suggest theological implications as the narrative moves from one day to the next. This is why 23:56b is best considered part of Luke 24 and the resurrection narrative" (Concordia Commentary, Luke 9:51-24:53, Arthur A. Just Jr., 1997).
first...Sabbath: μια των σαββατων. The first of the seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath which were counting during the 50 days till Shavuot (Pentecost), cf. Lev. 23:15. The Greek word σαββατων in this text means "Sabbaths", the same as everywhere else it occurs. Μια των σαββατων means "one of the sabbaths" in literal Greek. However, in Jewish Greek, which is influenced by the Hebrew idiom, the word μια may stand for "first" like the Hebrew word אחת. Further the word σαββατων besides being plural in Greek is a Hebrew loan word derived from שבתון, which means "sabbatism" or from the Hebrew word שבתות, which means "Sabbaths" in the plural sense. Evidently the later is meant:
אחת השבתות=one/first of the Sabbaths, and refers to Lev. 23:15, the annual seven sabbath counting between the Passover Sabbath and the Shavuot Sabbath.
comment: J.P. Green's The Interlinear Bible, vol. iv correctly begins the last chapter of Luke with verse 23:56b, "και το μεν σαββατον ησυχασαν [κατα την εντολην,] τη δε μια των σαββατων, ορθρου βαθεος ηλθον επι το μνημα...." (Luke 23:56b-24:1a). This is a typical μεν...δε construction, properly translated as, "And on the one hand, that Sabbath they rested [according to the commandment], but on the other hand, on the first of the Sabbaths they came upon the tomb...." It is a compare and contrast construction where "μεν ... δε" = "on the one hand...but on the other hand" (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, pg. 672) and J.P. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Luke 23:56-24:1. Luke's purpose is to contrast the two Sabbaths, the annual Sabbath on which the women rested (cf. Lev. 23:7) from the following weekly Sabbath, which was the first of the Sabbaths (cf. Lev. 23:15) in the annual seventh Sabbath counting. Evidently, Green was too hasty, because he forgot to insert the traditional "first day of the week" into the English side translation, which reads, "But on the indeed sabbath, while still very early, they came upon the tomb..." (a freudian slip?, hmm).
comment: The words "at deep dawn". "ορθρου βαθεως—The genitive signifies the period of time (the one known as "deep dawn") during which the action takes place. (BDF, §186 [2], calls this an unclassical usage for the point of time at which.) Perhaps the most illuminating comment on this phrase is the remark of B.B. Rogers in his commentary on Aristophanes, where he describes ορθρος βαθεως as "the dim twilight that precedes the dawn ... the thick dullness of night [that] has not yet yielded to the clear transparency of day" (The Wasps of Aristophanes, 32, n. 216)." (pg. 964, Concordia Commentary, Luke 24:1, Arthur A. Just Jr., 1997). This phrase is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew שחר, shakhar, in Hosea 6:3, which says that YHWH (Yeshua) goes forth at שחר in reference to the resurrection of Yeshua on the third day (cf. Hosea 6:1-2). The word means the hint of reddish light that precedes the dawn. It is derived from the same Hebrew word as the word for "black". It refers to the end of the third night hinting in the east while it is still the darkness of night everywhere else except the hint of the coming dawn in the east. This accords well with his crucifixion on Wednesday afternoon and resurrection on the Sabbath at the deep dawn, making exactly three days and three nights (cf. Matthew 12:40).
the spices: The question is often asked if the women were permitted to so this on the Sabbath according to the Law. According to Jewish interpretation, 'They make make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint it and wash it, provided that they do not move any member of it. They may draw the mattress away from beneath it and let it lie on sand that it may be the longer preserved; they may bind up the chin, no in order to raise it but that it may not sink lower. So, too, if a rafter is broken they may support it with a bench or with the side-pieces of a bed that the break may grow no greater, but not in order to prop it up. They may not close a corpse's eyes on the Sabbath; nor may they do so on a weekday at the moment when the soul is departing; and he that closes the eyes [of the dying man] at the moment when the soul is departing, such a one is a shedder of blood.' (The Mishnah, Herbert Danby, 23.5) " Further, it is generally considered disrespectful to the dead to neglect anything involved in a proper burial, mourning, or last respects. How much work did they do? Yeshua was buried in a rich man's garden tomb on the Mount of Olives, and the women lived in Bethany, which was 1.5 miles from the garden. (DLC: torahtimes.org)
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
But again, we are talking about the annual Sabbath, which you are willfully ignoring just so you can repeat points that have already been answered. That's not honest.
The Annual Sabbath and the First of the Sabbaths
"Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early in the morning the first of the Sabbaths, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun" (DLT: torahtimes.org).
the Sabbath: This was the annual Passover Sabbath on the 15th of Nisan, on Thursday that year (cf. John 19:31). Lev. 23:11 was regarded by the Jews to refer to the annual Passover Sabbath. The Babylonians also called the 15th day of the month Shabbatu or Shapattu so the concept of calling the 15th of Nisan "The Sabbath" was not foreign in the ancient near east. Also called Yom Tov and translated Rest Day by Rashi.
first...Sabbath: The weekly Sabbath was also called the "first of the Sabbaths" on account of Leviticus 23:15, where instructions are given to count seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath." (DLC: torahtimes.org)
comment: The KJV errors by translating, "had bought". The Greek ηγορασαν is not pluperfect. It is aorist. This means they bought the spices after the Sabbath. This is the main verb in the sentence and the participle "was past", διαγενομενου, is temporally dependent on the main verb. It would be grammatically incorrect to say that they "had" bought the spices before the Sabbath. (DLC: torahtimes.org)
I’ve seen it argued that this purchase HAD to have occurred on the intervening Friday – why? I find you logic on this humorous and circular and totally devoid of common sense of the era. First, Luke makes it clear that they had time to prepare the spices prior to the Sabbath but is silent on whether they purchased them on the way back from the tomb.
Mark 16:1 SAYS it was after the annual Sabbath. So it must have been on Friday. Please notice that it is "bought spices" not "had bought" as the KJV errors with the pluperfect. You ignorance of Greek will totally kill your position here. See the last comment above.
The fact that Nicodemus was able to obtain 75 pounds of ‘spices’ between the time of death and burial clearly shows pre-made materials to be available. Thus Wednesday cruxification folks have to speculate and make up an event that is not justified by the context of the narrative.
What you call a fact is not a fact. The embalming on Friday was correctly defended by Graham Scroggie. See below. However, adopting your view on this point would not be fatal to the Sabbath resurrection, a fact you seem to overlook.
Linen Sheet vs. Linen Strips
"John 19:39-40 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen strips with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (DLT: torahtimes.org).
linen strips: οθονιοις. This Greek word is plural and means that they wrapped him in strips of cloth with the spices. On Wednesday, before the annual Sabbath, they had only wrapped him in a single linen cloth, a σινδόνα. On Friday Joseph and Nicodemus returned to complete the task of embalming him. They would have taken off the single sheet and wrapped him in the strips. John 19:38 takes us up to the time on Wednesday when He was put in the grave with the single cloth. Verses 39-40 cover the events on Friday, and verses 41-42 cover an anecdotal piece of information about the tomb and why that tomb had been used. Joseph and Nicodemus, being members of the council and known to Pilate would have had no trouble coming to the tomb for an official embalmment on Friday. This explanation is the only way to account for a single piece of cloth in Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46 (2x); Luke 23:53; cf. Mark 14:51-52, and then the linen bandages in John 19:40 and also at the resurrection in John 20:5,6 7; and Luke 24:12. This is because the single cloth (σινδονα) was removed on Friday and replaced with the linen strips (οθονιοις). See A Guide To The Gospels, page 576, by W. Graham Scroggie, D.D.
comment: The aromatic spices that the women brought later, (αρωματα) Luke 24:1, were not the main embalming. (DLC: torahtimes.org)
But the second point is that the preparation of the spices by the women was completed before the Sabbath.
Again Greek grammar refutes your argument:
comment: The KJV errors by translating, "had bought". The Greek ηγορασαν is not pluperfect. It is aorist. This means they bought the spices after the Sabbath. This is the main verb in the sentence and the participle "was past", διαγενομενου, is temporally dependent on the main verb. It would be grammatically incorrect to say that they "had" bought the spices before the Sabbath. (DLC: torahtimes.org)
Fourth, you claim the women came to the tomb on Saturday (Sabbath) morning and that resurrection was on the Sabbath after Passover, i.e. the "first of the sabbaths". I find your insistence to be rather humorous. I have yet to see conclusive evidence from sabbatarians that contradict the multitudes of Greek and Hebrew scholarship to the contrary. You have referenced to the htmlbible and strongs in other posts to support your cause. Even Strongs #4521 from that same website states “sabbaton- of Hebrew origin (shabbath 7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:--sabbath (day), week.” Now, I may not have a similar mastery of Hebrew as you seem to, others have a better founded interpretation.
Argument by majority vote is purely a tactic of the majority to enforce the status quo. Anyway, I never referenced Strong's Concordance for positive support. So you are confusing me with someone else, or you are illegitimately trying to make me look bad. I think you fail to see that this argument has a moral dimension as well in the way you conduct the argument.
“The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 1859, 2:375).[Which was never generally true.] Examples cited by Lightfoot include Maccoth which alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath”(Lightfoot, Maccoth, Chapter 1)
R.C.H. Lenski, observed “the Jews had no names for the weekdays,” [Which is a lie, or irrelevant half truth] they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 1943, p. 1148)
"Other nations count the days of the week in such a manner that each is independent of the other. [Which is a half-lie, since many ancient nations counted the days of the week just like the Jews] Thus they call each day by a separate name [Sunday, Monday, etc.], but Israel counts all days with reference to Shabbos: the first day after Shabbos, the second day after Shabbos, etc." (Ramban, Commentary to Exodus 20:8)
I posted this before refuting all of this. But I should add this. Never use the sectarian creed of an erring religion as your final appeal for authority. That's exactly what the Talmud is. It was composed, engineered, and written with opposition to the Nazarenes always in mind. So appealing to it is like appealing to commentaries in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the foundation of truth. Since the Talmud is proven to be faulty and the Catholic Church, it is best to seek one's proof in the written Scripture only.
First we should find out who Bishop John Lightfoot was (1602-1675). He was a clergyman in the Church of England with Presbyterian sympathies (i.e. the Calvinist heresy), son of the vicar of Uttoxeter; he was not Jewish and his native language was not Hebrew or any Semitic language. He learned his Hebraica from Sir Rowland Cotton. He rejected the thousand year kingdom reign of Yeshua on earth, and sought for "the repression of current 'blasphemies'" (wiki). He was allegedly the first Christian to call attention to the Talmud, so it may be assumed that he had no peer review on what he found there. He also did not know his Hebrew very well or chose to suppress it, because what we find in the Talmud is not "One day (or the first day) of the sabbath". What Lightfoot tried to translate with the word "of" in English does not correspond to the Hebrew ב found in the Talmud. Further, one merely needs to remove Lightfoot's parenthesis such that we see "One day of the Sabbath" corresponds to the Greek idiom for the Sabbath, "day of the Sabbath(s)" with the word "first" before it. Lightfoot is also concealing that the Greek is plural, i.e. "Sabbaths". To see how deceptive this is consider the variant meanings of "first of the month" and "first of the months". We see that the mere inclusion of the plural "s" at the end of the word changes from enumerating days of the month to the enumeration of whole months.
This "Hebrew method" reflected only Talmudic and Mishnaic writings and never the popular spoken usage of Jews either in Aramaic or Hebrew. Further, all of these examples are derived from the post Christian period, and indeed after the first century. Finally, the pious usage "one in connection with Sabbath" (אחד בשבת) or (חד בשבתא) is clearly confused with the popular usage "one in the seven" (חד בשבא, in which א and ע are transmuted and the ת omitted). A major problem with citing the Talmud and Mishnah is that it was composed during the time of Jewish and Christian polemics. It would be self serving of both proto-Catholic heretics and the anti-Messianic Jews to help each other. The Rabbis would provide the alleged idiom for "first day of the week" to purify Judaism of the Sabbath resurrection and the Church would teach their people that the resurrection was on Sunday to purify Christianity of Judaism. The Church could then dispense with its Jewish problem, and the Jews with their Gentile problem. They did not have to consciously implement this. Help from the otherworld would be sufficient. However, they did not sow the lie up perfectly neatly. The Rabbinic usage refused to be introduced into spoken speech, and it still shows traces of the original idiom, "one in the seven," "two in the seven" etc. The final smoking gun so to speak is the missing ת in the Aramaic idiom for days one to five. If the word really meant week, then why would they refuse to say שבתא for days one to five?
Doubtless, by being forced into the scholarly literature, the usage has crept into some modern usages. The only way to solve the issue is to seek out the usage of Nazrene Jews contemporary with the Apostolic Writings using objective linguistic tools and judging the matter semantically and chronologically based on the pure probabilities of the matter without the burden of self serving errant post-second Temple traditions. And even if it were finally shown that some first century Jews counted days of the week after a pious fashion, it would not prove that μια των σαββατων did not mean "one day of the Sabbaths" or "first Sabbath". It would only prove the possibility, a possibility which is soundly refuted by the fact that the only sound chronology can be built with the resurrection on the first sabbath after Passover, and the fact that only this agrees with the biblical instruction to count seven sabbaths after Passover according to Lev. 23:15.
In fact, this identification method is specified in Lev. 23:15 –. . you shall count your days from the Sabbath.
What sabbath is being spoken of here – the weekly sabbath. Therefor your assertion - Sabbath after Passover, i.e. μια των σαββατων, the "first of the sabbaths" is falsified by scripture, because the days are numbered from the weekly sabbath, not the passover or other feast. You way violates Lev 23:15. You have already shown to be aware of this-.
This statement of yours is a total fraud. This is what it really says:
"Leviticus 23:15 And ye shall count unto you in the day after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; Seven Sabbaths shall be complete" (DLT: torahtimes.org).
It totally destroys your credibility, because it is this one statement in the whole of Scripture that validates the Sabbath resurrection. I see that you realized that you had to get rid of it. Smart thinking. But slandering the text by mistranslating it won't save you from disgrace. Redacting a Talmudic method back into Leviticus as a commandment of God will not earn you any points with the Almighty. Nor will putting a non-Rabbinic Karaite interpretation on the annual Sabbath agree with the Talmud because the Karaites rejected the Talmud!
You may try to make the argument that the days of the week were identified in connection with the sabbath in the Mishnaic period (70-200 AD), Lev 23:15 makes it clear that it was the method since Moses.
Dream on. You are only displaying shameful ignorance, or willful obfuscation. Which is the case? Who knows. I don't care.
"The first day of the month or week is designated in the NT as in the LXX, not by prote, but by mia...The model was Hebraic where all the days of the month are designated by cardinals." (Blass/Debrunner/Funk, topic 247, 'syntax of numerals").
Yes, but it does not help you. Take "first of the month" and add an "s" and now we are counting months, i.e. "first of the months". And since when did I say "prote" was used? You are refuting the wind here. Guess what? I have BDF and they very words you quoted are highlighted in yellow. All you are proving is that is is the "first of the sabbaths" and not just "one Sabbath" since Lev. 23:16 refers to the seventh sabbath with an ordinal number.
What an 11th century Jewish sage thought is irrelevant. But in fact the Rabbis have every interest in preventing a resurgence of the Nazarenes, and they will help the Babylonian Church any way they can to that end, even if it means inventing a new layer of Hebrew to let the ignorant redact into a time period where it has no proveance.
Matthew 28:1? It destroys the Sunday theory. The comments form BDF below are totally fatal to the "After the Sabbath" view of Mt. 28:1. It is the later of the sabbaths.
The Later Sabbath After the Passover Sabbath
"Matthew 28:1 And the later of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn on the first of the Sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher" (DLT: torahtimes.org).
later...Sabbath: There were two Sabbaths in Passover week. The annual Passover Sabbath was on Thursday, Nisan 15, and this was followed by the weekly Sabbath on Nisan 17. The "later of the Sabbaths' refers to the weekly Sabbath. "Later" is used in the sense of "former" and "later". The former Sabbath was the annual Sabbath. The later Sabbath was the weekly Sabbath.
first...Sabbath: The weekly Sabbath was also called the "first of the Sabbaths" on account of Leviticus 23:15, where instructions are given to count seven Sabbaths after the annual Passover Sabbath".
later: Οψε. The proper definition of this word when used with the genitive case is later. "The genitive with Οψε and μετ ολιγον have become associated in meaning with υστερον τουτων [later of these], προτερον τουτων [former of these]" (BLASS, 164.4, pg. 91, A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature). Thayer's Lexicon observes concerning the errant rendering "after": "but an examination of the instances just cited (and others) will show that they fail to sustain the rendering after." (DLC: torahtimes.org)
Emmaus? Surely you know that Jews broke the law for legitimate reasons?
Departing to Emmaus
"Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs" (KJV).
Lest it be objected that the disciples would not do this on a Sabbath, we need only point out that these two were responding to the report of the missing body brought by the women by leaving Jerusalem. The action could be justified because they did not want to be implicated for stealing the body. It was time to get out of Dodge. Yeshua justified such measures in his teaching concerning David and the bread of the presence in the Temple when David was fleeing from King Saul.
The Third Day Since
"Luke 24:45-46: Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:" (DLT: torahtimes.org).
1. the third day: τη τριτῃ ημερα. The days for a sacrificial offering in the Temple were calculated from morning to morning according to Lev. 7:15, especially in the case of a "peace offering". Messiah was our "peace offering" making peace between the repentant sinner and God. A peace offering brought in the afternoon had to be eaten on the "same day" by the next "morning". Other offerings were allowed to be eaten for two days, up to the morning of the third day. The rabbis put a fence around the Torah and made midnight the cut off point lest someone cross the line of dawn that started the next day, after which it was forbidden to eat an offering. Also in the case of the wave sheaf and associated offerings, the eating of the offerings was scheduled on a morning to morning definition of a day. The morning to morning definition of a day was the default definition of a 24 hour day in ancient Israel except in the case of the Sabbaths. Misunderstanding this has led to some serious misunderstandings of the Passover. For the Passover, the 14th day of Nisan and the night following it "that night" are the same day, and the next day, the 15th of Nisan, starts in the morning. The annual Sabbath, of course, is counted from sunset. Israel was quite familiar with the dawn to dawn day as it was the 24 hour day used in Egypt.
2. the third day: Yeshua died on Wednesday afternoon. The first of the three days spans from Wednesday dawn to Thursday dawn. The second day spans from Thursday dawn to Friday dawn, and the third day spans from Friday dawn to Sabbath dawn. The resurrection was just before the dawn on the "first" "Sabbath" after Passover (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). The third day works out exactly using the schedule of a day as used in the Temple for sacrifices. (DLC: torahtimes.org)
Try as you may, you cannot make the logic go a way, cute :) As I said earlier, who were the people John was writing to at the time – primarily gentiles. Did they have the same understanding of Passover as the Jews – no. Were they commanded to observe Passover – no. Were they familiar with the term ‘sabbath’ – probably.
John's audience was a mixed audience of Torah observant Gentiles vs. Gnostic Heretics who were rejecting the Torah (your spiritual ancestors by the way). Johns emphasis on Jewish connections was to emphasize the that the biblical faith was Jewish over and against the Gnostics who hated the Jews. John is not special in mentioning the Annual Sabbath. All the Gospels mention or allude to it. But John is putting it in your face.
The only people who think "preparation" is technical term for "Friday" are people who don't keep Sabbath and prepare for annual Sabbaths as well.
What means the Preparation Day?
"42 And now having become later, because it was a preparation, which is before a Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathaea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Yeshua." (DLT: torahtimes.org, Mark 15:42, parts of vs. 43 from ESV)
Comment: Codex Bezae reads πριν σαββατον and other important MSS read προς σαββατον, and the 27th edition of Aland reads προςαββατον. Jewish Scholar Solomon Zeitlin pointed in Studies in the Early History of Judaism, (New York: KTAV, 1973, vol. 1, pg. 210) that "Some MSS omit the words ο εστιν προσαββατον. There are no papyri covering this section of Mark. The word σαββατον is to be explained as a transliteration of the Hebrew שבתון, which means "sabbatism" and was used for feast days as well as the weekly sabbath. However, in Leviticus 23:11, 15, the annual Passover feast day is also called "the Sabbath", השבת. Zeitlin also says, "The word παρασκευη is not a Jewish technical term at all (pg. 268). Rather, the word παρασκευη, which has in Greek the meaning of preparation, became a pagan technical term for the Eve of Sabbath, as well as for the Eve of other holidays (pg. 269), (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 51-52, 1932-33, pp. 263-271, my underlines)" (The Sabbath Resurrection, 1993, Dan Gregg). "Torrey's theory (JBL 50 [1931], 227-41) that Passover should be understood as the festival period of seven days and that John is speaking of Friday within Passover week has been refuted by S. Zeitlin, JBL (1932), 263-71 (Brown, Raymod E. The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1970, John 19:14, pg. 882)." Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich go on to expand on the traditional definition, but they do note "Against Torrey, SZeitlin, JBL 51, '32, 263-71." Zeitlin replies in another place:
F.F. Bruce states:The words in verse Mark 15.42, "And when even was now come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath" do not prove at all that the word parasque was used to designate Friday only, but not the eve of holidays. We clearly see from John 19.14, "and it was the parasque of the Passover" that the word parasque may refer also to the eve of the holidays. (The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. XLII, 1952.)
The first clear occurrence of Gk. παρασκευη in the sense of "Friday" is in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 7.1 A.D. 156 (pg. 381, note 12, The Gospel of John)."Dalman has, we believe correctly, pointed out: Neither could the author (of Jn. 19:14) have meant ... by the expression the, 'Eve of the Passover' anything other than the day which the Jews call in Hebrew, 'ereb pesah', and in Aramaic 'arubat pisha', i.e. the day which preceeded the Festival; never the Friday in the festive week, as Zahn suggests." (Jesus-Jeshua, pg. 88.) (Journal of Biblical Literature, pg. 270, Zeitlin, "The Date of the Crucifixion", 1932-33).
1. Your 34 AD scenario has Paul being saved before the crucifixion / resurrection. [disproved]
2. Your 34 AD scenario has to fabricates [A lie-false attribution to me] a story that the women spent Wed evening and all the day light hours Friday making spices that were readily available for purchase, forcing them to return after the next Sabbath, [disproved] ignoring Jewish burial requirements and customs. [A lie since ignored customs were never substantiated]
3. The gospel narrative overwhelmingly indicates that a literal 72 hour period in the tomb was not the be the case, but that inclusive reckoning was being used. [When did I say 72 hours?]
4. To get your scenario to work, you must ignore the Passover type represented by the wave offering of First fruits (16 Nisan) as the type of the Resurrection. [A lie
"But every man in his own order: Messiah the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. " (1Cor. 15:23).
__
first fruits: Yeshua rose from the dead at dawn on the Sabbath. The wave sheaf offering in the temple was on the 16th of Nisan, which was Friday morning that year. The Temple day reckoned the first fruits day from sunrise on Friday until sunrise on the Sabbath, so the resurrection comes right at the end of the first fruits day. This is illustrated in this chart: (http://www.torahtimes.org/images/SabbathRessurection01.jpg);
__
] Paul describes Jesus’ Resurrection as the first fruits of the new creation in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23. With a Wednesday crucifixion, First fruits (16 Nisan) for your scenario would fall on Friday, meaning the resurrection should also be on Friday. Lev. 23:11 makes it clear that a Saturday/Sabbath ‘First fruits’ is not possible for AD 34. So we see an AD 34 Wednesday-Saturday scenario running into another dead end.
[A lie
"But every man in his own order: Messiah the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. " (1Cor. 15:23).
__
first fruits: Yeshua rose from the dead at dawn on the Sabbath. The wave sheaf offering in the temple was on the 16th of Nisan, which was Friday morning that year. The Temple day reckoned the first fruits day from sunrise on Friday until sunrise on the Sabbath, so the resurrection comes right at the end of the first fruits day. This is illustrated in this chart: (http://www.torahtimes.org/images/SabbathRessurection01.jpg);
__
]
5. Finally, you claim that I (as well as other far more qualified scholars) mistranslate first day of the week to mean Sunday, even though you (and Lev 23:15 [A most obvious lie] ) show that the days of the week are counted towards Sabbath from the last Sabbath, in essence tying the week to the Sabbath as its reference point. Literal meanings of words indeed.
6. One other little point, should one apply the 72 hour hyperliteral interpretation, Jesus would have been resurrected at 3 PM Saturday afternoon (literal 72 hours) The gospel accounts are clear that it was dawn when the women arrived to the tomb. [An implied lie, false attribution to Me of position I do not take.] This could not have been Saturday morning – Jesus would not have been risen. The only alternative under your scenario is Sunday morning. [A lie, since you did not disprove the translation "first of the Sabbaths" -- you only tried to support "first day of the week". ] So what was Jesus doing between Sat 3 PM and Sunday 6 AM – playing dominos with the angels? [A lie ]
Not really, makes the math a little more challenging. And how ‘firm’ is this date? It was my understanding that the current method of calculating the jewish calendar was reformed/finalized in 135 AD AD?
I'm going to pass on educating you on the above.
Parker and Dubberstein's tables show Nisanu going from 4/3-5/1 in 444 BC. (However, I do believe they admit that their dates could be off by as much as 30% - page 23 of their paper)
Only in respect to the exact day of the new moon, and what is in the charts is the parsimonious day for the new moon. As to the intercalation, it was regularly done after the equinox by the Babylonians and Persians. And the 360 day year theory does not work. Besides a year is not 360 days. So Hoehner's theory is caput.
This is where you shoot your own theory of AD34 in the foot. I may have fumbled the earlier calculations, but not this time. For starters, it is illegitimate to deduct the first sabbatical ‘year’ with the completion of the walls in 444 BC, same year as the decree was issued. That is absolutely the lamest of all your justifications. But is is clear why you have to do that – otherwise the numbers don’t work out for you. Had you followed the method specified in Daniel 9 (which does not credit the completion of the wall with 7 years of time), the end of your 69th sabbath ‘year’ would be AD 40 – far too late to support AD34, so you fudge the numbers by dropping this first ‘year’, leaving you with only 68 to count for – arriving in AD 33. You cannot just drop those years so nonchanlantly and remain honest to the context and conditions found within the prophecy. AD 34 is dead in the water even using sabbathical years.
Pure propaganda on your part. Have you ever heard of inclusive counting? That's right you need it to make your Friday to Sunday idolatry work. Why don't you allow it to be applied to counting 69 sabbatical periods? Answer: because then it would work right without the problems of your 360 year theory, and it would confirm the Sabbath resurrection. But since you hate the Sabbath and hate the Torah you will not believe it. No Sabbath year was deducted at all. Since we are counting whole sabbatical periods unit wise, it is nonsense to say I am dropping off years. That's like me telling you that you are dropping off hours of the day because you count only one hour in the grave as the first day.
The time of Gallio's stayed in Corinth was about one year. The Apostle Paul was in Corinth at the same time as Gallio about 51 CE. This date aligns with other biblical information about the Apostle Paul.
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians about his conversion and time spans in his life. Paul writes about a 3 year and 14 year time span as follows:
"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19).
"Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. " (Galatians 2:1).
The Apostle Paul's 14 year reference would have been the trip to Jerusalem about 49 AD.
The Apostle Paul would have been in Achaia about 2 years later in 51 AD. This means that approximately 19 years had passed since his conversion from Judaism to Christianity. This would place Paul's conversion about AD 32
After Fourteen Years
"1 Then after fourteen years, again, I did go up to Yerushalayim with Barnabas, and took with me also Titus" (torahtimes.org, Gal. 2:1).
comment: Paul means 14 years after his conversion here, not after the three years mentioned in chapter one. He is measuring from the point of his conversion all the events in his narrative, that being the memorable moment for his new life. Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed., §684, pg. 395) is exactly correct in placing Paul's conversion in AD 36, "The conversion of Paul (14 years before A.D. 49 counted inclusively) was in A.D. 36 and both the "three years" and the "fourteen years" are shown in Table 189." Finegan shows the three years as AD 36,37, 38. However, it should be 37, 38, 39, since Gal. 1:18 says "after (μετα) three years". So Paul went to Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 1:18) in AD 39. He then shows the 14th year after Paul's conversion in A.D. 49, which is correct because it is inclusive counting allowed by the word δια.
A key point is that Aretas, King of Arabia (with his capital in Petra) had control of Damascus, when Paul escaped from Damascus in a basket (2Cor. 11:32). Before A.D. 37 Damascus was under Roman sovereignty and Jewish jurisdiction. The decisive moment was in A.D. 36, "In order to marry Herodias, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch divorced his Arab wife, the daughter of the ethnarch Aretas IV. She fled to her father's court in Petra. Aretas IV awaited his moment. In AD 36, when Antipas had been ruling over the province of Galilee for forty years, and when his ally the emperor Tiberius was in his dotage on the Isle of Capri, Aretas exacted his revenge, invading and annexing Antipas' territories. He routed the Jewish armies and established himself in the northern kingdom of Syria. Damascus, which had been under Roman control since the time of Pompey, was now under the dominion of the Arabs" (pg. 82, A.N. Wilson, Paul, 1998). Further pinpointing Arabian control of the city is the mention of the governor as the "Ethnarch of Aretas the King" (2Cor. 11:32), and not an Ethnarch of Rome or Antipas. In early A.D. 37 Tiberius ordered Vitellius (proconsul of Syria) to avenge the loss of territory, "to make war upon him [Aretas]" (Jos. Ant. 18.5 [115]). But Tiberius died in the spring, and the Roman army was recalled leaving the Arab king to take control of Damascus. This is further substantiated by the lack of Romans coins in the city after A.D. 34, which only appear again under Nero. The lack of Aretas IV coins associated with Damascus does not mean too much. It only means that the Damascus mint was closed, and that Aretas minted his coins elsewhere. It is the cessation the Roman mintage that indicates Nabatean control.
comment: The words "Επειτα δια δεκατεσσαρων ετων" means literally "Then through fourteen years ....". Here δια is used "of an interval of time, after...Gal 2:1" (BDAG, 3rd edition, pg. 224). Once we understand that Paul is counting from his conversion in A.D. 36, it is clear that the word "again", παλιν, merely means that it was not his first visit to Jerusalem. In like manner he uses the word in Gal. 1:17, "And I returned again to Damascus." After his conversion Paul went to Damascus. He then went to Arabia. He did not have to flee Damascus right after his conversion. It was only after his stint in Arabia, and after three years from his conversion (non-inclusive), when he returned to Damascus to teach that the plot was hatched. This would have been in A.D. 39, while Aretas IV was still alive. He died in A.D. 40.
Daniel's Literal Translation and Commentary: (http://www.torahtimes.org/translation/Gal0201.html)
So Finegan cites AD36 for Paul, as noted, many others do not accept his including the 3 years with the 14 and your self citation doesn’t cut it (hope you didn’t have to write it just to answer the question). You totally failed to refute the line of chronology I presented. Text book circular logic on your part.
Here is a list of the choices: 30 A.D. = April 7, Friday 31 A.D. = March 27, Tuesday 32 A.D. = April 14, Monday 33 A.D. = April 3, Friday 34 A.D. = March 24, Wednesday We see that only A.D. 34 fits with the astronomically calculated date for the 14th of Nisan preparation of the Passover to fall on Wednesday. Quite independently, Sir Isaac Newton reached the conclusion that the Passion was in A.D. 34, and the famous Jewish Scholar Solomon Zeitlin also reached the same conclusion. So far all the data fits. Let's summarize it: three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40) after three days (Mark 8:31, 9:31) the third day (Luke 24:46) On the later Sabbath (Matthew 28:1a) the first of the Sabbaths (Matthew 28:1b, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 19) third day since (Luke 24:21) high day Sabbath (John 19:31) spices bought after the annual Sabbath (Mark 16:1) Women rested on the annual Sabbath (Luke 23:56; Leviticus 23:7, 11) It was still dark at the tomb (John 20:1) The resurrection was when deep dawn appeared in the east (Hosea 6:3) Friday to Sunday does Not fit the following data: Matthew 12:40 Mark 8:31, 9:31 Luke 24:21 Matthew 28:1a Matthew 28:1b, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 19 John 19:31 (only awkwardly) Mark 16:1 (only awkwardly) John 20:1 Hosea 6:3
Another bit of Mainstream mythology dismantled.
Thanks....again for posting it.
ROTFLAICGU!!!! Inclusive counting in regards to short periods (days) is well documented in its use among the Jewish community and the bible. You propose a bogus strawman that equates the inclusive counting to a sabbatical year (7 year period) on the basis that Daniel was 'inclusively counting' Bwwaahhahahahha. Fact is you have to creatively account for that sabbath year to fudge your calculations. Clearly you recognize that only 68 sabbath years (476 years) can fit to AD 34. Just more speculation on your part so try to shore up a date that is too late in the period.
Since we are counting whole sabbatical periods unit wise, it is nonsense to say I am dropping off years. That's like me telling you that you are dropping off hours of the day because you count only one hour in the grave as the first day.
Oh, my, you should issue nausa warnings with all the spin you are placing on this point. It is "OK" to play with sabbath years (although it is undocumented that such games were played by the Jews), but not correct to use inclusive counting for the days (where it is supported by Jewish use and scripture).
Bawhahahah. Have a good weekend - you've made mine.
If you don't like counting whole sabbatical periods inclusively, then count Sabbatical Years.
Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but cannot counter the math. Crayons do very little to absolutely nothing when it comes to your strawman. You could have shown where sabbatical years were counted inclusively within scripture - you couldn’t. So now you grab you crayons to restate the absurd, and it is the only way you can do it. 69 ‘seven’ is 483 years - from 444 BC come to 40 AD, not 33 AD. ROFLAICGU. Now trying to muddy the water with partial reigns of Kings counted inclusively. Please continue, you make my day and point.
While inclusive counting of anything is valid from a Hebrew point of view --- an onah is a period of time, and part of an onah is counted as a whole, that is not the reason I revised the chart. What tipped Occam's Razor over to the new chart is Nehemiah 1:1, the 20th year in the month of Chislev. It turns out that this month was the very 20th anniversary of Artaxerxes Accession after the death of Xerxes in 465 BC of the same month, which I verified in Horn and Wood and by runing my own astronomical calculations. Since Nehemiah was close to the Palace, it appears that this is possible. Further, Nisan of the 20th Standard Persian year was in 445 BC and not 444. It appears that Nehemiah being in Persia would date a decree given in Persia using the local date and not a Syrio-Macedonian one. The New chart agrees with the date given by Finegan. My other adjustments are for similar parsimonious reasons.
I like to push the 30 a.d. crucifixion.......myself.
“But before we do so, it is important to note one other important detail in Luke’s narrative, in the verse right before Luke 24:1. He tells us the women “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” after preparing the spices and ointments. Thus, they finished the laborious work of preparing the herbs and oils prior to the start of the Sabbath, which began at Friday sundown.”
“The truth about mia ton sabbaton (and protee sabbatou)-The resurrection was discovered on a Sabbath/Saturday morning. Since a Wednesday crucifixion forces the resurrection to be on late Saturday, we would be forced to ignore all the facts brought forward in this chapter, which require the women at the tomb no later than a Saturday morning.”
Best Regards - Pmary65
Why would you say....."late Saturday afternoon"? A Wednesday crucifixion is entirely compatible with a Sabbath A.M. resurrection.
Please explain...............
Well.....you pinged me....I responded.....now you ignore me?
I just waited to make sure you had your ‘Server’ issues under control!
The full sentence of Matthew 28:1 would render from the Koine Greek like;
“Late (οψε) the (δε) sabbaths (σαββατων) to the (τη) twilighting-up (επιφωσκουση) into (εις) one of (μιαν) sabbaths (σαββατων) Mary (μαρια) Magdalene (μαγδαληνη) and (και ) the (η) other (αλλη) Mary (μαρια) observed (θεωρησαι) the (τον) sepulchre (ταφον).”
I had seen in a couple Greek Lexicons that referred to the Greek word ‘επιφωσκουση’ as a reference of time late in the day before darkness. At; http://www.peshitta.org/ you may see the Aramaic equivalent as ‘twilight’ for MTH 28:1. However, other tetragrammation in Hebrew for ‘first’ and 'one' remains questionable after reviewing several passages for word assimilation.
The Revised version 1881 states in Mark 16:2 that the 2 Marys came to the sepulcher ‘when the sun was risen’ which could refer to a time late within the day. It is a situation of having the proper tense.
Mark 16:9 does not exist in the oldest Greek manuscripts and therefore is an ill-legitimate passage in my opinion just like the other mistranslated resurrection phrases; ‘first day of the week’ or first day of sabbaths’.
Luke 24:1 makes reference to ‘deep dawn’ (TKI) probably at eve before the next day.
John 20:1 makes reference to Mary coming ‘early (in anticipation) with darkness (next day) yet being’ (TKI). Another instance of being in the proper tense.
People were allowed to travel on the Sabbath upto a .75 mile limit (JOSH 3:3,4). Thus the Ladies would have rested (according to the commandment) on the Sabbath day likely anticipating the physical anointing of spices in the tomb by candelight after the Sabbath had passed.
Yes Matthew 12:39.40 compares Jesus’ body (physically) in the tomb as equivalent to the same duration of time for Jonas being (physically) in the belly of the whale. Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb on the evening of Wednesday Nisan 20th and resurrected (72 hrs.) later on Saturday Nisan 23rd.
Furthermore;The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Apostolic Constitutions, and the Didascalia Apostolorum all contain Passion narratives (although not biblically canonized by Constantine) are accounted for with common parity to the chronology of a post Passover feast resurrection moment. There you may consider that Jesus was still very much alive when He presented himself as a First Fruit offering to the Father in a seder setting with his disciples beginning on Saturday Nisan 16th 34 A.D..
These are my personal opinions and beliefs of the matter. You and the others have yours. That is wonderful too. My Savior was a lamb who died on a Passover Feast day. Still legitimate in my opinion – just on a different day or year then what you and others care to believe.
Best Regards – Pmary65
I just waited to make sure you had your ‘Server’ issues under control!
I didn't experience any such problems from my end.
C'est-la-vie !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.