Is the Phrase "First Day of the Week" Properly Translated in the New Testament?

The entire doctrinal basis of Western Christianity’s observance of weekly Easter, i. e. Sunday, is built around eight places in the New Testament (NT) where the phrase “first day of the week” occurs. We are going to take a fresh look at the Greek words used by no less than five major writers of New Covenant scriptures, and question whether they have been translated properly.

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples gathered together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow and continued his speech until midnight.

We are going to analyze the phrase mia ton sabbaton, translated “first day of the week”, and see why various authorities on the scripture prefer the literal

meaning of these words. An example of a literal translation of this verse may be found in the Concordant Literal New Testament (CLNT)[1]:

Now on one of the sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton) at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued (dialegetai=had a dialogue, or discussed) with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word (ie. his teaching) unto midnight (Saturday night).

In Vol. 35 of Word Bible Commentary (p. 1188), admission is made that “the first day of the week” literally means “one of the Sabbaths” in the Greek. The truth of the matter is that there is no Greek-speaking linguistic scholar or professor who would deny this fact. I myself have consulted numerous professors of Greek at prestigious universities (such as Dickenson College in Carlisle, PA) who have confirmed the literal meaning of this phrase. We will prove in this chapter that “first day of the week” is a misrepresentation of the Greek.

Therefore, the mass hypnosis that intellectually transforms this phrase into something other than its literal meaning happens on the presumption that it is an idiomatic expression-- “mia/one” being used for “first,” and “sabbaton” being using for “week,” and “day” being thrown in just so they can make sense out of their non-literal invention. However, I have yet to find one commentary or lexicon citing an example of mia ton sabbaton

being used idiomatically outside the Bible in other Greek writings. Therefore, if it is a figure of speech, prove it. The burden of proof is on the translators. This they cannot do lexicologically. They must resort to arguments based on Church traditions that were not in place until Constantine.

By going with non-literal suppositional words “first” and “week,” they are left with the nonsensical “first week.” Since this makes no sense in the light of contexts that demand a particular day of the week, they throw in the word “day” as though they are sure it ought to be there, and hocus pocus, we now have an entirely different phrase referring to an entirely different day of the week. Had those translating out of the Greek not engaged in this imaginative word-play, the myth of a Sunday morning resurrection would never have gained a foothold. No less is at stake here than the basis in Western Christianity for replacing the seventh day Sabbath with Sunday as the day of worship, because, as scholars too numerous to mention have pointed out, Sunday is nothing other than the weekly celebration of the resurrection.

First we consider the Greek word mia. It means one, as any Greek person will tell you. I have received the same answer from Greek professors at prestigious universities. Protos is the Greek word for first.

It is confusion to suggest that the former is used for the latter. A study (using an Englishman’s Greek Concordance) of the many places where mia occurs, would show any diligent inquirer that mia always, in context, means one, a certain one, one singularity, the quantity one. It does not have the meaning first. In other words, if one were to substitute

“first” in every other place where the word occurs (some 72 times), you end up with nonsensical phrases. How is that mia is only trans-lated “first” where it occurs with sabbaton? How could they translate “mia” as “first” when they knew that “protos” was the Greek word for

Again the answer has to be that the translators brought their preconceived notions into the equation. But to come up with the plausible construction “first day of the week”, they had to make three other gratuitous assumptions.

The translators, bringing their a priori ideas about the phrase to the translating table, assume that the word “day” needs to be supplied in order to help the reader understand the expression. But this is true only if the three words in question actually refer to the first day of the week. If it means one of the Sabbaths, then the word day obviously is not there because it did not need to be there in the first place.

The word “day” is used hundreds of times in the N.T. to refer to various and sundry days, the Sabbath day(s), the third day, the seventh day, the eighth day, the day of Unleavened Bread (Luke 22:7), and even “first day of Unleavened Bread (Mk. 14:12).” In this latter verse, protee heemera is behind the English words “first day.”

So if we take the Holy Spirit to be the power that moved the writers, we see that there is precedent for including heemera (day) with “first” to indicate the first day of something. So the absence of heemera/day in the expression mia ton sabbaton is a strong indication that we are not dealing with a figure of speech, nor with a phrase that requires the word “day” at all in order to be understood. Instead, it is simply “one of the Sabbaths.” It makes little sense for the Greek word heemera to be left out of a reference to the first day of the week, but supplied in the expression “First Day of the Unleaveneds (Mk. 14:12).” This is especially true since none of the days of the week have names in the Bible, except the 7^th day Sabbath.

There are at least two more presumptions that the lying[2] majority of translators have made that we shall address to prove that the Concordant Literal rendering of this Greek expression is correct.

All scholars, without exception, recognize that sabbaton is not native to the Greek language.

Because the Greek culture despised the Sabbath, and did not even have a seven day week prior to the Romans taking over, they had no word Sabbath, or sabbaton. In fact, I have yet to find the word used in the Septuagint (LXX) or writings of the ante-Nicene fathers to refer to first day of the week. Nor can it be found in any extra-Biblical literature, such as Plato, Socrates, or a plethora of other ancient Greek writings referring to Sunday. Hence, it was imported from Hebrew by Jewish writers of the New Testament.

But imported words always retain the sound of that word in the original language. Proper names are an example of this. My name is recognizable phonetically no matter what country I travel to. And if I listen to the broadcast news in Moscow, I will recognize many names such as George Bush, Washington, D.C., dollar, America(n), etc. because of this principle of transliteration.

Now if a word is imported because it has no equivalent in that language, its meaning in the new language is invariably going to be consistent with the meaning in the original language. This linguistic truth is axiomatic. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the translator to ask what the meaning of the imported word was in the original language, and what the writer’s attitude toward that word was. To this end, we are going to launch an investigation into sabbaton.

Apparently, it has not occurred to the illustrious translators and erudite commentators to do this. Had they done so, they never would have imagined that it meant week.

The Hebrew word sabbaton is used of weekly Sabbaths (Lev. 23:3), for annual Sabbaths--Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and first and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:24, 32, 39)—and of land Sabbaths

in Lev. 25:4-5). It has the same pronunciation in Hebrew as the 3^rd declension of the word in Greek. In other words, its plural usage in Greek sounds the same as its original in the Hebrew. It essentially means to cease or pause in Hebrew. The idea of ceasing in order to rest and be refreshed spiritually, mentally and emotionally is the essential purpose of all Sabbaths. Hence it was this word,

sabbaton, used only 11 times in the O.T., that was brought over to refer to weekly and annual Sabbaths to mark the activities of our Savior, His apostles, and believers throughout the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and in First Corinthians chap. 16.

What Was the Attitude of the New Testament WritersToward the Sabbaths and Holy Days?

There is no repudiation of the commands to keep the Sabbath or holy days anywhere in the N.T. Modern research into the historical Jesus admits that Christ Himself upheld every jot and tittle of the Law (Mt. 5:17-19), even claiming (somewhat erroneously) that Yeshua had few differences philosophically with the Pharisees. Paul said in Hebrews 4:9 that “there remains…the keeping of a Sabbath

“Let no one judge you in [your] eating and drinking, or in respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or Sabbaths, which are shadows of things to come (Co. 2:16).

If they had been done away, then he would have said they were shadows. Since they were Gentiles before Paul converted them to “Pauline theology,”

then we don’t need to speculate about them having been Sabbath, New Moon, and Holy Day keepers prior to his evangelizing them. Obviously they became that as a result of His converting them to Yeshua the Savior and His strict requirement of maintaining the paradosis/traditions which Paul delivered to them (I Cor. 11:2, II Thes. 2:15, et al.).

Besides, in I Corinthians chapters 5 and 11, we have explicit language indicating that the Corinthian Church was keeping Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The Church itself was born on Pentecost in Acts 2, and the rest of the book is a chronology based on Sabbaths and various Jewish holy days throughout. IF THE HOLY SPIRIT WERE TRYING TO LEAD THE CHURCH AWAY FROM KEEPING THE SABBATHS AND HOLY DAYS, THEN WHY USE THEM AS THE CHRONOLOGICAL BACKBONE FOR THE MISSION WORK OF PAUL AND THE OTHER APOSTLES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS.

The same question might be asked of Yahweh’s delaying the birth of the Church and the pouring out of His Holy Spirit until Pentecost, a full fifty days after Christ’s Resurrection. This would be highly unusual, to say the least.

Rather, the attitude of the writers inspired by the Holy Spirit is that these special days are still in force, still being regarded highly by the apostles and the Church. And there are scholars of various persuasions who recognize this fact, i.e. that the Sabbaths and holy days represent the definitive time markers of Luke’s writings and Paul’s missionary endeavors throughout Asia Minor and the Mediterranean. Similar dissertations have been written about Matthew and the book John.

Where did they get this attitude? Obviously from Matt. 5:17-19 and Yeshua’s pro-Torah teaching. None of this was changed as a result of Paul’s three years in Arabia (Mt. Sinai) with Yeshua. Rom. 3:31:

“Do we nullify the law through faith? May it never be coming to that (God forbid)! Nay rather, we establish the Law [through faith, an ellipsis of syntax].”

“Yahweh sent Yeshua in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that He might condemn sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:4)

Considering that the Sabbath and Passover continued to be observed up until the 4^th Century in the Western Roman Empire, throughout the British Isles until the 7^th Century, and among various Churches in Asia Minor and the eastern Roman empire for centuries beyond that, and considering that this reality was based on people’s understanding (though in many places these people were in the minority) of the apostolic attitude toward the Fourth Commandment and the Law of Moses, it becomes rather impossible to suggest that the Jewish men who wrote the four gospels could take the strictest word for sabbatizing and use it to refer to Sunday, the worship day of most pagan religions. Sunday was nothing to them but a work day.

The question we are trying to answer is whether the phrase mia ton sabbaton can possibly mean first day of the week. As we focus on the word “sabbaton”

and its meaning, we must also note that it is used in the plural in the passages under consideration. When referring only to singular Sabbath days, it never has the letter “n” on the end of it. As noted in The New Englishman’s Concordance and Lexicon, sabbaton is the plural form of a noun that is either in the singular (2^nd declension) or plural (3^rd declension). In all of the seven places where mia ton sabbaton occurs--Mt. 28:1 (mian sabbaton), Mk. 16:2 (mias sabbaton), Lk. 24:1, Jn. 20:1,19, Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16:2 (these five all have mia ton sabbaton)—the word sabbaton

is in the third declension of the noun, meaning it is plural. This means that if the word meant week at all, then it would have to be in the plural, weeks.

But since the translators are insistent on bringing their preconceived notions to the phrase, i.e. that the phrase must mean first day of the week, they know that first day of the weeks would not make any sense. So they simply ignore its proper declension, and pass over the fact that the word sabbaton is plural.

This makes for very nice historical fiction, but very poor scholarship. It would not be so bad if we were dealing with an event on par with whether or not George Washington crossed the Delaware on Christmas Day or some other day, but instead we are dealing with whether Christ arose on a Sunday or a Saturday, thus either establishing sol invictus venerable (the day held to honor various pagan Sun gods), or Saturday, the day hearkening back to Yahweh’s renewal of the face of the earth in Genesis chapter 1, and the creation of Mankind in His image and likeness. In short, we are dealing with a subject of the utmost magnitude, one that either legitimizes the decisions made by Constantine and His bishops in the 4^th Century, or legitimizes Passover and the Sabbath of Yahweh God. The diligent student of Church history will know what is at stake here; the modern television Christian who comes once a week Saturday or Sunday morning to suck on his bottle will have no clue. That is why when this thesis finally makes the rounds of academia, and when this dissertation is circulated among the halls of theological seminaries far and wide, I predict there will be a hew and cry of disbelief and emotional objection. And the antagonism will be palpable.

How would the Jewish authors of the N.T. have gone about conveying the idea of a seven day week in Greek? If you were a Jewish religious writer composing one of the books of the N. T., what Greek word would first Century readers and writers have been familiar with that would have conveyed the idea of a week? The answer to that question is found in the Septuagint (circa 280 B.C.), a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that was widely available in the time of Yeshua. The Septuagint uses the word hebdomadas

There can be little doubt that this Greek word for week would have been chosen by John, Matthew, Mark, Paul and Luke had they sought to convey the idea of the first day of the week. How do we know this? Because the Septuagint (LXX) was used in all the synagogues of Asia Minor, Achaia, and Macedonia, and Greece. We are confident of this fact because of the large number of Hellenistic Jews, Greek proselytes, and God-fearers among the Gentiles who attended synagogue in these places, as is evident in the accounts throughout the book of Acts. We know that the word sabbaton was used in the LXX in the same way as in the N.T. to refer to weekly and annual Sabbaths. It is logical to assume that had they desired to mention “the first day of the week,” they would have used hebdomados.

The fact that these same N.T. writers do not use hebdomados anywhere in the New Testament, indicates they had no intention to convey the idea of “week.”

It was throughout these synagogues that Paul preached from Sabbath to Sabbath. The thousands of Greek-speaking believers that were converted to the Gospel would have been familiar with the language of the Septuagint. It must be argued that the motivation for putting the story of Yeshua’s life and ministry into Greek largely came from the needs of all these congregations. Not only did they need to be able to read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in Greek, but there would have naturally been widespread interest in a chronicle of the early Church, the Acts of the Apostles, and particularly their “father”

in the faith, i.e. the Apostle Paul. And when Paul wrote the brethren in Corinthians, it needed to be in Greek. It would have been very confusing indeed to refer to Sunday by nomenclature foreign to the LXX, but which had hitherto only been used therein to refer to the Sabbath(s) of the Lord. Thus the six books that contain some variation of mia ton sabbaton --Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and I Corinthians -- were intended for a Greek-speaking Church that had taken on Jewish customs and nomenclature, as we have seen. The use of sabbaton to refer to the first day of the week would have been without precedent.

The first day of the week is never called “Sabbath” in the N.T. On this point, there is no controversy among professors and students of the N.T.

Why, then, do they imagine that the writers of the N.T. used the imported word sabbaton and applied it to the first day of the week?? This is a non-sequitur whose damage has run its course, but whose heyday will be soon be over, if I have anything to say about it.

Does this mean that the writers of the N.T. never wished to convey the idea of a week? The one place where it is fairly certain that a Sunday through Saturday week was meant (Luke 18:12), the words “tou sabbatou”

are used. It is important to note they are singular (2^nd declension). Notice the Pharisee prays with himself, saying, “I fast twice a week (tou sabbatou).” (Wm. Barclay’s N.T.)

The Concordant Literal is equally accurate: “I fast twice of a Sabbath.” In this instance, Sabbath is being used metonymously to represent the seven day period for which it is the culmination. There is a well-known precedent for this in the Old Testament--the unique method (as compared to the other holy days) given for counting to the Feast of Firstfruits (Pentecost) in Lev. 23. When one counts toward Pentecost Sunday in Lev. 23:15-16, seven Shabbats were counted.

“Seven Sabbaths shall be complete” is how it is phrased in Lev. 23:15. The Hebrew word here can only be construed as the weekly Sabbath. It was called the Feast of weeks (shavuot) in Exod. 34:22 and Deut. 16:10, but those weeks were perfect seven-day periods ending with Saturdays. The morrow after the 7^th Sabbath was the 50^th day, which constituted the total number of days to be counted (Lev. 23:16). Based on this, the Pharisee of Luke 18 is saying he fasts twice per weekly Sabbath period, Sabbatou being used by metonymy for the week it consummates.

But the fact that the Holy Spirit uses the singular words “tou sabbatou” in Luke 18 when intending to convey the concept of a week, leads us to question why Luke would not also use the singular in Luke 24:1 and Acts 20:7 [mia ton sabbaton (plural) occurring in both verses] to convey “the first day of the week,” if that is what he had meant. The contrast between singular and plural usages of tou(on)

sabbatou(on) by gospel writer Luke, proved that when the Holy Spirit wanted to convey a single week, as in Luke 18:12, the singular was used, but when he wanted to convey “one of the Sabbaths”, he used the plural (ton sabbaton). These facts may be confirmed by checking with the Englishman’s Greek Concordance. We will see further confirmation when it is shown that Yeshua rose from the dead at the beginning of a weekly Sabbath.

The Concordant Literal N.T. has translated the word sabbaton correctly as “sabbaths”

in the seven places where mia and sabbaton occur together. The Concordant Publishing Concern has absolutely no doctrinal axe to grind, since their other literature in no way promotes the Sabbath. They have stuck to their literal guns, as it were, and our investigation is going to show just how justified they were in translating these expressions literally.

The Inconsistency of the Translators Highlighted by Their Treatment of Sabbaton

In none of the other 60 places where sabbaton (pl.) occurs in the N.T. do the translators translate it week, but only where it is part of the phrase mia ton sabbaton. That in itself is quite telling on the translators.[3] This inconsistency belies a remarkable willingness to buttress the Friday-Sunday mythology which undermines the sign of Christ’s Messiah-ship--that He would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40). The confusion comes from one blind scholar following the rest of the blind scholars unwilling to submit to the righteousness of the Sabbath command. Their lack of understanding stems from their rejection of the foundation of wisdom, which is Yahweh’s Law. Notice Hos. 4:6:

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you rejected the knowledge, I also reject you as My priest; Because you have spurned and forgotten the teaching/Law [Heb. is torah here] of your God, I, in turn, will spurn and forget your children. (translated from JPS and Green’s Int.)

If the scholars and translators sincerely do not understand, then we cannot ignore the root cause. Ps. 111:10 tells us:

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His commandments.

The Implications of the Correct Translation of Mia Ton Sabbaton

In this study, it will be demonstrated that in each of the eight places where “first day of the week”

occurs, it makes more sense that each of the passages is referring to a weekly Sabbath. Later we shall demonstrate a different way to configure the three days and three nights (from Tuesday through Friday) in the actual year of the crucifixion of Christ (31 A.D.). A new chronology will be proffered--one that accommodates our newfound understanding of mia ton sabbaton, but also jives with the facts of the Mosaic calendar in that year. In so doing, we will have finally harmonized the passion accounts of scripture with the demands of Yahweh’s calendar, in a way that the sabbatarian Church of God’s Wednesday-Saturday scenario failed to do.

Now we are ready to go back to the start of this chapter, and Paul’s meeting with the brethren in Troas. It was here that Paul had a vision to go into Macedonia to preach the gospel (Acts 16:8). In 20:6 Paul arrived there early in the week (on Sunday, as we shall see), and abode there seven days. V. 7, quoted at the head of this paper, says:

Now on one of the sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton) at our having gathered to break bread, Paul argued (dialegetai=had a dialogue) with them, being about to be off on the morrow. Besides, he prolonged the word (ie. his teaching) unto midnight (Saturday night). (CLNT)

There is substantial lexicological and linguistic analysis up to this point to substantiate that this meeting was on a weekly Sabbath, and there is plenty of contextual evidence in the book of Acts to prove that these formal get-togethers throughout Paul’s missionary journeys were on Sabbaths.

The Preponderance of Sabbath Meetings in Paul’s Ministry in the Book of Acts

Paul, according to his manner (etho = customary habit), went into them (in the synagogue), and reasoned three Sabbath days with them out of the scriptures.

Luke used the same identical words to describe Yeshua’s custom of entering into the synagogue on the Sabbaths in Luke 4:16. So Paul was no different. Many theologians and the more erudite radio preachers realize that Paul spent three years in Arabia with Christ, and got His teaching directly from Yeshua there. There is not a scintilla of evidence that meetings were switched from Saturday to Sunday in the book of Acts. On the contrary, Paul preached Christ in the synagogues immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20)

At the conclusion of the first Apostolic Conference in Acts 15, James said that the new Gentile converts to the Way would be able to grow in righteousness by having Moses read to them in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

At the start of their commission from the Holy Spirit, Paul and Barnabas came to Salamis (Acts 13:5), the first port they reached on the east end of Cyprus. They preached the word of Yahweh in the synagogues of the Jews. In Acts 13:14 Paul and his company entered into a synagogue with a sizable Gentile constituent in Antioch of Pesidia. The Jews largely rejected the forgiveness of sin that was offered them through Paul’s powerful presentation of Yeshua, but the Gentiles received the Word gladly, and besought Paul that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath (Acts 13:42). The following Sabbath, almost the whole [Greek] city came together, to the chagrin and envy of the Jews. In Acts 14:1 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue in Iconium and spoke so powerfully, that Yahweh made Believers out of a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 16:13-15 described Sabbath worship with Lydia and those accustomed to praying by the river side near Philippi in Macedonia. In Acts 17:10 Paul and Silas went into a synagogue in Berea, and many honorable Greek women and men believed. In Acts 18:4 Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath at Corinth, reasoning with the Jews and the Greeks. The same story was repeated in Ephesus (Acts 18:19 and 26; 19:8). According to Dr. John Lightfoot, in towns where there were many Jews and where they had a synagogue, the Jews established Divinity schools. Such a school, that of Tyrannus, is mentioned in Acts 19:9.[4]

He may have been a Rabbi who converted. The teaching and miracles at the hands of Paul that occurred here during two years caused virtually everyone in Asia Minor to hear the word.

Virtually every significant evangelistic opportunity delineated by the Holy Spirit in these accounts took place either on a Sabbath, and/or in a synagogue, or at a rabbinic school.

Why then, in Acts 20:7, is it logical to conclude that all of a sudden there was a Sunday meeting? On the contrary, one would be completely justified in assuming the mia-ton-sabbaton meeting mentioned here was just another “one of the [many] Sabbaths” already described at every other city where he witnessed. Here, however, Timothy, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater were all waiting at Troas for Paul to arrive. Paul was finished preaching in Greece and Macedonia, and it was time to celebrate the fruits of his labor via a fellowship meal with the disciples in Asia Minor who partly owed their eternal life to Paul’s efforts.

We now commence our investigation into the resurrection narrative contained in the four gospels. We pick it up where we left off—with the writings of the same beloved physician who wrote the book of Acts—with Luke, who also wrote the Gospel account bearing his name. Having proven that the evangelistic activity in Acts centered around the synagogue and Sabbath meetings, and having proven that mia ton sabbaton

in Acts 20:7 was just one such mikra kodesh (holy convocation) on “one of the Sabbaths” after Unleavened Bread, we now turn our attention to Luke’s use of mia ton sabbaton in Luke 24:1. I quote from the CLNT:

1) Now in the early depths (wee hours of the morning) of one of the sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton), they, and certain others together with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they made ready. 2)

They could not have prepared these spices before having bought them. To discover when the women bought the spices, we must turn to the last chapter of Mark’s Gospel. 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 Gospel of Mark Gives Important Details on When Spices Were Purchased (Mark 16:1)

Since Matthew and Luke seem to use verbatim many of the same stories about Yeshua’s life that are found in Mark, most scholars consider Mark to be the earliest gospel. And so we will continue our investigation of the resurrection narrative in Mark 16:1:

At the elapsing of the Sabbath (we will demonstrate thoroughly that this Sabbath had to be the First Day of Unleavened Bread), Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, buy spices, that coming, they should be rubbing (anointing) His body. (CLNT)

“Buy” is the correct tense of the verb in verse 1. “Had bought” of the KJV is recognized by all commentators and Greek scholars to be incorrect. Even the New KJV corrects “had bought” to “bought.”

Flagrant Mistranslation of “Bought” by KJV Indicative of Pressure From Anglican Church Hierarchy and King James

We know from the forward to the 1611 King James Bible that its translation committee performed their work under a certain amount of duress, charged as they were from the outset by King James and the Anglican authorities WITH UPHOLDING THE OFFICES AND INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Chief among those institutions was Easter Sunday (and its resultant switch from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship), and “Good Friday”.

The fact that the King James translators deliberately put the action of buying the spices into the past perfect tense (as an action already completed prior to that Sabbath), shows blatant disregard for what they knew was the tense of the Greek word “bought.” They knew there was a problem for the institution of Good Friday and Easter Sunday if the text showed them purchasing spices AFTER THE SABBATH. They knew that if the Passover were on Friday, then there was virtually no time to have bought the spices, nor time to prepare them (Lk. 24:1)!

Matt. 27:57 shows that Joseph of Arimathea got permission to take Yeshua’s body off the cross and place Him in the tomb as evening was approaching (i.e. at the end of Passover Day). There would have been no shops open for purchasing anything in and around Jerusalem this late on the 14^th, as Alfred Edersheim and Jewish writings show. Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is out of the question, as all the Jewish businesses would have been shut down for the Sabbath. Luke 23:54-56 proves that the spices were prepared by these women prior to resting on the weekly Sabbath. Thus when we combine Mark 16:1 with the account in Luke 23, we prove that the spices were bought on the work day following the annual Sabbath, but prepared prior to the weekly Sabbath. Hence, there had to be some work days in between the two Sabbaths mentioned. It was during these interim days of Unleavened Bread that the women prepared their sweet spices.

The same things could be said with their presumptuous translations of mias sabbaton (one Sabbath) in Mk. 16:2 and protee sabbatou (first Sabbath) in verse 9 into “first day of the week.” In this they sycophantically prostrated themselves before the erroneous translation work of everyone before them, especially Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. Even though they were not the first to engage in this lame linguistic carelessness, it nevertheless remains one of the most egregious cases of eisigesis in the history of translation.

To say that they were afraid for their lives is not an overstatement. Had the translation been allowed to cast doubt upon the switch from Saturday to Sunday as the day of worship), and upon the Easter tradition of “Good Friday,” there would have been serious repercussions from the educational/religious establishment, not to mention King James Himself.

It would be another couple of centuries before the hegemony of the Anglican Church waned, allowing for enough intellectual freedom to explore a better resolution of the insurmountable problems presented by the Friday-Sunday quandary of orthodoxy. Chief among these solutions was the work of E.W. Bullinger.[5] In Appendices 144 and 156 of his Companion Bible, he lays out his explanation of the three days and three nights that Christ was in the tomb. He believed they stretched from Wednesday sundown to Saturday sundown. While this was a great improvement over the Good Friday/ Easter Sunday hypothesis of mainstream Christianity, there were other factors Bullinger did not consider when choosing Wednesday as the day of the crucifixion. Several factors that must be considered are:

1.Astronomy-Because of the nature of the Hebrew calendar, the science of astronomy limits the years in which you can have a Wednesday Passover.

2. The facts of the true, Biblical Hebrew calendar- The true Hebrew calendar, and consideration of the lunar cycles (upon which the holy days are based), make a Wednesday Passover in 31 A.D. fall on April 25, which is almost a week too late. We explore in a later chapter the various reasons why April 25 is wrong, and why a Wednesday Passover in 30 A.D. utterly fails to incorporate the facts of the Hebrew Calendar.

3.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.

Many of the Sabbatarian Church of God 7^th Day, Armstrong, and Sacred Name groups relied heavily on Bullinger’s appendices when putting forward their explanation of the fulfillment of Matt. 12:40. And as Bullinger states, it was a lack of awareness of the High Day Sabbath at the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (and the fact that this High Day was a different day than the weekly Sabbath that year) that led to much of the confusion about the chronology of the Passion Week. Until the waning years of the 20^th Century, it seems almost no one tried to reconcile Bullinger’s chronology for the Passion week with the realities of the Hebrew calendar. In other words, God’s calendar greatly restricts the years that will accommodate all the facts. These competing realities led to this present work.

What Was Involved in the Preparation of Spices and Ointments?

Many in America today use high quality essential oils for deodorizing their houses and for therapeutic rubbing onto the skin. These oils are very expensive, often running anywhere from $40.00 to $150.00 per ounce. The ointment that was poured on Yeshua at Simon the leper’s house, just days prior to His arrest, was very costly. It was worth more than one year’s wages. The extravagance lies not just in the cost of the spices and ground herbs, but in the time and process used in the preparation. Preparing essential oils involves extracting the essence of the bark, leaf, or root. This requires laborious grinding of the raw material, and then soaking same in strong alcohol solution. Alternatively, it requires boiling steam up through the spices to extract the oil, condensing the steam, and separating the water from the oil.

Since the quantity of spices necessary for anointing burial wrappings of a human body is considerable, it would have required a large amount of time to prepare them in this way. Had Luke told us that the women brought spices already prepared by someone else, we could possibly account for a Saturday night purchase (still quite unlikely). But when Mark 16:1 tells us that they bought them on the 16^th of Aviv, and then Luke tells us they personally prepared the spices, we are looking at time parameters that probably required two work days in between the High Day 15^th and Friday sundown, when the women ceased and rested according to the Commandment (Lk. 23:56). This is but one of several objections to the Wednesday sundown--Saturday sundown scenario, which allows only one work day (Friday) between the burial and resurrection [Thursday being the High Day].

Women Came to the Tomb Early on the Sabbaton in Mark 16

Continuing with our investigation of the resurrection narrative, we go to Mark 16:2, where mias sabbaton occurs:

And very early in the morning on one of the Sabbaths [mias sabbaton], they are coming

to the tomb. At the rising of the sun they said to themselves, “Who will be rolling away the stone for us out of the door of the tomb?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away…And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe, and they were overawed. Now he is saying to them, “Be not overawed! Ye seek Yeshua, the Nazarene, the Crucified. He is risen! He is not here! Perceive the place where they laid Him!

But go, say to His disciples and to Peter, that He is preceding you into Galilee. There you shall see Him, according as He said to you.” And, coming out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had filled them. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (v.9) Now, having risen [Greek is in the aorist tense, that is, it is here describing an action completed at a time in the indefinite past, i.e. prior to Mary arriving at the tomb], early first Sabbath (Protee sabbatou) He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.(CLNT)

Translating protee sabbatou into “the First day of the week” is gratuitous, for three of the four reasons already discussed. I have left out “on the” because there is no prepositional phrase. “Early first Sabbath” is telling us when He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, who probably separated from the other women as they fled from the tomb.

Answer: Protee sabbatou simply refers to the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.[6] See footnote.

Should the Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20) Be There?

The last twelve verses of Mark provide important details about events after the resurrection, but most modern critics are in agreement that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not an integral part of his Gospel. Modern translators question the authenticity of these twelve verses because they are omitted by two of the three oldest uncial manuscripts in our possession today—Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. There are, however, 18 other uncials (a MS. using all CAPS) and some 600 cursive MSS., none of which leaves out these twelve verses.

Jerome, who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses in the Latin Vulgate version, which was largely his effort in the early 5^th Century. But Jerome’s Vulgate was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which dates to the 2^nd Century, which also contains these twelve verses. There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices:

and two hundred additional writers between 300 A.D. and 600 A.D. who all refer to these twelve verses. The Gothic Version (A.D. 350), the Coptic and Sahidic Versions down in Egypt (4^th C.), The Armenian Version (5^th C.), the Ethiopic (Cent. 4-7), the Georgian (6^th C.) all bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.[7]

In addition, we would be remiss if we did not mention the thorough-going mathematical analysis of the letters (consonants, and vowels), nouns, proper nouns, etc. done by E.W. Bullinger’s contemporary, Ivan Panin, which proved a kaleidoscope of numerical patterns in the text of Mark 16:9-20 similar to all the other scriptures. These numerical patterns are unique to God-breathed scripture, and cannot be found in the literature of mere mortals unmoved by the Holy Spirit. Ivan Panin was uniquely qualified to make such an assessment, having taught the classics, English and Russian literature at Harvard in the late 19^th Century. He was also an accomplished mathematician.

What Theological Problems Did Mark 16:9-20 Give To Theologians?

So why did some of the monks and professional copyists make the decision to leave out vss. 9-20? That is a very good question. I offer three reasons which will bring us back to our original thesis:

If the true understanding of the text of Mark casts a shadow over the possibility of a Sunday resurrection, how then, thought Constantine and his bishops, would they be able to draw all the Mithra-worshipping, Sun-venerating, sun-worshippers of the empire into the new fold? How unify the disintegrating Empire? Nicea and its aftermath made for good politics, lousy theology, as many scholars have come to realize.

If this is true that He rose on a Sabbath, then there goes your Easter Sunday resurrection. There goes everything the so-called “Fathers of the Church” lived and died for. There goes Constantine’s Council of Nicaea, there goes the primacy of the Roman see, and the coerced unity of the Roman Catholic Church. And if Christ rose on a Sabbath, then the same reasons that were used to supplant the 7^th Day Sabbath, i.e. the weekly celebration of the resurrection on Sunday, must now be used to glorify the weekly Sabbath, of which Christ said He was Lord.

And consider what was at stake if Mark 16:9 could be allowed to stand casting its aspersions on the “first day of the week.” I quote Encyclopedia Britannica’s summation of the importance of the Council of Nicaea to the Catholic Church:

The Council of Nicaea marks an epoch in history of the conception of the Christian Religion, in that it was the first attempt to fix the critieria for Christian orthodoxy (by means of definitely formulated pronouncements on the content of Christian belief)—the acceptance of these criteria being made a sine qua non of membership of the Church. Moreover, it admitted the principle that the State might employ the secular arm to bring the Christian subjects of the Roman Empire under the newly codified faith. [In other words, if you want to be a Christian, this is what you must believe.] The Nicene Council represents an important stage in the development of the state-Church.

Yeshua and the Apostle Paul forbade anyone lording it over the believers’ faith. Only Bible illiterates (like Constantine) were/are ignorant of this truth. So we will not belabor the point. But when we ponder the benefits that Constantine bestowed upon the orthodox bishops and their Churches at Nicaea and via the state welfare system, plundering the gold and wealth of the pagan temples for the benefit of the state-church, etc., we scarcely wonder that the more erudite among them would have looked with a jaundiced eye at the threat posed to them by protee sabbatou in Mk. 16:9. So it is with suspicion that we ponder the coincidence of the 4^th Century origin of Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and their convenient omission of Mark 16:9ff.

Frankly, it is not a stretch to suggest that Constantine was like Satan offering the Church the whole world and the dominion thereof, as long as they did his bidding, and the Church said, “That sounds like a good deal.”

Before Constantine was dead in 337, the bishops already had way too much to lose. But as Burkhardt says in The Era of Constantine the Great, the Church lost its soul in the process.

Mark 16:9-20 represented a threat to the authenticity of the state-church in so many ways. Seen through the eyes of the literary criticism, it does not make sense that Mark would end his book with verse 8. The women are told here to go and tell Yeshua’s disciples what they have seen (the empty tomb), that Yeshua is risen. But instead they tell no one because they are afraid. In contrast, in chapter one the book begins with a leper who is expressly forbidden from saying anything to anybody about his healing; Christ tells him to report directly to the priest at the Temple, and bring for his cleansing what Moses commanded (Lev. 14:3-13). Instead, he blazes abroad the word, violates Christ’s charge, which in turn causes havoc in all the towns round about, preventing Yeshua from entering into any city. How ironic is it to have a leper, who Yeshua was very angry with [casting him out of His midst (Mark 1:41-44)], do exactly what the women failed to do due to fear, and have the book end in this way. If Mark ends the book with verse 8, then he makes the women out to be the opposite of what they are in the three other gospels. Some of these women who followed Christ had given of their possessions to sustain Christ’s ministry early on (Luke 8:3). Those familiar with the resurrection accounts know the women were the heroes of the story. They were:

So how can you end the gospel (which means good news) with these same women disobeying an explicit command of an angel to go tell the disciples. It make no literary or common sense whatsoever, especially when verses 9-20 are the most powerful, upbeat, positive, encouraging twelve verses anywhere in the four gospels. They are the heroes of the resurrection story. But the celibate monk/copyists of the monastery at Sinai, with their warped view of women and the sanctity of marriage, took their orders from like-minded Church authorities, and made their damnable deletions and alterations of the text to deprive them of their rightful place in this story. They deleted perhaps the most important verses in the entire book. In verse 10 Mary does go and report to the mourning, lamenting disciples. “And they, hearing that He is living, and was gazed upon by her, disbelieve.”

Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 Confirmed By Best Scholarship

On page 539 of Word Bible Commentary for Mark we have this significant analysis.

Mark begins rather than ends, new sections or paragraphs (pericopes) on a note of fear (5:33, 36; 6:20, 50; 9:6; 10:32; 11:32). Only 10% of the time (6 out of 66 times) does Mark conclude a story, paragraph, or section with gar, ‘for,’” [Thus, the facts] “favor the view that the last part of v. 8 begins a new pericope rather than ends the one that precedes. Books ending with gar, the preposition “for,” are a rarity indeed.”

Burgon (Last Twelve Verses) 19^th C. argues these verses are authentic. One could take volumes of time and space refuting all the disbelieving Higher Critics who are paid to vindicate codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus[10], but why waste the time. I have said enough. Protee Sabbatou (first Sabbath) stands. And “first day of the week” vanishes as a figment of brainy men’s imaginations.

Were the Women Who Came to the Tomb on Sabbath Morning Violating the Tradition of the Elders (the Oral Law)?

“The Law says relatively little about burial, and where it treats the subject, the concern is to avoid defilement by the dead (Num. 19:16; Deut. 21:21-23). There is a law in the Mishah (23:5), however, which states “People may do [on the Sabbath] all that is required for a corpse: They may anoint and rinse it…”

Page 315 of Edersheim’s The Temple: Its Ministry and Services says the following:

The Jerusalem Talmud (Ber. 5, b) expressly declares it lawful on Sabbath and feast-days to bring a coffin, graveclothes, and even mourning flutes—in short, to attend to the offices for the dead—just as on ordinary days."

The Sabbath-Law of R. Meir, by Robt Goldenberg gives us valuable information on Jewish burial customs in the 2^ndCentury, a time when the political situation in Palestine tended toward stricter Sabbath regulations by the Jewish religious authorities than in the previous Century. Meir was a leading member of the Palestinian rabbinate following the fall of Bar Kokhba rebellion in 135 AD.

He was a student of the two masters Aqiva and Ishmael. His Mishnah is said to have formed the basis for the later work of Judah the Patriarch, who redacted the canonical Mishnah still extant today. Meir was one of the leading rabbinic authorities of the 2^nd Century. On page 39 of Goldenberg's book we find this mishaic reference--T. Shab. 12:8-14a concerns the preparation and use of medicines on the Sabbath:

17J.A.1. People may anoint the sick with unguents on the Sabbath. B.1. R. Meir used to permit mixing wine and oil, and anointing the sick on the Sabbath.

Pg. 170 of the above book: "The principle of Sabbath-rest does not apply to the Temple." In this regard, the women understood from Christ's earlier statements (Matt. 12:5-6) that One Greater than the Temple was among them, and also how Christ lauded the two women who anointed Him with precious oil on separate occasions just prior to His death. One of those occasions was at Lazarus' house (John 12:1), where a number of these women were present. Anointing Yeshua's body was a priority in these women's hearts and minds. It was not going to take a back seat to rabbinic Sabbath strictures, which in any case, did not have the force of Law. The Temple, when rightly understood by Paul (I Cor. 3:16 and the entire book of Hebrews), is nothing more than a type or foreshadowing of the Messiah Yeshua.

P. 189--Public offerings override Sabbath and defilement. In Emanuel Feldman's book Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (p. 6), we find the following elucidation and commentary on this principle:

If the defilement law were merely hygienic precautions, it is difficult to explain how it was that precisely at crowded festivals—at which congregational offerings were brought—those very corpse-defilement laws were set aside in order not to postpone an offering. When the time of that offering arrives, and it happens that the majority of the congregation bringing the offering is defiled by a corpse, the offering is not postponed; it is brought while the congregation is in a state of defilement. In fact, it is exclusively corpse defilement which is overridden, and not defilement of emissions, creeping things, carrion, etc. “Corpse uncleanness alone was allowed to be set aside,” according to Maimonides.

A Guide to Jewish Religious Practices, by Klein, P. 101 states this: “The burial of the dead is the main exception to this rule [against Sabbath work]. For those who are occupied with burial, all work connected with a burial is permitted…”

Some might object to the women walking from their domicile in Bethany to the garden tomb on the Mount of Olives. The phrase Sabbath-days' journey is only used one time in the scriptures (Acts 1:12), only to denote a distance (approx. one half mile). There is no explicit restriction on how far one may walk in the Torah, though reason would limit one's physical activity. In reality, however, both Bethany and the place of Yeshua's tomb were both on the Mt. of Olives, and likely within a mile of each other. But for inquiring minds, we cite the following from page 566 of Encyclopedia Judaica's article "Sabbath".

The rabbis placed no restrictions on freedom of movement within one’s town, but they prohibited any walking outside the town beyond a distance of 2,000 cubits (a little more than a half mile). This boundary is known as the tehum Shabbat (Sabbath limit). It is, however, permitted to place, before the Sabbath, sufficient food for two meals at the limits of the 2,000 cubits; then, by a legal fiction known as eruv, this place becomes one’s “abode” for the duration of the Sabbath, so that 2,000 cubits may be walked from there.

It is this author's opinion that the disciple's of Yeshua felt no obligation to please either the Pharisees or the rabbis when it came to tradition of the elders. Yeshua re-oriented everyone's focus back to keeping the spirit and letter of the written law. Where the Law was silent, we should be silent. That is how strict constructionists take God's Word. However, in order to avoid offence and risk social and perhaps legal consequences at the hands of the ruling religious authorities, the women chose to embark on their labor of love very early in the morning, while it was yet dark (according to John's gospel (Jn. 20:1).

Matthew’s Contribution to the Resurrection Narrative

At the outset of our dissection of Matt. 27:66 (the last verse of chap. 27) and the beginning of chapter 28, we must note that chapter breaks and verse numberings have absolutely no authority. They were introduced many hundreds of years after the originals were penned. There are not even any spaces between the words in the uncial texts. In Matt. 27:65, Pilate ordered the Jews to secure the tomb with these words:

You have a detail. Go, make it secure, as you are aware [aware of what Christ had said, that He would arise after three days (vs. 63)].

(27:66) Now they (the Pharisees and chief priests), being gone, secure the sepulcher, sealing the stone, with the detail.

This rendering by the Concordant Publishing Concern constitutes a major clarification. Matt. 28:1a belongs in the previous chapter because it was put there by Matthew and by the Holy Spirit to tell us when they finished

securing the tomb, which is an important detail to the narrative. It was a full twenty four hours after Yahshua was in the tomb before this was done, ie. the evening of the Unleavened Bread Sabbath (the 15th).

There are two time modifiers in the first half of Matt. 28:1. But they describe different parts of a day. Opsi de sabbaton at the beginning of 28:1 and the next phrase--tee epiphosoutee eis sabbaton--are mutually exclusive terminologies. The first means “evening of the Sabbath”, whereas the latter means “at the lighting up into one of the Sabbaths,” as the Concordant Literal has it.

The KJV rendering of the latter—“as it began to dawn” is essentially correct, though we prefer the Concordant as being more descriptive and indicative of early dawn. This comports with the Greek used by Luke in 24:1 (very early), where we have a complementary description of how and when the women came to the tomb. Matt. 28:1 (CLNT) says:

At the lighting up into one of the sabbaths [mia ton sabbaton (pl.)] came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to behold the sepulcher.

The phrase “at the lighting up into” is tee epiphosountee eis, is a time modifier telling us what part of “one of the Sabbaths” the women came to the tomb. Consistent with Mark, Luke and John, we are told that it was well prior to sunrise, at dawn’s early light. That is why the CLNT translates the Greek here as “at the lighting up into

one of the Sabbaths.” The only other time this word is used in the N.T. is Luke 23:54. Its use here requires some explanation, because it is used quite differently than in Matt. 28:1. Notice in Luke 23:

(v. 52) [Joseph of Arimathea] begged the body of Yeshua…wrapped it in linen, and laid Him in a rock-hewn tomb…(v. 54) and that day was the preparation (the 14^th) and the Sabbath drew on (epiphoskein).

According to Word Bible Commentary, epiphoskein in Lk. 23:54 literally means “to dawn.” Luke’s particular use of epiphoskein “has not been paralleled.” The usage could represent a Greek-speaking Jewish adoption, for use in relation to a Jewish reckoning of the day, of language originating from and better adapted to expressing the dawning of a new day reckoned to being at first light. However, William Barclay translates this verse “and the Sabbath lamps were just beginning to be lit.”

Job 25:5—He gives an order to the moon, and it shines not… (kai ohuk epiphauskei…).

Job 41:9—At his (leviathan’s) sneezing, a light lights up (epiphausketai) his eyes.

in the LXX are similar to the literal use of the term in Matt. 28:1, where the lighting up of the early dawn sky is meant. Therefore, the only thing that is lit up at the end of a preparation day such as you have in Luke 23:54 would be the Sabbath lamps that are lit at that time by the Jews in Jerusalem. In fact, every evening at dusk (between the two evenings) the high priest Aaron went into the tabernacle to light up the lamps (Exod. 30:8). William Barclay, no doubt, has deciphered the correct meaning of epiphoskein in Luke 23, and we are indebted to his insight.

John 20:1

Now, on one of the Sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton), Mary Magdalene is coming to the tomb in the morning, there being still darkness, and is observing the stone taken away from the door of the tomb. (CLNT)

She goes and tells John and Peter that the Lord’s body has been removed, and goes back to the tomb with them, lingering there after they left it. She is the first to see Yeshua and report to the disciples that He is risen. In vs. 19 it is now evening (opseos) of that same day, and the Holy Spirit emphasizes that it is still mia ton sabbaton. The CLNT renders it this way:

It being, then, the evening of that day, one of the Sabbaths (mia ton sabbaton), and the doors having been locked where the disciples were gathered together, because of fear of the Jews, Yeshua came and stood in the midst.

It is important to note that the Saturday evening appearance of Yeshua in John 20:19 is dictated by the same language (mia ton sabbaton) as in Acts 20:7 at the head of this chapter. There we took considerable space proving that all the many other sabbaton meetings in Acts had been on weekly Sabbaths, so when Paul prolonged his discussion of scripture until midnight, it was well into the evening of that mia ton sabbaton (i.e. Saturday night). The same time parameters apply in John chapter 20. In this area, the Church of God Sabbath-keeping groups have been most inconsistent, allowing the John account to be a Sunday evening, while insisting that Acts 20 is a Saturday evening.

Combining details from the Luke 24 narrative, we are able to see when Yeshua ascended to Heaven to fulfill the wavesheaf offering after His resurrection. In Luke 24:16, he appeared in an unrecognizable form (see Mark 16:12 where it says He appeared in various forms) to two disciples who were heading back to Emmaus (7 miles West of Jerusalem) late on a Saturday afternoon. When they arrived at their domicile in Emmaus, they urged Yeshua to dine with them, for the day was far spent, and evening was coming on. Only after they broke bread did they recognize Him. But He vanished at this point without explanation. They hurried back to Jerusalem to tell the disciples in the upper room, which brings us to the account in John 20:19. In the two hours it took them to return to Jerusalem, Yeshua went to the 3^rd Heaven to appear before the Father, and to be accepted on our behalf as the first of the firstfruits.

As a spirit being, it would have taken almost no time for Yeshua-God to go from earth to Paradise in Heaven. So I speculate that He spent three to four hours reuniting with the heavenly Father, and then returned immediately to the disciples in the upper room perhaps around 10 PM. For those who question whether the first omer of barley was cut on a Saturday evening, you will have to consult Edersheim's book The Temple: Its Ministry & Services.

I Cor. 16:1-2

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have made arrangements in the Churches of Galatia, so do ye. Upon every (Greek=kata) one of the Sabbaths (CLNT), let every one of you lay by him in store as God has prospered him, that there be no collections when I come.

Paul abruptly introduces the subject of the collection for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (see Rom. 15:26). He devoted a significant amount of time and energy to this charitable project—close to two years—in order to promote unity and love between the Gentile and Jewish quarters of the budding Church. First we want to establish how the preposition kata is used in I Cor. 16:2, so that we understand that Paul intends each believer, by himself, to set aside and store up every one of the Sabbaths, according as he is prospered.

The preposition Kata, down, is sometimes found governing a noun, in the sense of “every.” Examples of this include:

Hence, we see that kata mian sabbaton in I Cor. 16:2 is a very common mode of expression signifying “every” single Sabbath. This fact may be verified on page 384 of The International Critical Commentary. Paul wanted the brethren to set aside in store that which he intended to contribute to his brethren the Jews in Palestine, so that there need be no collections when he arrived at Corinth. Listen to the comment on this verse by The New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. X, p. 996):

[it is] a regular setting aside so that when Paul arrives they will already have the [presumably substantial] collection ready. A couple of features are noteworthy: The reference in the Greek is to a regular practice of each person setting apart contributions every Sabbath. From such nomenclature of days, WE SEE HOW COMPLETELY RE-SOCIALIZED THESE GENTILES WERE TO THE WHOLE SENSE THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE FAMILY OF GOD, WHOSE ROOTS ARE TRACEABLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.

In other words, we have scholars admitting here that the nomenclature being used here (every one of the Sabbaths) is evidence that Paul had completely changed the social customs of these Corinthian Christians. Paul--via the power of the Holy Spirit, miracles, healings, and teaching directly from Yeshua--made spiritual Jews out of Gentiles. They adopted the Sabbath, Passover (I Cor. 5:7-8; 11:24-26), Days of Unleavened Bread, and the New Moons (Col. 2:16), and contributed very generously (throughout the Greek-speaking churches in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Philippi, and Achaia) to the welfare of their new-found brothers the Jews suffering in Palestine.

Concluding Remarks Concerning Mia Ton Sabbaton

If, as scholars say, the first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in scripture, then why do they imagine that the writers of the New Testament used the Hebrew word sabbaton to refer to the first day of the week?? Anyone zealously keeping God’s Holy Sabbath Day should wonder out loud at how ludicrous this sounds at the outset.

When translators deprive Yahweh of His opportunity to speak literally, they arbitrarily alter His Word.

This is why skeptics have the attitude “Well, you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.” But this is only true if you allegorize, and take words out of context, or assume figures of speech where there are none. Men have transformed mia ton Sabbaton from “one of the Sabbaths” into “first day of the week” by refusing to take it as it literally stands and by forcing it to conform to Church traditions. They assumed the authors meant “first”, but did not use protos. The translators supply the word “day” when it is not there, and this, despite the fact that Protos

heemeras was used by these same authors to refer to the First Day of Unleavened Bread. Thirdly, that they meant “week” but used the Hebrew and Septuagint word for Sabbath instead. They had the familiar word hebdomados, the LXX word for "week", available to them, had they wanted to refer to week. The translators and interpreters assume the inspired writers chose not to use the accepted Greek word for “week,” and chose to use

sabbaton in an unprecedented way to totally confuse their Greek readers. No, I think not. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. The Lord has tried to do just that. But the Truth will not be found by them who refuse to keep His Commandments, by those who are not savvy enough to discern the lying pen of the scribe (Jer. 8:8), and who prefer television and sports and pastimes to diligent inquiry into the original language of scripture. Let them go back to nursing at the breast of their spiritual Momma Babylon, for the “people that doth not understand shall fall (come to ruin-NIV).”(Hosea 4:14)

Greek was the lingua franca of the First Century Roman Empire. The gospel writers were trying to communicate the life and ministry of Christ Yeshua to Greek-speaking believers at synagogues and home churches in Asia Minor, Achaia, Macedonia, and elsewhere. When it comes to fundamental religious terminology such as sabbaton, it is more than likely that they would have used this word in the same way it was used in both the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Septuagint. The great bulk of the early believers came out of the Jewish synagogue, where they had heard the scriptures read in Greek. Sabbaton

is the word used throughout the LXX for the weekly and annual Sabbaths. It is never used of “week.” Taking advantage of this familiarity, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul all used sabbaton just as it had been used in the LXX. In singling out the particular Sabbaton upon which Christ was resurrected and discovered by the women disciples, the earliest of these writers, Mark, used protee sabbatou to signify that it was the first Sabbath after Passover.

The practical theology in the minds of most mainstream Christians tells them that all of the Ten Commandments are still relevant and binding. Nobody questions the need to literally abstain from adultery, or not bear false witness against one’s neighbor, and not steal his property. But when they get to the 4^th Commandment, the pastors transfer the sanctity of the 7^th Day to Sunday. They have only one idea that allows them to do this, the illusion that Christ rose on the first day of the week. The fact that the Sabbath and holy days are mentioned no less than eighty times in the New Testament should have been enough to cause any serious believer to remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.

For the past century and a half, the truth about the Sabbath has been disseminated far and wide by the Adventists and other Sabbatarian, Church of God, or Sacred-Name groups. Until now, however, the Sabbatarian movement has failed to identify the Achilles heel of mainstream orthodoxy, which is the amazing truth that “first day of the week” does not occur anywhere in the New Testament Greek text.

This piece in the puzzle must now be considered part of "the restoration of all things" which Christ promised:

And He answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things. (Mark 9:12 KJV)

The process began with Martin Luther in 1519, who exposed the corruption of the Roman Catholic system, and showed Christians, among other things, the primacy of scripture over tradition. The remnant that Yahweh is perfecting must find the basis for all their practices and beliefs in scripture: the Law of Moses, the prophets and Psalms, the sayings of Yeshua, and the letters of Paul. Yahweh's agenda has been moved forward by Adventists (Sabbath and unclean meat laws) and Church of God 7th Day and Armstrong Church of God groups (Passover and God's Holy Days), the Assemblies of Yahweh (restoration of God's proper name in order to fulfill and not violate the 3rd Commandment, where the literal Hebrew says "don't bring the name of Yahweh Elohim to oblivion/nothingness"). The charismatic movement, pro-family Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, Messianic Jewish movement, and Davidic praise and dance movement have all had vital roles to play in restoring all things in Yahweh's vast agenda of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children (and vice versa) prior to sending His Son Yeshua back to this earth. I now submit that undoing the havoc caused by Constantine and his bishops at the Council of Nicea (Easter Sunday, etc.) is also high on Yahweh's to-do list.

Paul and Yeshua are the two most important figures in Western Civilization, and yet neither of them ever mentioned the first day of the week, if I Cor. 16:2 is understood correctly. One would think that the cornerstone doctrine of orthodox Christianity (Easter Sunday and its weekly celebration) would have required some formal discussion of the changeover from Saturday to Sunday somewhere in Paul's writings or the Gospels. The silence of the New Testament on this topic is deafening.

The last leg supporting Sunday sacredness is being removed by a correct understanding of mia ton sabbaton. The truth about mia ton sabbaton is necessary to wean the Church from its moorings in pagan traditions.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt. 15:9).

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but is now commanding men everywhere to repent, forasmuch as He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world [and the Church] in righteousness by that Man Whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all, by raising Him from the dead.

[1] Throughout this article, “CLNT” is used when citing the Concordant Literal New Testament, published by the Concordant Publishing Concern, Canyon Country, CA. It is one of the most helpful, literal, and scholarly translations of the New Testament available.

[2] See Jer. 8:8 where it talks about “the lying pen of the scribe”, i.e. translator or transcriber of scripture.

[3] The exception among the translators is Green’s Interlinear, which flirts with the proper rendering of sabbaton (Sabbath) and mia (one). Green is a perfect case in point of the ambiguity with which scholars have dealt with this expression.

[5] Bullinger was an unorthodox Anglican scholar who taught at Oxford University up until his death in 1913. He was a man of considerable knowledge, whose Companion Bible is among the best study Bibles available today.

[6] Significant in the Torah as being the Sabbath the morrow of which one counts from in order to get to Pentecost (Lev. 23:15). It could probably be argued that since mia

means ”a particular one” or “a certain one,” that every one of the occurrences of mia sabbaton and mia ton sabbaton are referring to this particular Sabbath of prime (protee) importance in starting the count to the important pilgrimage Feast of Pentecost. Hence, Mark calls it protee sabbatou.

[7] See Appendix 168 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible for further corroboration on this point.

[8] Eusebius quotes this verse 18 times prior to the Council of Nicea, omitting our current reading “baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.” It says “baptizing them into My name.” After Nicea, on pain of exile Eusebius capitulates, acknowledging a reading that he knew had been changed by copyists. He complained about changes being made in various texts.

[9]Things got so desperate that the bishop of Alexandria, the great Athanasius, was accused by his opponents in the Egyptian clergy [at the Council of Tyre (335 A.D.)] of hewing off the hand of Arsenius, a bishop from an opposing sect, for the purpose of using it for magic.

[10] I do not mean to imply that these codices are useless in the textual criticism of the N.T. Their variant readings elsewhere must be weighed due to their antiquity when considering what the original said. What we are taking issue with here is not the professional, precise nature of the copying that took place in Sinai and Alexandria, but the doctrinal bent, the heresies they were trying to combat, and pressures from Church authorities that influenced what they included or excluded.

I apologize for the late response. I have enjoyed researching your point, although my schedule has now warped me out of having much free time to continue these discussions until the end of summer. Any future replies will be equally delayed – if not longer.

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.

To "Godzilla" (your quotes in red).

O.K. lets settle your fraudulent objection that Paul won't fit with AD 34. All you have to do is count the 3 years in Galatians and the 14 years from the same point, from his conversion, in which case AD 36 will do quite nicely for Paul to get knocked off his horse. Still fits with Aretas (2Cor. 11:32) and is in fact suggested in Finegan's handbook of biblical chronology. Now it is up to you to supply facts demonstrating a contradiction to what I just explained.

– 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.

The words you underlined are missing from the Western Text (represented by Codex Bezae). But even if we are compelled to take them (and that is not too probable for text critical reasons), Lev. 23:7 supplies the commandment to rest on the Passover Sabbath, which was Thursday that year. So your ignorance of the Torah, and MSS, has led you to a lack of due diligence in bullet proofing your own argument. You should not have used it. That's all.

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)

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:

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.

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!

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, ⁴³Joseph 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:

        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.)
F.F. Bruce states:
        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 ]

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.

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.

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.

Is the phrase “first day of the week” properly translated in the New Testament?

The Implications of the Correct Translation of Mia Ton Sabbaton

The Preponderance of Sabbath Meetings in Paul’s Ministry in the Book of Acts

Flagrant Mistranslation of “Bought” by KJV Indicative of Pressure From Anglican Church Hierarchy and King James

What Was Involved in the Preparation of Spices and Ointments?

Women Came to the Tomb Early on the Sabbaton in Mark 16

Should the Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20) Be There?

What Theological Problems Did Mark 16:9-20 Give To Theologians?

Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 Confirmed By Best Scholarship

Were the Women Who Came to the Tomb on Sabbath Morning Violating the Tradition of the Elders (the Oral Law)?

Matthew’s Contribution to the Resurrection Narrative

John 20:1

I Cor. 16:1-2

Concluding Remarks Concerning Mia Ton Sabbaton