Though I just cited it, passover in AD 34 was on a tuesday, with AD 30 on a Thursday. You appear to be citing some other material in your post. Please cite your sources, thanks.
This begs the question, though, as to the reason why the annual Passover Sabbath, which was the greatest and most important feast day of the Biblical calendar would only be called "great" if itֹonly chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath!
It doesn't beg the question if one considers the audience of John - primarily gentiles who would be familiar with the general term and use of sabbath but less familiar with the reference to Passover as a high day. Thus from John, we see him explaining the custom and the need for those crucified to be taken down with haste. Therefore you have the understanding backward, the weekly sabbath was also a "high" sabbath because they occurred that year on the same day.
If you check out your Parker and Duberstein, you'll see that it doesn't work. 3/5/444 also puts the full moon before the spring equinox -- that that doesn't even agree with the Catholic tradition which they got from the Jewish tradition of intercalation.
I have found that the intercalcalatory month was present before Nisan in 444 BC. However, as noted earlier, this places Passover in AD 32 on a Monday or AD 34 on a Tuesday. The chronology of the gospels does not support a crucifixion on either days - the weekly sabbath would have been evident in the narrative - and it is glaringly absent.
Since you mention Hoehner, he differs in that he states Nehemiah was using a Tishri-to-Tishri (IIRC used by the kings of judah) year dating method rather than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. Along with other challenges such as when Artaxerxes' twentieth year and when the beginning of his rule argue for 444BC. Neither of us can declare an iron-clad case on this point alone.
A Friday Crucifixion is not parsimonious with the evidence (re: Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31) nor Lev. 23:15 nor any of the first of the sabbath passages.
On this point your interpretation is stretched to the point that it is a leap that Evil Knievel would not have taken. Fact - - the crucifixion occurred the day of preparation before Passover. AD 32 Passover would have been Monday. This would require crucifixion to have occurred on Sunday. This would also place a weekly sabbath before Passover - and there is no evidence of this sabbath from the gospel accounts. Your scripture citations only reference the metaphor of Jonah.
Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua. And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath". . . . The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.
Sorry wasn't talking about One Saturday (אחד בשבת ) I don't think you understand the point I was getting at - the phrase "mia sabbathw" (one of the sabbaths - plural) is shown in jewish writings (as well as in the NT) of the era to be a hebraism used at the time to identify the day of their week as well as to identify the week between passover and pentecost. The Didache is dated by many to be approximately 70 AD, though most would place it late first century, its current redaction is mid second century.
Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says. It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.
Well, neither do your 'explanations' hold water either. The gospel narrative for the last week of Jesus' life do not have a weekly sabbath occurring the day before his crucifixion. Your narrative does not even come close to explaining these
Though I just cited it, passover in AD 34 was on a tuesday, with AD 30 on a Thursday. You appear to be citing some other material in your post. Please cite your sources, thanks.
I should be asking you to cite your sources, because both of your assertions here are false statements. I hope it was not intentional. If you consult Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, 1998, page 363, Table 179, you will see a chart of Fotheringham's calculations for Nisan 14 in the years 27-34 AD:
AD Nisan 14
30 April 7 Fri [Not here]
31 Mar 27 Tue
32 Apr 14 Mon
33 Apr 3 Fri [And not here]
34 Mar 24 Wed [Here is when the crucifixion was]
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.
It doesn't beg the question if one considers the audience of John - primarily gentiles who would be familiar with the general term and use of sabbath but less familiar with the reference to Passover as a high day. Thus from John, we see him explaining the custom and the need for those crucified to be taken down with haste. Therefore you have the understanding backward, the weekly sabbath was also a "high" sabbath because they occurred that year on the same day.
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.
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 are not making any sense now. Only two theories of a 360 day year and Daniel 9 are proposed, 445-32 (Sir Robert Anderson), and 444-33 (Harold Hoehner, et al). 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.
|
Yes, the a Tishri year is being used, but irrelevant to the invalidity Hoehner's 360 day/year theory. 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.
|
From where I stand the whole traditional chronology is an absurd apostasy from the biblical truth, which declares plainly that the resurrection was on the Sabbath after Passover, i.e. μια των σαββατων, the "first of the sabbaths" (cf. Lev. 23:15). 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.
The rest of your statement above makes no sense. AD 32 is not relevant. I feel like you just want to cheapen the debate with nonsense so that no one will read it. I would hope that was not the case, yet your reasoning is incompetent, so I don't know what to think. In AD 34 the preparation of the Passover was on Nisan 14, a Wednesday. That is all that is required.
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.
|
You probably don't know much Hebrew. Otherwise you would not have made the gaff you did in the above paragraph. Remember when Obama said "cinco de cuatro"? It's about the same. אחד בשבת is used to mean Sunday in Mishnaic Hebrew. 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. Such usage, however is unattested before ca. AD 140. AD 70 is an impossibly early date for the Didache.
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.