The controversy over John 6:4

[daq]

I made no assumptions, I just didn't find much
insight in a rant about people with an axe to grind.
Honestly, it made you sound like someone with an
axe to grind.
Thanks for sharing the background on the feasts.
That's a lot to get out of
9 There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and
two small fish, but what are they among so many?

After your initial post and explanations above it is somewhat surprising that you do not see the correlation to the firstfruits.

John 6:26-27 ASV
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.

The miracle is indeed about the Bread of Life and we know the statements in other places regarding who is himself the firstfruits. If he says in John 6 that he is the Bread of Life then surely the barley loaves in the John 6 miracle are intended to be barley of the firstfruits, just as they are stated to be also in the 2 Kings passage.

The miracle is indeed about the Word, the Bread from the Father which comes down from the heavens, the Bread of Life. No doubt therefore the barley loaves of John 6 are intended to have been made with barley of the firstfruits: which is why the author would direct the reader back to the original source text in 2 Kings with the specific mention of barley.

The Son of Man is the firstfruits, and offers the holy bread of the firstfruits, and we partake, and are also called a (like) kind of firstfruits, (Yakob a.k.a James 1:17-18).

However, these things being the case, it cannot be that there would be barley loves made with the firstfruits of the barley harvest in their possession before the Pesach: for not only is the barley harvest not yet completed, but the firstfruits wave sheaf has not yet been offered. It is out of order according to the Torah and therefore cannot be correct. The whole notion even distorts the supernal meaning of the miracle itself. The only way I see around this is to say that the grain for the barley was almost a year old, from the previous year, which also distorts the supernal meaning of the miracle.

 

[daq]

Isn't this the setting for chapter 5?
After this there was a feast of the Jews,
and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

This is a tough one to answer because, if I try to answer with any depth, I run the risk of turning this thread into a calendar debate thread.

Suffice to say that in my understanding of the first ten chapters of Genesis, the Torah, and Daniel the Prophet, (and the Apokalypse), I see the healing in John 5 as occurring in the seventeenth day of the second month, (Genesis 7:11), which is the midst of Pesach Sheni, (Numbers 9:11). And from there it is five months, (Genesis 8:3, Revelation 9:5-6), to the midst of Sukkot, (Genesis 8:4, John 7:14).

Moreover the healing in John 5 is the place and time and same day wherein they first began to seek to kill the Master, (John 5:16-18), and this is not the abomination of desolation but the transgression of desolation, (seeking to kill him, murder, seeking death), which is written in Daniel 8:13-14. And thus the author of the Apokalypse foretells that they will seek death and not find it, (and he writes also in John 7:1 that after those things the Master would not walk among the Yhudim because they sought to kill him).

Moreover this day in John 5, being the seventeenth of the second month, (and the midst of Pesach Sheni), is two thousand three hundred evening-morning yamim before the cleansing of the sanctuary just before the final Pesach, which is the next year. That cleansing of the sanctuary, (Daniel 8:14), takes place over two days, the tenth and the eleventh of Abib. If you pay close attention to the texts, the Matthew 21:7-13 passage is the tenth, while the Mark 11:7-16 passage is the eleventh. The evening-morning yamim of the sacred calendar day are expounded in the opening creation account, (seven yamim in a yom), and in the shabuim of Daniel the Prophet, (seven yamim in a yom).

 

[daq]

I suggested that if John 6:4 is removed, everything begins to align much better in the events of Yeshua's ministry of following the Will of His Father in all matters including the decrees of the feasts. We looked at all the surrounding text that exposed the reason that Passover could not have been happening at that time. Yeshua wasn’t traveling to Jerusalem as the law instructs all males should, Yeshua was teaching in a synagogue which was full of Jews who should have also been traveling to Jerusalem. The last revelation is that many people had no food which wouldn’t make sense if people were making this trek to Jerusalem because they would have had supplies during their travels.

Here is my suggestion as to how it came about for John 6:4 to read the way it currently does in scripture. The earliest kept copy of scripture from which all other scriptures have been copied contained an error. "But the holy day of the Jews was approaching,” and that text had to do with the holy days of the Feast of Tabernacles… but the copyist, since he was not paying attention to it, wrote Pascha [Passover]

If you think this is not possible, look at the fact you can find "Easter" a non Jewish celebration of the Romans.

Hi Vis, it just came to my attention that in John 6:4 the REV Bible also places "the Passover" in brackets, meaning that the editors do not believe it belongs in the text.

John 6:4 REV (Revised English Version)
4 Now [the Passover,] the feast of the Jews, was near.
John 6, REV Bible and Commentary

The more important point about this is that the editors have provided a commentary on what looks to be the entire translation. John 6:4 in the above passage link is linked to their commentary on the statement and offers a nine paragraph explanation for why they do not believe "the Passover" belongs in the text. It makes some of the same points made by Nehemia Gordon, (without naming names or making bold accusations), as well as some other pertinent points. It is well worth reading so I post the link to that commentary below.

John 6:4, REV Bible and Commentary

 

[daq]

(CLV) Jn 6:4
Now near was the Passover, the festival of the Jews.

This verse has puzzled me for quite some time.

Why would a "Jew" write an account of "Jews," concerning a Moed, that is honored by "Jews," to be read by "Jews," who knew very well what Pesach was, when Pesach was honored, and why; and then explain to "Jews," that Pesach was a Moed honored by "Jews?"

John 2:13a
13a And the Pesach of the Yhudim was at hand,

John 5:1a
1a After these things there was a feast of the Yhudim,

John 6:4b
4b ...the feast of the Yhudim.

I'll quote the CLV here, since you quote it most often, and because, being a literal rendering, it does not omit words from the text in Exodus 34:22 such as most English translations, which do indeed omit a critical phrase there.

Exodus 23:14-16 CLV
14 Three times shall you celebrate to Me in the year:
15 you shall observe the celebration of unleavened cakes; seven days shall you eat unleavened cakes, just as I instructed you, at the appointed time in the month Aviv, for in it you went forth from Egypt, and none shall appear before Me empty-handed.
16 also observe the celebration of the harvest of the firstfruits of your yields from what you are sowing in the field: and observe the celebration of ingathering at the going forth of the year, when you gather your yields from the field.

Exodus 34:22 CLV
22 The celebration of weeks shall you observe for yourself, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest and the celebration of the ingathering at the revolution of the year.

So then, (when combined with other key passages not quoted here), there is a feast of weeks which the Father commands to be observed "unto Me", and there is a feast of weeks which He commands to be observed "for yourself", and the question is, which one is which? and if and where they might possibly be mentioned or observed in the Gospel account with which we are concerned? One is bikkurim of barley and the other is bikkurim of wheat.

It is possible that this may be why the author did not include the name of the feast in John 6:4, for it might cause confusion, seeing that there are two feasts called by the same name, and both are commanded, and the reader is to come to understand these things from the Torah and the Testimony and teachings of the Meshiah in the Gospel accounts.

And to answer your questions, it is also possible that this may be why the writer says here in John 6:4, "the feast of the Yhudim", and that could be for good reason if it concerns the one which is commanded to be observed "for yourself".

When you look at a multitude of translations the great majority leave out this critical phrase in Exodus 34:22, and the LXX even changes "for yourself" to read instead "unto Me". Why would these things be the case? Surely it is because translators know that the phrase "for yourself" does not make sense according to their own preconceived understanding of the text and how they expect it to read in their own minds.

Out of the following 27 translations only two include the phrase "for yourself" or "for thyself", Exodus 34:22 And you are to celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

No doubt the apostolic authors believed (and understood) every word written in the Torah.

(PS: there is also a good argument that John 6:4 is speaking of Sukkot).