The Crucifixion Not Friday

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

There are two words used. σινδών is singular and is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; ὀθόνιον is plural and is in John and Luke. Luke uses botha shroud words. σινδών is used in describing the removal of the body and ὀθόνιον is used describing what the disciples find after the resurrection.

The fact Luke uses both terms demonstrates there are two different types of linen clothes used. One was used in the process of removing the body; the other in the burial. A full sheet like the Shroud of Turin would be appropriate in removing the body and carrying it to the tomb, or place where it was prepared for burial. This would enable all carrying the body to avoid touching it. Also there may be a consideration for modesty: covering the naked body.

The strips, plural, used for burial are different.

The Shroud of Turin, if authentic, is the cloth used to carry the body from cross to tomb. So it would not be useful as an object to gauge the amount of time in the tomb.

OR a whole body shroud was used as well as a sidon face covering (which are the 2 relics at the present). Remember the burial was done very quickly because of the fast approach of sunset and Shabbat.

 

[Revelation Lad]

OR a whole body shroud was used as well as a sidon face covering (which are the 2 relics at the present). Remember the burial was done very quickly because of the fast approach of sunset and Shabbat.

One thing which would help to resolve the question is to know whether the Shroud has any evidence of the myrrh and aloe. Since such a large amount was used, I would expect some traces to be present. But Luke’s description places one outside the tomb and one inside. The one inside is the plural strips.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

One thing which would help to resolve the question is to know whether the Shroud has any evidence of the myrrh and aloe. Since such a large amount was used, I would expect some traces to be present. But Luke’s description places one outside the tomb and one inside. The one inside is the plural strips.

Yes, myrrh and aloe were found on the shroud. Indirect immunofluorescence was used and showed evidence of blood and burial ointments, like myrrh and aloe (Rosanna Callipari, Giuseppe Gentile and Giovanni Fazio 2022).

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Here are over 40 times I admitted that Nisan 15 CAN be called a Sabbath: The numbers preceded by the # are the numbers of the posts in this thread where the quote appears.

# 81

1. Nisan 15 was a non-Sabbath holy convocation until the Jews went into Babylonian captivity and for seventy years, they were in Babylon they observed their Nisan 15 as a Sabbath because Nisan 15 was a Sabbath to the Babylonians. The translation of the Septuagint carried the new view of Nisan 15 being the sabbath. Check Leviticus 23:11, 15 for this.

2. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint took the Hebrew words “on the morrow after the sabbath” in Leviticus 23:11 and changed them to “on the morrow of the first day" (of the Feast)”. This means the first Day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15) would hitherto be celebrated as a Sabbath by the Pharisees and later rabbinical authorities, as well as their descendants.

3. Once the Pharisees gained control of the Temple for good the Nisan 15 Sabbath has been a Jewish tradition ever since.

4, Hence the waving of the sheaf would always occur on Nisan 16 under the Pharisean and rabbinical reckoning. Since “on the morrow of the first day (of the Feast) is the referent for Sabbath in Leviticus 23:15 then it follows that Nisan 15 was called a Sabbath by the Pharisees and later the Rabbis.

5. This is the Pharisee reckoning of celebrating Nisan 15 as a Sabbath without the Temple and where there was no Sadducee reckoning.

6. According to the Pharisees, on the other hand, whose opinion is Halacha, the Counting of the Omer begins immediately following the first Festival Day of Passover, which happens to be the Sabbath day of rest spoken of in Leviticus 23:15,

# 88

7. I don’t doubt the stubborn Pharisees called it a Sabbath but that was just their opinion and not the law of the land at that time.

# 89

8. No, because popular usage might be wrong. The Pharisees wrongly called Nisan 15 a Sabbath.

# 91

9. So far, so good. Yes, Nisan 15 CAN be called a Sabbath just like someone CAN fornicate. Just because you can doesn’t mean it is lawful. Likewise, just because the Pharisees and modern Jews call it a Sabbath doesn’t make it a Sabbath. If you think they lawfully call it a Sabbath, I need chapter and verse.

REVELATION LAD
Furthermore there is no legal consequence for this practice.

SABER TRUTH TIGER
10. There is a legal consequence of this practice. Celebrating Nisan 15 as a Sabbath alters the day Shavuot occurs. Without Nisan 15 being a Sabbath, Shavuot would occur on the seventh Sunday after the waving of the Omer, no matter what day the Passover Seder occurred on. However, if Nisan 15 is the Sabbath of Passover, then Shavuot can fall on any day of the week, depending on what day the waving of the Omer was that year.

11. The Pharisees added to the holy convocations laws that the Hebrew Scriptures did not and made them Sabbaths when they were not.

# 94

12. There is no other Sabbath in the Bible besides the weekly Sabbath, the Yom Kippur Sabbath, and the Land Sabbath. However, the Jews spent 70 years in servitude in Babylon and it was probably during that time the precursors to the Pharisees picked up on the Nisan 15 Sabbath as the Babylonians observed Nisan 15 as a Sabbath every year. Then, years later, after the return to Israel and the building of the new Temple, the Pharisees disagreed with what was then the traditional date of the Omer and changed it to the day after Nisan 15.

# 95

13. So, just because there were some Jews who believed Nisan 15 (they believed in it enough they mistranslated Leviticus 23:11 in the LXX and even translated "Sabbaths" in 23:15 as Weeks. No, it was all a pipe dream of the precursors to the Pharisees. There was a period, sometime between the second century and the first century BCE the Pharisees actually controlled the Temple worship and had their way of counting from Nisan 16 to Shavuot but once the Sadducees gained control that all changed. Until about 50 CE when it was restored by Rabbi Yohannon ben Zakkai.

# 95

14. Today's use is not relevant to whether Nisan 15 is a Sabbath or not. Today's use descended from the Pharisee reckoning and you are just repeating the Pharisaical reckoning of Nisan 15. History does not contradict my position. Show me where the Jews celebrated Nisan 15 as a Sabbath when Jesus was alive. I am not claiming no one called Nisan 15 when Christ was alive, the Pharisees did but they did so unscripturally.

# 98

15. Yes, it is very likely that some of the Jews who lived in Babylon and worshipped Nisan 15 as the Sabbath and that includes their descendants.

16. There were two main factions when the Temple was rebuilt, those that believed the pagan Babylon Nisan 15 Sabbath would be reckoned as the Sabbath after which was to begin the 50-day countdown to Shavuot and those that held that Leviticus 23:11 was referring to the weekly Sabbath.

17. Those that believed Nisan 15 was a Sabbath mistranslated the Hebrew in Leviticus 23:11, 15 and counted seven weekdays to Shavuot. Those that believed that the Sabbath in Leviticus 23:11 was the weekly Sabbath would begin counting on Sunday, 50 days, inclusive, ending up on a Sunday seven weeks later.

18. Why would Yahweh give careful instructions on how to celebrate the Omer and how to count down toward Shavuot only to turn around and ignore the Jews who believed Nisan 15 was a Sabbath mistranslate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek with an entirely new way to count to Shavuot?

19. The belief that Nisan 15 is a Sabbath did not originate with God, it originated in a pagan country and a pagan holiday that happened to coincide with a Jewish holy convocation.

20. There was no doubt many Jews who remained in Babylon and continued to use the Nisan 15 Sabbath. That does not make it scriptural, or the day Yahweh intended.

21. I do admit there were some Jews who were scripturally incorrect about holding to the Nisan 15 Sabbath, but you have offered no evidence that the Jews in charge at the time of Jesus were incorrect. Please provide your evidence that the Jews in authority in Jesus' day observed Nisan 15 as a Sabbath.

# 99

22. However, the Jews spent 70 years in servitude in Babylon and it was probably during that time the precursors to the Pharisees picked up on the Nisan 15 Sabbath as the Babylonians observed Nisan 15 as a Sabbath every year. Then, years later, after the return to Israel and the building of the new Temple, the Pharisees disagreed with what was then the traditional date of the Omer and changed it to the day after Nisan 15.

23. History proves SOME people considered Nisan 15 to be the Sabbath and History proves SOME people considered the Sabbath in Leviticus 23:11 to be the weekly Sabbath.

24. Josephus repeated the erroneous reckoning of the Nisan 15 Sabbath. At the time he wrote that Nisan 15 was indeed a Sabbath by most of the Jewish nation in Palesti

# 101

25. Of course someone can call Nisan 15 a Sabbath because not only do the Jews do it, but so do you.

# 112

26. Furthermore, the fact it is considered a Sabbath today proves nothing. People celebrate Friday as the crucifixion date today and have done so for almost 2,000 years. According to your logic, then someone who observes the crucifixion on Friday is right because it has been such a long tradition.

# 114

27. The Sadducees believed the Sabbath referred to be the weekly Sabbath and that was the way it was when Jesus was alive. It was only changed some 20 years after his death when Pharisee Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai became the head of the Sanhedrin in 50 CE, and he was able to yield his power to seize control of what day was Sabbath and what day was Shavuot.

28. Josephus writes in 94 CE, more than 60 years after the death of Jesus and by then the Temple had been destroyed and the Sadducees had ceased to exist. Therefore, the Pharisee reckoning became dominant and has been dominant ever since. The scriptural approach is to believe any day that forbade ANY work was a Sabbath and the days that forbade servile work were not called a Sabbath.

29. Yes, Josephus believed the Pharisee interpretation of the Nisan 15 Sabbath and the Pharisees have dominated Jewish thought ever since. The Pharisees switched the day after the Sabbath to be "the day after the first day" which referred to the first day of Unleavened Bread and hence Nisan 15 became a Sabbath.

30. The change was first recorded in the Septuagint mistranslation of Leviticus 23:11, 15. I have posted about this extensively in posts #81 and #82 in page 5 of this thread. After Jesus died circa 33 CE the Pharisees eventually regained control of the Temple and with it changed the Nisan 15 to Sabbath.

31. That is true, The Sadducees controlled the celebrating the Omer on the day after the weekly Sabbath. Again, see my posts #81 and #82 on page 5 of this thread. Leviticus 23:11 and Josephus implicitly refer to Nisan 15 as a Sabbath.

32. But the LXX is a mistranslation (really a misinterpretation) and Josephus is simply referring to the Pharisee reckoning of Nisan 15, neither prove Nisan 15 was a Sabbath when Jesus walked the earth.

# 117

33. However, if a whole sect gained control of the government and changed the Sabbath from the weekly Sabbath to Nisan 15 and altered the course of the Shavuot count, I believe Jesus would have been disturbed by such behavior. It is ironic that on the year Jesus died both the Sadducean and the Phariseean calendar coincided and the Omer and Shavuot happened at the same time.

# 162

34. Why do you quote Josephus as proof that Nisan 15 was a Sabbath? Whether Nisan 15 was a Sabbath or not is the issue at hand, and to quote a Pharisee as proof that Nisan 15 is a Sabbath doesn't prove it is a Sabbath. I don't dispute Nisan 15 is a Sabbath in the Pharisee and rabbinic worldview. Neither do I accept a 2,000-year-old tradition that it is a Sabbath simply because it is so ancient.

35. You don't believe Friday was the day of the crucifixion even though we have a 2,000-year-old tradition for that, so it is inconsistent to believe that something is true simply because it is an ancient tradition. You can claim it is an ancient tradition, but that, although nice to know, doesn't prove anything,

# 167

36. Josephus and his fellow Pharisees were wrong about Nisan 15 being the Sabbath. They quoted Leviticus 23:11 as their proof text to support their view that Nisan15 was a Sabbath so they could celebrate Nisan 16 as the waving of the Omer every year.

37. People can do whatever they want. They have free will. The Jews have called Nisan 15 Sabbath for 2,000 years but that does not prove Nisan 15 was Sabbath when Jesus walked the earth. Josephus believed Nisan 15 was Sabbath, but that did not make it so. I admit the Jewish religion has called it Sabbath for 2,000 years but that doesn’t make it truth in God’s eyes.

38. Yes, it is a historical fact that the Jews have kept Nisan 15 as a Sabbath for 2,000 years. But they are in error when they do so, and you can’t accept this fact. Anything to hold on to your Nisan 15 Sabbath theory.

39. Tradition of celebrating Nisan 15 as a Sabbath for 2,000 years does not mean Nisan 15 is a Sabbath. In the Jewish community today, certainly. But that doesn’t prove it was Sabbath when Jesus walked the earth.

# 174

40. Yes, Nisan 15 CAN be called a Sabbath, and I admit that in my answer in the Biblical Hermeneutics and my post on this thread (page 5, # 81). I also admitted Josephus referred to Nisan 15 indirectly in his writings. But you and I are debating whether Nisan 15 is correctly called a Sabbath. We’ve already have agreed that Nisan 15 CAN be called a Sabbath.

41. Yes, many Jews call Nisan 15 a Sabbath and many call the days of Unleavened Bread Passover. But they are not the same. I have mentioned this to you before, but calling the days of Unleavened Bread Passover does no harm to the correct order of Passover (Nisan 14) and the days of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15 to 21). Calling Nisan 15 the Sabbath that preceded Nisan 16 Omer throws the holy convocations out of sync and Shavuot falls on a different day of the week from year to year.

42, I have no doubt that the Pharisees and their followers adamantly believed Nisan 15 was the Sabbath referred to in Leviticus 23:11. During Jesus’s time the Sadducees controlled the Temple worship and the Pharisee version of Leviticus 23:11 was not practiced again until it was restored by Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai sometime after he became Nasi of the Temple in 50 CE.

# 175

43. The LXX passage in Leviticus 23:11 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and some scholars believe it is probable that the Jews learned to celebrate their Abib 15 holy convocation as a Sabbath with first changing the name of the month to Nisan and then due to the Babylonians celebrating every Nisan 15 as a Sabbath. It’s unlikely the Jews left behind in Judah changed their view of the Nisan 15 holy convention until some time later. Regardless, not all Jews bought this theory as there was division between the Jews on this issue throughout the second temple period.

44. I have no doubt that the Pharisees and their followers adamantly believed Nisan 15 was the Sabbath referred to in Leviticus 23:11. During Jesus’s time the Sadducees controlled the Temple worship and the Pharisee version of Leviticus 23:11 was not practiced again until it was restored by Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai sometime after he became Nasi of the Temple in 50 CE.

# 180

45. Your apples and oranges argument doesn’t hold water. I do insist it is wrong to call Nisan 15 a Sabbath (apples) and therefore people should not believe it is a Sabbath. However, I do NOT insist that Nisan 15 cannot be called a Sabbath (the so-called oranges).

46. This is old news. I have already conceded it CAN be called a Sabbath and have done so since my first post on the subject (page 5, post # 81 on this thread). You are trashing a strawman because I do not claim Nisan 15 can’t be called a Sabbath but rather concede it CAN be called a Sabbath.

# 182

SABER TRUTH TIGER 5
47. Here the writers of the Gemara refer to the “morrow after the day of REST” and not the “morrow after the SABBATH” because they did not begin their 50-day countdown to Shavuot from the day after the weekly Sabbath, Sunday. They began the countdown from Nisan 16, the day after the first day of Unleavened Bread.

48. The Pharisees and the rabbis believed the first day of Unleavened Bread was an annual Sabbath and began their 50-day countdown to Shavuot on Nisan 16.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 12
49. That is not true. It is “the morrow after the Sabbath” not “the morrow after the Festival.” The Pharisees and the rabbis continue in their error of calling Nisan 15 a Sabbath to justify their observance of the Nisan 16 wave sheaf. The rabbis followed an oral tradition that is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Sadducees followed a literal reading of Leviticus 23 in the Hebrew and therefore observed the Omer on Sunday and Shavuot on Sunday.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

The Greek word PARASKEUE is translated as the Preparation of the Passover and the weekly Sabbath. The Greek word PROSABBATON in Mark 15:42 refers to the day before the weekly Sabbath. Jesus was clearly crucified on the day before the weekly Sabbath.

Concerning the word “preparation” in the KJV there were two preparation days in the time of Jesus. There was the weekly preparation for the Sabbath and the annual preparation for the Passover. The Passover had to be prepared for because all leaven had to be cleaned out of the houses the Jews lived in. That required moving furniture around, cleaning and inspection.

The PREPARATION for the weekly Sabbath, however, fell on Friday and it was translated in various ways in the literature of the time. For example, the capitalized words below:

The Didache 8:1 reads: “But as for your fasts, let them not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but do ye fast on the fourth and SIXTH days…” Kirsopp Lake’s translates the second and fifth days as Mondays and Thursdays and the fourth and sixth days as Wednesdays and Fridays.

Polycarp 7:1 reads: “So taking the lad with them, on the FRIDAY about the supper hour, the gendarmes and horsemen went forth with their accustomed arms, hastening as against a robber.”

Antiquities of the Jews 16.6.2 reads: “and they be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of the PREPARATION to it, after the ninth hour.”

Moreover, the Greek word prosabbaton in Mark 15:42 refers to the day before the weekly Sabbath and not the day before a Passover Sabbath. In Judith 8:6 we read:

And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the Sababths, and the Sabbaths, and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons and the feasts and solemn days of the house of Israel.

Prosabbaton is also used in 2 Maccabees 8:26

II Maccabees 8:25-26 reads: “And they took their money that came to buy them, and pursued them far but lacking time they returned: For it was the DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH, and therefore they would no longer pursue them.

It was the day before the Sabbath, and for that reason they could not continue the pursuit.

For what its worth, prosabbaton referred to the day BEFORE the weekly Sabbath. There is no case of prosabbaton referring to Nisan 15 in literature of that time period. Whenever it is found it always precedes the weekly Sabbath.

By the way, here is a link to another similar discussion on Christian Forums. It was Jesus was crucified on Thursday. My first post on it was # 197.

Jesus was crucified on Thursday

Passover Week according to the Gospel of Mark. Mark's chronology shows that Jesus was crucified on a Thursday and not on Friday as generally believed. Bible Gateway passage: Mark 11-16 - New King James Version The sabbath immediately following Jesus' burial was a two day sabbath, not just one...

www.christianforums.com

 

[prodromos]

2. When you pull from the Didache and Polycarp you are opening up an aspect which ultimately undermines the logic of your position because it brings the quartodeciman controversy into consideration. The Christians of the Seven Churches in Revelation observed the Passover on Nisan 14, as the Old Testament requires. They did not use the pagan Roman calendar which was based on the sun.

The Church in Rome referred to the first day of the week as "Dominica die" (Lord's day), not "Solis" (Sunday). Your claim that they followed a pagan calender is false.

They followed the calendar of the Jews. Therefore, they rarely observed Passover on a Friday. Rather, they observed Passover on whatever day of the week Nisan 14 fell.

They followed the tradition that had been taught them by the Apostle John, just as Rome and Alexandria followed the tradition that had been taught them by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

The controversy was "resolved" when the Roman church said anyone who observed Passover according to the Jewish calendar would be excommunicated. Polycarp was one who observed Passover according to the Jewish calendar.

No, Victor of Rome made the mistake of conflating the practice of the Churches in Asia Minor with schismatic groups in Rome who insisted on celebrating Christ's passion on Nisssan 14. He was soundly rebuked by several other bishops including Irenaeus. The controversy was resolved after a number of bishops wrote a detailed explanation for celebrating the Lord's passion on Friday-Saturday-Sunday which was widely circulated, and by the time of the first Ecumenical Council the practice had become uniform throughout the Church.

So bringing him in means you are citing someone the Roman Church said did not correctly understand or follow the calendar.

You conflate one bishop with the Roman Church?

2a. Polycarp places your position in a quandary. Was his understanding of God's calendar really wrong or was the Roman Church wrong? Or is it time to pull an orange out a basket of apples? IOW Polycarp was right when it fits your argument and wrong when it doesn't.

There was no right or wrong, just two different traditions, one of which the entire Church eventually settled on

 

[Revelation Lad]

The Church in Rome referred to the first day of the week as "Dominica die" (Lord's day), not "Solis" (Sunday). Your claim that they followed a pagan calender is false.

They followed the tradition that had been taught them by the Apostle John, just as Rome and Alexandria followed the tradition that had been taught them by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

No, Victor of Rome made the mistake of conflating the practice of the Churches in Asia Minor with schismatic groups in Rome who insisted on celebrating Christ's passion on Nisssan 14. He was soundly rebuked by several other bishops including Irenaeus. The controversy was resolved after a number of bishops wrote a detailed explanation for celebrating the Lord's passion on Friday-Saturday-Sunday which was widely circulated, and by the time of the first Ecumenical Council the practice had become uniform throughout the Church.

You conflate one bishop with the Roman Church?

There was no right or wrong, just two different traditions, one of which the entire Church eventually settled on

Really? The Church observes the crucifixion on Nisan 14? If so how does a day on the monthly calendar always fall on the same day of the week every year?

The controversy was over Christians in Asia observing Passover on Nissan 14 regardless of the day of the week rather than on a Friday.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Here is a question I wish to ask. All of this debate has been regarding whether Nisan 15 was referred to as a Sabbath or not. However, there is another question.

The New Testament clearly refers to the day of the crucifixion as the Day of Preparation or Preparation Day, which was basically the way Jews referred to Friday as I understand it (actually, the modern Greek word for Friday comes from the word preparation). Is there any evidence that this was ever used to refer to any day other than Friday?

The Jews also prepared for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. All leaven had to be removed from the house.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Ad Hominem much?

Prodomos,
here is the post he is referring to.

Lad who took the position that yes, Nisan 15 CAN be referred to as a Sabbath and cited the LXX There is already a post here titled CAN NISAN 15 BE CALLED A SABBATH or CAN NISAN 15 BE REFERRED TO AS A SABBATH? There are some interesting responses and I had a dialogue with a Revelation, Josephus, and Jewish tradition as proof that it can. I admitted that over 40 times in my responses to him.

Nisan 15 is called a holy convocation in Leviticus 23:11-16 (KJV). It is not called a Sabbath in the Hebrew Scriptures and that is why I am asking Should Nisan 15 be called a Sabbath, because scripturally, it is nowhere called a Sabbath. Many modern Jews and ancient Jews called it a Sabbath. However, I argue that is unscriptural, and therefore is invalid.

There were two major sects in Judaism when Jesus walked the earth and at the time he was alive the Sadducees believed Nisan 15 was a holy convocation and not a Sabbath. The Sadducees had control over Temple worship when Jesus was alive and it wasn't until after Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai became the leader of the Jewish Council in 50CE that the Pharisee method of reckoning the Nisan 15 became the norm for the next two thousand years.

There is a problem with calling Nisan 15 a Sabbath when it isn't. In the LXX Leviticus 23:11 states that the morrow after the first day of Unleavened Bread would be the waving of the Omer and the 50 day countdown toward Pentecost would begin. Occasionally, Shavuot would fall on a Sunday and other times it would fall on different days of the week. Sometimes it could fall on a Tuesday, Thursday, or a Saturday.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, Leviticus 23:11-15 calls for the waving of the Omer to be on the day after the weekly Sabbath. That way, Shavuot always fell on a Sunday.

So, there is a big difference between calling the days of Unleavened Bread Passover and calling Nisan 15 Sabbath. There is no harm caused when someone calls the days of Unleavened Bread Passover because Nisan 14 is still Passover and Nisan 15 to 21 are still the days of Unleavened Bread.

But calling Nisan 15 Sabbath and counting Nisan 16 as the starting point of the 50-day countdown toward Shavuot throws off the correct day of the waving of the Omer and the correct day of Shavuot, which, according to the Hebrew Scriptures at least, always falls on Sunday. But the traditional Rabbinic reckoning places the waving of the Omer every year on Nisan 16 and Shavuot rarely occurs on a Sunday under the rabbinical reckoning of the Omer by claiming Nisan 15 is the Sabbath intended in Leviticus 23:11.

It's interesting to note that Luke did not call the days of Unleavened Bread Passover, as he was an inspired author, and the Holy Spirit would not inspire him to call the days of Unleavened Bread Passover because in reality they were not. Instead, the inspired historian pointed out it was CALLED Passover (by the people).

This is important. If a holiday is said to be CALLED such and such then it means it may not necessarily be that in actuality but is simply called that by the people celebrating that.

There is nowhere in all the Scriptures, Hebrew or the Greek New Testament where Nisan 15 is called Sabbath unless it fell on a weekly Sabbath.

As far as the plural Sabbaths in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20:1-2 they can sometimes refer to a single day. I am not a Greek scholar and I don't understand this, but the bottom line is there are New Testament Greek scholars who claim the plural Sabbaths can refer to a single day and even refer to the week. I can't prove it because I am not a Greek scholar. But it makes sense when you consider the alternatives.

When Jesus was alive, the Sadducees controlled what days were the holidays and what days were not. They did not call Nisan 15 a Sabbath, and they waved the Omer on the day after the weekly Sabbath. There was a major dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees during this time period. The Pharisees, who at one time controlled the days of worship after the Babylonian Captivity and later lost that privilege to the Sadducees sometime during the first or second century BCE, believed Nisan 15 should be called the Sabbath.

In 50 CE a rabbi by the name of Yohanan ben Zakkai was appointed as NASI of the Sanhedrin and it was during his lifetime that led to the Pharisees regaining control of which holy days should be what and they changed Nisan 15 back to a Sabbath. That was some 20 years after Jesus died. This is referred to in the Megillit Taanit and the Menachot (65b and 66a). The Pharisees held to the Septuagint where in Leviticus 23:11 it claims the waving of the Omer should occur on the day after the first day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15).

For more on this issue read my first post in Christian Forums, post # 81:

The Crucifixion Not Friday

In light of these considerations, Should Nisan 15 be referred to as a Sabbath?

 

[JSRG]

The Jews also prepared for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. All leaven had to be removed from the house.

But was it ever called the Day of Preparation or Preparation Day if it didn't fall on a Friday?

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had some clean up. Keep it civil.​

 

[prodromos]

Really? The Church observes the crucifixion on Nisan 14?

The Church in Asia did because that was the tradition they had received from the Apostle John

If so how does a day on the monthly calendar always fall on the same day of the week every year?

I never claimed it did. You seem to have misunderstood me.

The controversy was over Christians in Asia observing Passover on Nissan 14 regardless of the day of the week rather than on a Friday.

The controversy was due to the bishop of Rome thinking that the Churches in Asia were following the same schismatic beliefs as a sect in Rome because they were celebrating the Lord's passion on the same day as the schismatics. Bishops in other parts of Europe has no issue with when the Churches in Asia celebrated because they didn't have to deal with the schismatics in Rome.

 

[Revelation Lad]

There are various cases of the word Sabbath, even though a single Sabbath is being referred to, being used in the plural in Greek in the Bible. For example, Matthew 12:1 and Luke 4:16 in Greek have Sabbath be plural even though there is only one Sabbath being referred to.

The reasoning is circular. If the text is inspired then the writer was inspired to state a difference between the Sabbath and Sabbaths. The plural is explained by the colloquial use of Sabbath for an annual observance which requires a holy convocation and prohibition of work. The "misuse of Sabbath to refer to one of these days is a legal technicality. If the people can misuse "Passover" to describe the 7-days of Unleavened Bread, they can use Sabbath to refer to any work is prohibited. I realize there is a legal distinction. But, the difference is minor: prohibiting ordinary work versus all work. Not only would calling these "Sabbath" be practical, there is no other term used which could be used to identify them.

 

[JSRG]

The reasoning is circular. If the text is inspired then the writer was inspired to state a difference between the Sabbath and Sabbaths. The plural is explained by the colloquial use of Sabbath for an annual observance which requires a holy convocation and prohibition of work. The "misuse of Sabbath to refer to one of these days is a legal technicality. If the people can misuse "Passover" to describe the 7-days of Unleavened Bread, they can use Sabbath to refer to any work is prohibited. I realize there is a legal distinction. But, the difference is minor: prohibiting ordinary work versus all work. Not only would calling these "Sabbath" be practical, there is no other term used which could be used to identify them.

I'm not sure why you decided to respond to a post of mine from months ago that you had already (months ago) replied to.

Actually, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here at all, as this seems to not really relate to my post, which was noting how in Greek, they would sometimes use the plural form of Sabbath to still refer to a single Sabbath, and I cited some examples of the New Testament of such. Examples of this construction are found outside of the New Testament as well; the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) repeatedly uses the plural form of Sabbath to refer to single Sabbaths. Indeed, this occurs in the very first time the word shows up, in Exodus 16:23 which is plural in the Greek even though it is obviously referring to a single Sabbath when it says tomorrow is a Sabbath.

 

[Revelation Lad]

I'm not sure why you decided to respond to a post of mine from months ago that you had already (months ago) replied to.

Actually, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here at all, as this seems to not really relate to my post, which was noting how in Greek, they would sometimes use the plural form of Sabbath to still refer to a single Sabbath, and I cited some examples of the New Testament of such. Examples of this construction are found outside of the New Testament as well; the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) repeatedly uses the plural form of Sabbath to refer to single Sabbaths. Indeed, this occurs in the very first time the word shows up, in Exodus 16:23 which is plural in the Greek even though it is obviously referring to a single Sabbath when it says tomorrow is a Sabbath.

I accepted an invitation from Saber Truth Tiger to discuss the question of Nisan 15 being called Sabbath. This stemmed from a question on the BHSE site. At the time I was not a member here. After I joined I responded to Saber Truth. I failed to go back to the beginning and did not understand he had posted my answer from BHSE into this existing discussion about Friday crucifixion. Honestly I did not see your comment as I thought this was between the two of us.

As I was reviewing the entire thread I saw your comment.

As to your answer, the examples you cite are circular reasoning: since by definition a Sabbath can only mean the weekly Sabbath, the plural means the weekly Sabbath (as if the writer did not intend readers to understand some difference). In the case of the LXX translation of Leviticus 23 this is clearly wrong as it unmistakably refers to more than one Sabbath. The Rabbis also understood the Hebrew text of Leviticus as referring to multiple Sabbaths as well. They see the only reason for specifically stating to count "complete Sabbaths" is the period from Nisan 15 to the next Sabbath may not be 7-days. Similarly, if the Sabbath is always 7-days, there is no need to count 50-days. Also the instructions in Deuteronomy 16 are to count 49 days from Firstfruits to Shavuot. So neither the LXX or the Hebrew can be used to exclude Sabbath from referring to Nisan 15.

Once you accept the use of the plural can mean more than one, those passages with the plural should be read accordingly. Note, even in the strictest legal sense, the Day of Atonement is a Sabbath. Therefore one cannot rule out the plural use in places like Matthew 12 means "Sabbaths" unless one is certain the event did not take place in the seventh month.

 

[Revelation Lad]

The Church in Asia did because that was the tradition they had received from the Apostle John

I never claimed it did. You seem to have misunderstood me.

The controversy was due to the bishop of Rome thinking that the Churches in Asia were following the same schismatic beliefs as a sect in Rome because they were celebrating the Lord's passion on the same day as the schismatics. Bishops in other parts of Europe has no issue with when the Churches in Asia celebrated because they didn't have to deal with the schismatics in Rome.

I do not believe your history is correct. The churches in Asia continued to observe the Passover according to the Jewish calendar. It was the Roman Church which disagreed and eventually won out. That is why most years Christians observe the time on different days than the Jews observe Passover.

 

[Revelation Lad]

But was it ever called the Day of Preparation or Preparation Day if it didn't fall on a Friday?

The word is παρασκευή. It is used 6 times in the NT, once each in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and 3 times in John. All six uses refer to the same day. Since Passover, Unleavened Bread, and the weekly Sabbath were there, preparation is for whatever followed the day of crucifixion. Thayer’s states the meaning is “the day on which the Jews made the necessary preparation to celebrate a sabbath or a feast.” We can rule out Passover but since both a Sabbath and Unleavened Bread followed the the term is amphibological. That is, a word which both interpretations are possible, and in this case accurate. One prepares for the Sabbath and one prepares for Unleavened Bread. Furthermore, there is no use in the LXX. It is strictly a NT word limited to describing the time after the crucifixion.

With respect to the Sabbath and Unleavened Bread, I believe the stronger case is for removing leaven, an act which must be done. Preparation for the Sabbath is discretionary in the sense that failure to do so means you would not have prepared meals for the Sabbath; you could fast or eat with a family member or someone who had prepared. On the other hand, you had to prepare your home for Unleavened Bread or else be in violation of the law.

 

[JSRG]

As to your answer, the examples you cite are circular reasoning: since by definition a Sabbath can only mean the weekly Sabbath, the plural means the weekly Sabbath (as if the writer did not intend readers to understand some difference).

How is this circular reasoning? The texts are referring to one Sabbath contextually, but the word itself is used in the plural. It's an example, one of quite a few, of how in Greek sometimes they would use the plural form of Sabbath even when referring to a single Sabbath.

I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this claim. It is absolutely true that in Greek, the plural form of Sabbath could refer to both a single Sabbath or multiple Sabbaths, and whether it is referring to one Sabbath or multiple ones must be inferred contextually. I brought up this analogy before, but here it goes again: The Spanish word pantalón is singular, and refers to a single pair of pants. The plural form, pantalones, can refer to multiple pairs of pants, but can also be used in the same way as pantalón, to refer to one single pair of pants. The word Sabbath in Greek was the same. The plural form can and was used to refer to a singular Sabbath in Greek.

In the case of the LXX translation of Leviticus 23 this is clearly wrong as it unmistakably refers to more than one Sabbath. The Rabbis also understood the Hebrew text of Leviticus as referring to multiple Sabbaths as well. They see the only reason for specifically stating to count "complete Sabbaths" is the period from Nisan 15 to the next Sabbath may not be 7-days. Similarly, if the Sabbath is always 7-days, there is no need to count 50-days. Also the instructions in Deuteronomy 16 are to count 49 days from Firstfruits to Shavuot. So neither the LXX or the Hebrew can be used to exclude Sabbath from referring to Nisan 15.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post--I wasn't saying anything about Leviticus 23, I referred to Exodus 16 as a case of using Sabbath in the plural in Greek despite it being a single Sabbath.

Once you accept the use of the plural can mean more than one, those passages with the plural should be read accordingly. Note, even in the strictest legal sense, the Day of Atonement is a Sabbath. Therefore one cannot rule out the plural use in places like Matthew 12 means "Sabbaths" unless one is certain the event did not take place in the seventh month.

Of course the plural can mean more than one. But the plural Sabbath also can refer to a single Sabbath. So one cannot simply say that it's plural in a particular case and that means it is multiple Sabbaths.

It seems that with your invocation of Matthew 12, you are trying to argue that perhaps this instance of the plural referred to multiple Sabbaths. Even if this specific instance did mean multiple Sabbaths, that would not negate the various other examples of using the Sabbath in plural to refer to a single Sabbath. It's something that was done in Greek, at least in that time period (not sure if it's done in modern Greek still).

 

[Revelation Lad]

How is this circular reasoning? The texts are referring to one Sabbath contextually, but the word itself is used in the plural. It's an example, one of quite a few, of how in Greek sometimes they would use the plural form of Sabbath even when referring to a single Sabbath.

I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this claim. It is absolutely true that in Greek, the plural form of Sabbath could refer to both a single Sabbath or multiple Sabbaths, and whether it is referring to one Sabbath or multiple ones must be inferred contextually. I brought up this analogy before, but here it goes again: The Spanish word pantalón is singular, and refers to a single pair of pants. The plural form, pantalones, can refer to multiple pairs of pants, but can also be used in the same way as pantalón, to refer to one single pair of pants. The word Sabbath in Greek was the same. The plural form can and was used to refer to a singular Sabbath in Greek.



I'm not sure what this has to do with my post--I wasn't saying anything about Leviticus 23, I referred to Exodus 16 as a case of using Sabbath in the plural in Greek despite it being a single Sabbath.


Of course the plural can mean more than one. But the plural Sabbath also can refer to a single Sabbath. So one cannot simply say that it's plural in a particular case and that means it is multiple Sabbaths.

It seems that with your invocation of Matthew 12, you are trying to argue that perhaps this instance of the plural referred to multiple Sabbaths. Even if this specific instance did mean multiple Sabbaths, that would not negate the various other examples of using the Sabbath in plural to refer to a single Sabbath. It's something that was done in Greek, at least in that time period (not sure if it's done in modern Greek still).

It is circular reasoning in that it begins with the premise the plural can be used for the singular. Why would a writer, especially one who is inspired by the Holy Spirit use the plural to mean the singualr especially when the same inspired writer uses the singular? Moreover, when the plural is used it is it often is at the time of the year when an annual “Sabbath” is possible.

The LXX uses the plural Sabbath to describe the Feast of Fruits which is to be observed after the weekly Sabbath. The Pharisees clearly understood the plural to be plural. If you wade tbrought Saber Truth’s material

How is this circular reasoning? The texts are referring to one Sabbath contextually, but the word itself is used in the plural. It's an example, one of quite a few, of how in Greek sometimes they would use the plural form of Sabbath even when referring to a single Sabbath.

I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this claim. It is absolutely true that in Greek, the plural form of Sabbath could refer to both a single Sabbath or multiple Sabbaths, and whether it is referring to one Sabbath or multiple ones must be inferred contextually. I brought up this analogy before, but here it goes again: The Spanish word pantalón is singular, and refers to a single pair of pants. The plural form, pantalones, can refer to multiple pairs of pants, but can also be used in the same way as pantalón, to refer to one single pair of pants. The word Sabbath in Greek was the same. The plural form can and was used to refer to a singular Sabbath in Greek.



I'm not sure what this has to do with my post--I wasn't saying anything about Leviticus 23, I referred to Exodus 16 as a case of using Sabbath in the plural in Greek despite it being a single Sabbath.


Of course the plural can mean more than one. But the plural Sabbath also can refer to a single Sabbath. So one cannot simply say that it's plural in a particular case and that means it is multiple Sabbaths.

It seems that with your invocation of Matthew 12, you are trying to argue that perhaps this instance of the plural referred to multiple Sabbaths. Even if this specific instance did mean multiple Sabbaths, that would not negate the various other examples of using the Sabbath in plural to refer to a single Sabbath. It's something that was done in Greek, at least in that time period (not sure if it's done in modern Greek still).

It is circular reasoning because the only justification for claiming the plural means is the singular is the claim the plural means the singular. This despite places where the plural clearly means plural. For example in the LXX, Leviticus 23:15 and 32 clearly mean plural Sabbaths. Saber Truth claims Leviticus 23:15 in the LXX is a mistranslation because it translates the Hebrew singular to the Greek plural. But the accuracy of the translation does mean the Greek plural means the Greek singular; especially when throughout the chapter the LXX uses both the singular and the plural and the fact the Pharisees interpreted the passage to mean Nisan 15 was a Sabbath. The LXX use of the plural is to place the waving of the omar after the Sabbath of Nisan 15 and the weekly Sabbath. The accuracy of the translation into Greek, right or wrong, clearly shows the plural means plural. And it is in agreement when the omar was waved in the year Jesus died: after the weekly Sabbath. But that says nothing about what the Pharisees believed at the time.

The LXX is at least 300 years before the Pharisees took control of the Sanhedrin in 50AD and instituted their tradition which fixed the waving the omar on Nisan 16, after what they claim is the Sabbath of Nisan 15. Again right or wrong how can you claim the plural means the singular when the tradition the Pharisees installed in 50 AD continues to this day agrees with and demands the plural written 300 years earlier?

When Rabbi Yohanan asserted his authority to begin the tradition of waving the omar on Nisan 16 after what he claimed was the Sabbath of Nisan 15, he was not introducing the idea of plural Sabbaths during the 7-days of Unleavened Bread. He was wrongly applying something which was documented at least 300 years earlier. The fact his application was wrong does not mean the plural was used to mean the singular. Just the opposite. His wrong application is dependent on the plural meaning plural.

Yohanan did not come up with the idea in 50AD; it is something he held before 50 AD. What Saber Truth fails to consider is Yohanan was a Galilean and was about 50-years old when Jesus was crucified: he was contemporary with Jesus. So when Jesus and the Pharisees clashed, Yohanan and/or his disciples may have been involved. [Wikipedia has a write up of Yohanan and his importance to contemporary Judaism. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai.]

Regardless of whether Jesus and Yohanan met, we must read the Gospels with the understanding the Pharisees were aware of and held to the position Nisan 15 was a Sabbath. The fact Yohanan had yet to gain control of the Sanhedrin does not mean he did not hold to this belief before gaining control. With that in mind consider Luke 6:2 - But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the σάββασιν Sabbaths?”

Since the Pharisees referred to Nisan 15 as the Sabbath, how can anyone claim when the Pharisees use the plural they mean the singular? Only by circular reasoning and believing 50 AD was the first time they began to make this claim.

 

[JSRG]

It is circular reasoning in that it begins with the premise the plural can be used for the singular. Why would a writer, especially one who is inspired by the Holy Spirit use the plural to mean the singualr especially when the same inspired writer uses the singular? Moreover, when the plural is used it is it often is at the time of the year when an annual “Sabbath” is possible.

But... the plural can be used for the singular. That's literally a feature of Greek. There's clear instances of this happening, both in the Bible (Septuagint and New Testament) and out of it. Again, the first usage of the word Sabbath in the Septuagint occurs in Exodus 16:23 when it says tomorrow is a Sabbath, and it uses the plural. How in the world is "tomorrow" not a single day? But it's still in the plural, because one can use the plural to refer to a single Sabbath or multiple Sabbaths. The Septuagint is filled with plenty of other cases of Sabbath being in the plural form despite a single Sabbath being in mind. Again, this is a fact of the language. It's not circular logic to say what's blatantly the case. One might as well insist that saying English word "read" can be in the present tense is circular logic; it's a simple fact of the language it can be read in the present tense, no circular logic here (of course, it can also be past tense).

Your apparent denial of this clear fact of the language is very puzzling, as well as the fact you keep going off on unrelated tangents in your replies to me.