Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You've gotta love the armchair linguists..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.
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.
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.
I am reading your posts with great interest and attention.I threw in the towel to the question of Nisan 15 being a Sabbath, the reason you invited me here.
I have joined the real question you have which is the Friday crucifixion.
The "three nights" is an emendation to the text. It was added later. The entirety of "three days and three nights" may also be an emendation.
But by the way, it's only called "Easter" in the Western, primarily English-speaking, world. The majority of Christians refer to it as Pasca, meaning Passover.
I am reading your posts with great interest and attention.
The Jews used inclusive reckoning, so then "any part" of the included would then be accounted as all of it. So three days and nights would be different than 56 hours.
Proof of this can be seen in Luke 24. That chapter says this is Sunday - the first day of the week - it also says it is "the third day".
And they said to Him, “Those about Jesus the Nazarene, who proved to be a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers handed Him over to be sentenced to death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.
Saturday afternoon would be the first day "since" that Friday afternoon event without inclusive reckoning, but with inclusive reckoning then Friday is day 1 and Saturday is day 2. That makes Sunday (the first day of the week according to Luke 24) -- the 3rd day.
1 Cor 15:4 says He was raised "on the third day" which agrees with what we find in Luke 24.
And it is near/at evening on the first day of the week when they said that.
While the opening post was mostly about the date of the Resurrection (I hold to the Friday date but don't care too much if people think it's on a Wednesday or Friday), I wish to respond to this.
While I have no quarrel with the argument Passover should have been used in Acts 12:4, this claim Easter has nothing to do with Passover is nonsense. They're the same word in some languages, like Greek (both are pascha). This is not even limited to Greek; some other languages have them be the same word, and others at least have them be similar. English is actually the odd one. Regrettably, this obscures their relationship less obvious in English. I wish English used "Pascha" for Easter to make the relationship more obvious as it is in so may other languages, but that's the way the language worked out.
Easter's timing is also based on that of Passover. To explain it quickly without getting into too many convoluted details, the time of Passover is supposed to be the first full moon after the spring equinox. Easter is meant to be the Sunday after that (Sunday chosen because it was the day of the Resurrection), so it's set to be the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.
Why, then, do we sometimes see Passover celebrated noticeably later than Easter, if Easter's supposed to be the Sunday after? After all, this year Easter is on March 31 (in most churches, some Orthodox churches have it on May 5 due to calculating it based on the Julian calendar), but Passover is on April 22. The reason for this divergence is that there's a current defect with the Jewish calendar which is causing it to drift forward very gradually. For our purposes this means that, due to sometimes putting in an extra month needlessly (the Gregorian/Julian calendar adds an extra day in a leap year, the Jewish calendar adds in a full month), Passover is pushed a month later than it should be. If left unchecked, given enough time, Passover will drift forward more until it becomes celebrated in summer, though it'll take thousands of years before it gets that bad. Anyway, the date of Passover nowadays is off, not the date of Easter.
So it's pretty ridiculous to claim that Easter has "nothing to do with Passover."
The following comes from Midwestern baptist seminary, and is pretty much the conclusions reached by some Messianics.
Jesus Was Crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover
John also mentions that Jesus was crucified on “the day of Preparation” (John 19:31), that is, the Friday before the Sabbath of Passover week (Mark 15:42). The night before, on Thursday evening, Jesus ate a Passover meal with the Twelve (Mark 14:12), his “Last Supper.”
In the Pharisaic-rabbinic calendar commonly used in Jesus’s day, Passover always falls on the fifteenth day of Nisan (Exodus 12:6), which begins Thursday after sundown and ends Friday at sundown. In the year a.d. 33, the most likely year of Jesus’s crucifixion, Nisan 15 fell on April 3, yielding April 3, a.d. 33, as the most likely date for the crucifixion. In The Final Days of Jesus, we therefore constructed the following chart to show the dates for Jesus’s final week in a.d. 33:
April 2 Nissan 14 Thursday (Wednesday nightfall to Thursday nightfall) Day of Passover preparation Last Supper April 3 Nissan 15 Friday (Thursday nightfall to Friday nightfall) Passover; Feast of Unleavened Bread, begins Crucifixion April 4 Nissan 16 Saturday (Friday nightfall to Saturday nightfall) Sabbath April 5 Nissan 17 Sunday (Saturday nightfall to Sunday nightfall) First day of the week Resurrection
Conclusion
The above calculations may appear complicated, but in a nutshell the argument runs like this:
HISTORICAL INFORMATION YEAR Beginning of Tiberius’s reign AD 14 Fifteenth year of Tiberius’s reign: Beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry AD 28 A few months later: Beginning of Jesus’s ministry AD 29 Minimum three-year duration of Jesus’ ministry: Most likely date of Jesus’s crucifixion AD 33 (April 3)
While this is in our judgment the most likely scenario, it should be acknowledged that many believe Jesus was crucified in the year AD 30, not 33. However, if the beginning of Tiberius’s reign is placed in the year AD 14, it is virtually impossible to accommodate fifteen years of Tiberius’s reign and three years of Jesus’ ministry between AD 14 and 30. For this reason, some have postulated a co-regency (joint rule) of Tiberius and Augustus during the last few years of Augustus’s reign. However, there is no reliable ancient historical evidence for such co-regency.
We conclude that Jesus was most likely crucified on April 3, AD 33. While other dates are possible, believers can take great assurance from the fact that the most important historical events in Jesus’s life, such as the crucifixion, are firmly anchored in human history. As we celebrate Easter, and as we walk with Jesus every day of the year, we can therefore be confident that our faith is based not only on subjective personal assurance but on reliable historical data, which makes ours an eminently reasonable faith.
April 3, AD 33: Why We Believe We Can Know the Exact Date Jesus Died - The Center for Biblical Studies
In our book, The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived, Justin Taylor and I assume but do not argue for a precise date of Jesus’s crucifixion. Virtually all scholars believe, for various reasons, that Jesus was crucified in the spring of either...cbs.mbts.edu
Can you show us any early sources that attest to it being referred to as a High Sabbath or Sabbath? Because those who reject the Friday crucifixion always claim that there's an extra Sabbath in the middle due to the Passover counting as such (a "High Sabbath"), but never point to any evidence that that Sabbath was used to refer to the Passover back then.
In an intervening message between the one I'm replying to and this reply you're reading, you appealed to the Wikipedia page for "High Sabbaths" as evidence. But the article never claims that itself, it opens up with saying "High Sabbaths, in most Christian and Messianic Jewish usage, are seven annual biblical festivals and rest days, recorded in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This is an extension of the term "high day" found in the King James Version at John 19:31." Notice it doesn't say this was any kind of Jewish term for the Passover, nor that it went back to the NT period. Interestingly, it even notes "The King James Version may thus be the origin of naming the annual rest days "High Sabbaths" in English" which would indicate that the term is only from the 17th century.
Do the sources on the page back up the idea that the Passover was referred to as a Sabbath in the NT period? Do they offer evidence that Passover was called a Sabbath back then? Having looked at them, while some make that claim, I see no evidence offered whatsoever. They simply proclaim it counted as a "High Sabbath" as their way of explaining how the Crucifixion wasn't on a Friday despite the Bible saying the next day was the Sabbath. But no evidence is offered that anyone applied the word Sabbath to the Passover back then. And that's been my constant experience: People claim that the Passover was counted as a Sabbath or High Sabbath, but no evidence is ever offered that this term was used to refer to it as such.
The Easter Bunny first shows up in recorded history in the 17th century, as is even admitted by your linked article. It comes far too late for claims of pagan connection to things over a thousand years ago to make any sense.
Personally I'm not fond of the Easter Bunny myself, as I think it distracts from the actual purpose of Easter--but the "pagan origin" idea just doesn't make sense due to the timing. Further, the Easter Bunny isn't even universally a major association with Easter. Many (most?) countries actually have little association with rabbits from Easter. The Easter Bunny was originally a creation of German Protestants in the 17th century, and from what I can tell it spread to countries like the UK or United States in the 19th century due a lot of German immigrants heading to those countries. It then spread to some other countries even later due to the influence of those countries. But in countries that haven't been affected by that kind of influence, the Easter Bunny isn't really a thing at all, like in Italy ("If you're lucky enough to be in Italy for Easter, you won't see the famous bunny or go for an Easter egg hunt") or Spain ("There are no Easter egg hunts or giant bunnies – and not much chocolate either.")
The bottom line is that trying to find some pagan origin for Easter with the Easter Bunny doesn't work. Even if there was (despite the timing not working), it'd mean nothing against Easter, just against that specific practice of it (and I'd be fine with getting rid of the practice anyway, so no problems there).
I discussed this in my prior post, but I'll do it in more detail. Easter is set up to be the Sunday after when the Jewish Passover should fall. It's quite explicitly based on it. Passover is--or is supposed to be--the full moon that occurs on or after the spring equinox, and Easter takes that and makes it the Sunday after (the day of the Resurrection). So again, yes it's totally based on Passover, or rather, when Passover should be. The problem is that Passover isn't always when it should be.
Passover falls on the 15th of the Hebrew Month of Abib/Nisan. The Hebrew calendar months are lunar, meaning they're the length of the time it takes the moon to change from a new moon to a full moon and back again. This takes roughly 29.5 days, so their months are 29 or 30 days. This means the full moon falls in the middle of each month, and a new moon at the start. Thus, Passover (in the middle of the month) falls under a full moon, or at least adjacent to one.
However, when you have 12 months of 29-30 days, you come up short for the solar year. In order to keep the calendar matched up with the solar year, they have leap years. Unlike the Julian/Gregorian calendar, where you add an extra day in some years, the Hebrew calendar adds an extra month. Now, Passover is supposed to be a spring festival, and thus falling on or after the spring equinox. In the past, on a year-by-year basis they'd see if Passover would be before the spring equinox, and if yes, they'd add in the extra month. This page from a Jewish site explains it.
So while the calculations were done through the Hebrew calendar, functionally Passover was set to be the full moon after the spring equinox. Easter is the Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, clearly basing itself on that.
So, why do their dates occasionally differ markedly nowadays? Well, originally, Christians just took the date the Jews celebrated and then had Easter the Sunday afterwards. But opposition to this grew based on two factors. The first is that there was dislike of, when setting the date for such a major Christian celebration, basing it off the calculations of people who explicitly rejected Jesus. The second were accusations that the Jews were doing their calculations wrong and actually putting their Passover before the spring equinox, and that Christians should do their own calculations so they'd be correct. And so Easter was set to be the Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, which (as noted) works out to be the Sunday after when Passover is supposed to be.
Earlier I noted how the Jews chose whether to do the leap year on a year-by-year basis. This worked when they had a strong central authority in the Sanhedrin, but when that waned, to keep consistency across the world it was replaced by a 19-year cycle, in which years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19 had the extra month added. This persists to today. However, the problem is that this calculation is slightly off, and the Hebrew year on average moves forward about several minutes each year. This is a slow process, but starts adding up over centuries. An extremely in-depth article here discusses it; for those who want a shorter one, see here. It means that Passover will, under the current calculations, actually be celebrated in the summer eventually if this doesn't get fixed (admittedly, it'll take thousands of years for it to get that extreme). But in terms of things that are affecting us now, it means in some years, an extra month gets added in needlessly. Much like this year. There was no need to have the extra month this year, because Passover would've fallen after the spring equinox without it! But because of the calendar drift, an extra month got added in anyway, needlessly pushing Passover to being after Easter.
So it's incorrect to claim that the dates are unrelated. They're very related, and while some years they're not particularly close to each other, that's because the current Jewish calendar is off and sometimes puts it a month later than it needs to be.
Jesus was not in the tomb for three days and three nights. The text was emended to match the wording of Jonah and it only led to a lot of confusion. If you study emendations to the new testament you'll find things like that. Someone at some time thought that "three days and three nights" more closely matched the wording of Jonah so it was changed to reflect Jonah. Only they didn't do the math. Another example of an emendation is also found in Matthew:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Notice that it says Zacharias son of Barachias. But Zacharias son of Barachias was not killed between the altar and the temple. Zacharias son of Iddo was. Now look at Luke:
Luk 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
You see that son of Barachias is not there. Matthew's account is an early emendation that has been known since the days of Origen. Origen called it "a mistake of the scribes". These things are nothing new.
It doesn't create a problem at all; I think you may have misunderstood me. What you offer is what I described as the standard interpretation of it, that it was regarded as a high day (or in less literal translations, a particularly important Sabbath) because the important first day of Unleavened Bread fell on the Sabbath.
The claim some make, however, is that when it says "high day" it refers not to that the first day of Unleavened Bread falling upon a Sabbath (thereby making it a particularly important Sabbath), but that the first day of Unleavened Bread counts as a Sabbath even if it doesn't fall on Saturday. This claim is necessary for the idea that the Crucifixion took place on Thursday or Wednesday to work, because the Bible is very explicit the next day was a Sabbath. And the claim is therefore that the Sabbath it refers to in the Gospels (and specifically as a high day in John) is not the weekly Sabbath on Saturday, but rather the first day of Unleavened Bread which was on Thursday or Friday.
The issue is that I've never seen anyone offer evidence that the first day of Unleavened Bread was considered or referred to as a Sabbath irrespective of the day of the week it's on at the time the New Testament was written. Leviticus 23:7 commands people to do no servile work, which is similar to the Sabbath, but never refers to it as a Sabbath, even though multiple other holidays are explicitly referred to as Sabbaths in that very chapter (see Leviticus 23:24, Leviticus 23:32, and Leviticus 23:39).
It is of course possible that, even if the Bible doesn't refer to the first day of Unleavened Bread as a Sabbath, people took to calling it such due to the command of not doing servile work. The problem is that despite people confidently claiming that it was called a Sabbath, no evidence is ever offered of anyone referring to it as such outside of the speculative claim that's what John 19:31 refers to. So I've been asking if anyone can point to definite examples of it being referred to as such back then.
Sorry dude, my bad. I thought you claimed that the Hebrew word "sabbath" in Leviticus 23:15 was a plural, just like the LXX uses the plural.Your approach is quite misleading. I have stated repeatedly the Hebrew in Leviticus 23:15 has the Sabbath in question as singular. So why clutter the issue by speaking of other places none of which have anything to do with Nisan 15 or the Day of Firstfruits?
I have said that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai became Nasi of the Sanhedrin in 50 CE, and it was either then or later that he successfully prevailed over the Sadducee reckoning. I believe it MAY be 50 CE (that's what HWA claimed) but it could have been a little later.As you can see in this answer, I show the Hebrew, which is הַשַּׁבָּ֔ת. Not only is the word singular; it is prefixed with the article: "the" Sabbath. The Hebrew is quite plainly singular. Despite the obvious, it was translated as τῆς ἐπαύριον τῶν σαββάτων, which is "the next day of the Sabbaths." The practice of calling Nisan 15 "Sabbath" (which you acknowledge Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai would impose in 50 AD) was already known 200 years before Christ.
The LXX instructs us to observe the wave sheaf on the day following the first day of Unleavened Bread. See Leviticus 23:11. If they got that wrong, then the plural Sabbaths in Leviticus 23:15 may be wrong too. HWA used this reasoning to keep the Nisan 15 as an annual Sabbath and yet still celebrate the seven Sunday countdown. I maintain that Nisan 15 was reckoned as a Sabbath by a faction of the Jews and there was a huge controversy between the Pharisees and the Sadducees over which day was the correct day to wave the Omer. The Sadducees successfully controlled the religious calendar from some time from the first or second century BCE and even though the common man liked the Pharisees better, the Jews did not celebrate the Omer on Nisan 16. The priests in the Sanhedrin were a Sadducee majority and their view prevailed while Jesus was alive. Then, from about 50 CE or later, the Pharisees regained control of the holy days and the Pharisees, and their descendants have controlled it ever since for most Jews. There are still some Jews who believe the correct way to wave the sheaf was to do it on the first Sunday after the Passover seder. In any case, Leviticus in the LXX plainly says to offer the Omer on the morrow of the first day of Unleavened Bread. That means the plural Sabbaths in Leviticus 23:15 cannot be referring to the same day in verse 11. There is a contradiction in the LXX.See
Nevertheless, as you point out, that practice did not result in the Sadducees fixing the date of Firstfruits on Nisan 16. They observed it the day after the weekly Sabbath as it is written in the Hebrew. The Greek translation, if followed, would also result in observing it after the weekly Sabbath. The day after the Sabbaths is Nisan 15 and the weekly which comes after but before Nisan 21. You can argue it is a mistranslation, but according the historical record you give, it correctly refutes the Pharisees interpretation by unmistakably placing Firstfruits on the day after the weekly Sabbath. This means in the year of the crucifixion Firstfruits was observed the day after the weekly Sabbath, Sunday.
I have always admitted that the LXX shows there was a great controversy over which day should be the waving of the Omer and which day was a Sabbath, and which was not. Again, you did nor read what I have written earlier. The controversy may even go back before that. Like during the Babylonian Captivity for example. The controversy raged and it was finally put to rest thanks to ben Zakkai after he became Nasi of the Sanhhedrin.The LXX shows what was already a question if not a point of contention before ben Zakkai's time, and it does so in a way which says Firstfruits is to be observed after the weekly Sabbath, not after Nisan 15.
They wouldn't understand Sunday because verse 11 says on the morrow of the first day of Unleavened Bread. That's the day modern Jews keep. They celebrate it on Nisan 16.When Greek speaking Jews, read τῆς ἐπαύριον τῶν σαββάτων, the next day of the Sabbaths, what Sabbaths would they understand?
Yes, the change may have caused some confusion at first and there may have been divisions among the Jews over which day was right, but the Pharisees were in charge now and they have maintained it ever since. There would be some Greek speaking Jews who no doubt liked the change. But before ben Zakkai took control of the Sanhedrin the Sadducees were in control and they had no choice but to allow the Sadducees to wave the Omer on Sunday.When Gentiles who became Christians read τῆς ἐπαύριον τῶν σαββάτων, the next day of the Sabbaths, what Sabsbaths would they understand?
When Christians went to Jerusalem after 50 AD to observe the Passover, wouldn't they see the day after the Passover was observed as a Sabbath? Wouldn't they see the Feast of Firstfruits observed on Nisan 16, regardless of the day of the week? Wouldn't their experience agree with what they read, τῆς ἐπαύριον τῶν σαββάτων, the next day of the Sabbaths?
This is simply untrue. I have never claimed that. I have always admitted there was a big controversy between the Pharisees and the Sadducees from the time of the LXX over which day the Omer should be observed. It may even go back further to the time of the Babylon Captivity. Of course, they couldn't literally wave the Omer during the captivity, but they probably devised a way to observe Nisan 16 and the weekly Sabbath as well. You absolutely do not read very well.As I have pointed out many times, you are arguing against history. You say the practice changed when ben Zakkai assumed control of the Sanhedrin in 50 AD, but you maintain there was no evidence the issue upon which the practice is based existed before 50 AD; as if ben Zakkai first came up with the idea in 50 AD. Yet when we read the LXX we see the issue there and we see it stated in a way which leads to a practice following the Hebrew text.
I don't believe Nisan 15 was a Sabbath when Jesus walked the earth. But, if it were, I would suggest you ask a rabbinical Jew to answer that question for you. That's if you really want an answer. I have no problem with the instructions in Leviticus 23.You ignore the legitimate questions the Pharisees had about the Sadducees practice in years when the weekly Sabbaths are Nisan 14 and Nisan 21 meaning it is impossible to follow the Hebrew text and observe Firstfruits during the 7-days on Unleavened Bread. And the question of different instructions in Deuteronomy 16. And the question of the unnecessary addition of "complete" Sabbaths and counting 50-days in Leviticus.
Every single objection the Pharisees had is answered when Nisan 15 is understood to be one of the Sabbaths which occur during the 7-days of Unleavened Bread. Especially the most important one, how do you follow the Hebrew instructions when Niasn 14 is a weekly Sabbath...a question that comes up once every 7 years.
Yohanan held to his belief that Nisan 15 was a Sabbath probably long before he became NASI as he was a Pharisee. It may be because the plural Sabbaths was used for one day. I can't say that with certainty, but I know Greek scholars claim the plural can be used to refer to the singular as well. So, unless you can show the Pharisees were talking to Jesus on a weekly Sabbath that contained a annual holy convocation you have no case.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
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.
Nisan 15 was not a Sabbath when Jesus walked the earth. There was no doubt many Pharisees alive then who believed Nisan 15 should be the Sabbath, but they were not in power, the Sadducees were. Before ben Zakkai, Nisan 15 and Shavuot were considered semi-holidays. Ben Zakkai helped the Jews "restore" Nisan 15 and Shavuot to their "original" days. This means there was a time when the Pharisees had the "right" date and Nisan 15 was celebrated as a Sabbath. But when the Sadducees took over sometime between the second century or first century BCE Nisan 15 was not considered a Sabbath anymore. But it was a day that forbade servile work, so it was celebrated as a semi-holiday. The LXX says the waving of the Omer was to occur on the morrow of the first day of Unleavened Bread. The plural Sabbaths is probably an emendation or a gloss. I noticed on Bible Hub their interlinear uses plural Sabbaths in Leviticus 23:15 but no English translation I know translates it that way.That is exactly right. In the year Jesus was crucified Firstfruits was observed on Sunday, after the Sabbaths of Nisan 15 and Saturday, the Sabbath of the 7th day.
It was observed according to the correct interpretation of the Law, despite what the Pharisees would have liked. Despite their position that Nisan 15 was the day to use to set the waving of the omer, the priestly class prevailed and that was not done on Nisan 16, which was the 7th day Sabbath, it was done the next day, Sunday, Nisan 17 in the year Jesus died.
The correct observance continued for approximately 20 more years until ben Zakkai assumed authority in the Sanhedrin. At that point it was changed and fixed on Nisan 16 after the Sabbath of Nisan 15 according to the interpretation of the Pharisees. That change continues to this day.
IOW, despite the accepted practice of referring to Nisan 15 as the Sabbath, the people in charge still waited until after the 7th day Sabbath to wave the omer.
I don't think there is a way to determine that. If the Day of Atonement fell on a Tuesday and Jesus went into the grainfields on the Sabbath I don't see why the writer would refer to it in the plural unless it was a feature of the Greek language. If the Day of Atonement fell on the same weekly Sabbath Jesus and his disciples would be fasting and therefore that wouldn't make any sense. If the Day of Atonement fell on a Friday there would be back-to-back Sabbaths, but it doesn't mean that the weekly Sabbath would be called sabbaths (plural) simply because the day before it was also a Sabbath too. I think things would be more productive if you could find evidence that the plural Sabbaths could not be used for a singular day since there are so many Greek scholars who believe it is. I am not a Greek scholar so I am not the one you should ask.Matthew 12:1 is σάββασιν which is plural. How do you know the event did not take place during the week which included the Day of Atonement, a week which always has two Sabbaths, the weekly and the Day of Atonement?
For the Jews today, Nisan 15 is a Sabbath that precedes the waving of the Omer. They are in error of course, and I agree that Nisan 15 has no bearing on the waving of the Omer as scripturally speaking, the Omer fell on the day AFTER the weekly Sabbath.You are missing the point. Calling Nisan 15 a Sabbath has two consequences, one for the individual and one for the community. The one for the individual affects every individual every year. They attend a holy convocation and the avoid work. It is possible the work they avoid is not as strict as a weekly Sabbath, but it is not possible they treat this day as a normal day of work. Because all law abiding individuals observe the day, there are community consequences. For instance, all markets and money changing activities would be ceased. Arguably, from the community point of view, the day would be exactly like the weekly Sabbath (despite the fact some individual may be doing something the Sabbath prohibits).
The basis for referring to Nisan 15 as the Sabbath is how the term Sabbath is applied. Even if one wants to make a legal distinction between Nisan 15 and the Sabbath, for practical purposes using Sabbath to refer to Nisan 15 is 80-90% correct for individual actions and 100% correct (or perhaps 99%) for the community actions. These factors do not change whether Firstfruits is observed the next day of later in the week.
When Firstfruits is observed has no effect on when or how Nisan 15 is observed, regardless of who is in charge. The decision over which day the Omer is waved has no impact on how law abiding individuals and their communities observe Nisan 15. The only reason an authority can argue for the practice of waving the Omer on Nisan 16 is the what community and individuals do on Nisan 15.
The decision over waving the Omer has no bearing on what the community and individuals do on Nisan 15. Once you come to terms with this fact, you must admit the terminology to describe Nisan 15 is unchanged regardless of who is in charge and regardless of their decision on waving the Omer. If you recognize the practice before and after the time Jesus was on earth, you have proven the practice of using the term was continuous beginning from the time it first began until the present. That is, regardless of how the Law is interpreted for waving the Omer, Nisan 15 is referred to as the Sabbath.
Whether you use history or exegesis waving the Omer has no bearing on Nisan 15.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?