The Crucifixion Not Friday

[Saber Truth Tiger]

There is no such thing as Passover Sabbath.

You're right. My bad. I was taught that many years ago and after spending time last night trying to prove it I decided to call off the dogs. That's why I enjoy debating others. I learn things. What I meant though was the Sabbath that fell during Passover week. I will not repeat this mistake again with you.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I find the logic in this statement suspect. First there is the position Nisan 15 does not meet the Scriptural definition of Sabbath. Despite both requiring a holy convocation, the less restrictive prohibition on work nullifies Nisan 15 as “Sabbath.” Therefore, the plural Sabbaths is an idiomatic expression which does not speak of two different days (as opposed to an idiomatic expression meaning two Sabbaths, a weekly and an annual day like Nisan 15).

So what in Matthew is the idiomatic expression referring to? What is the intelligible thought the reader is to understand by Matthew’s use of the idiom, “Sabbaths?”

Like I said, Greek scholars claim it is an idiom. I do not carry the weight of scholarship they have. You should write some Greek scholars and ask them and see if they can defend their position. Don't be too quick to put down another man's idioms. I don't pretend to understand Greek idioms. All I know some Greek scholars claim it is an idiomatic expression. Perhaps in the next life you can ask them. I will.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

This is a complete non-answer.

Well, I don’t understand Greek idioms but that doesn’t mean Nisan 15 is a Sabbath.

On one hand you insist Sabbath can only mean Sabbath. Because of the definition of Sabbath there is no exception. If this is true, then Sabbath can not be used as an idiom. However, Greek scholars claim Sabbaths can be used can be used idiomatically, but in the case of Matthew 12:1-2, you have no idea what the idiomatic use is.

Many Greek scholars believe it is an idiom. Whom am I to disagree?

However, you are certain the literal meaning of Sabbaths is not intended.

Two reasons: 1) those that are in a position to know Greek idioms claim it is idiom and 2) Nisan 15 is not a Sabbath. The burden of proof that Nisan 15 is a Sabbath is on you, it is not on me to disprove it is a Sabbath.

Therefore the reader of Matthew 12:1-2 who obviously does understand the plural, understands it as an idiom which is completely unknown and inexplicable in this lifetime.

Completely unknown? By whom? Many Greek scholars claim it is an idiom. I take their word over yours any day.

Nevertheless, the same reader who understands Sabbaths can be used idiomatically in this lifetime, does not believe Sabbath is ever used as an idiom for a day such as Nisan 15; this despite the fact the Pharisees demanded that understanding a few years after Jesus died.

It doesn’t matter what their understanding of Nisan 15 was. If it didn’t coincide with what Scripture taught. Scripture, not what understanding the Pharisees may have had, means more to me.

Is that your position on Matthew 12:1-2?

I have asked a question on Matthew 12:1-2 on the Biblical Hermeneutics site: What are the sabbaths in Matthew 12:1-2?

Would your position on the idiomatic use of Sabbaths in Matthew 12:1-2 change if you knew Matthew was written after the Pharisees implemented their understanding of Nisan 15?

The Pharisees are in error in their understanding of Nisan 15. So, I believe those Greek scholars who claim the plural Sabbath could be used idiomatically. Therefore, if Matthew, an inspired writer, knew Nisan 15 was not a Sabbath, then he would not have considered it a plural Sabbath. There needs to be a point clarified here. Even though the Pharisees originally considered the only two annual holy convocations as Sabbaths being Nisan 15 and Yom Kippur, they did not call the other annual holy convocations as Sabbaths. Nisan 21 was not a Sabbath and Shavuot was not a Sabbath either. The Scriptures refer to Shavuot not as a Sabbath but the day after the seventh Sabbath (Leviticus 23:16). That would be exactly 50 days inclusive from the waving of the Omer.

Calling Nisan 21 a Sabbath came much later. That leaves only Nisan 15 and Yom Kippur as the candidates for the second Sabbath you are looking for. Neither would make sense as a Sabbath in Matthew 12:1-2. The Rabbis later called ALL holy convocations as Sabbaths. In the second century, I think. When they were told to count seven Sabbaths toward Pentecost (Shavuot) they did not count Nisan 21 as a Sabbath. The Sadducees never called Nisan 21 a Sabbath either and counted only actual Sabbath days as days to be counted. So far you have been unable to produce a single instance where Nisan 15 was clearly called a Sabbath in the scriptures. Nisan 15 is a Sabbath today, thanks to a 2,000-year-old tradition.

Idioms often don't make sense to a non-native Speaker. So that doesn't prove it is not an idiom.

 

[JSRG]

On one hand you insist Sabbath can only mean Sabbath. Because of the definition of Sabbath there is no exception. If this is true, then Sabbath can not be used as an idiom. However, Greek scholars claim Sabbaths can be used can be used idiomatically, but in the case of Matthew 12:1-2, you have no idea what the idiomatic use is. However, you are certain the literal meaning of Sabbaths is not intended.

Therefore the reader of Matthew 12:1-2 who obviously does understand the plural, understands it as an idiom which is completely unknown and inexplicable in this lifetime.

Nevertheless, the same reader who understands Sabbaths can be used idiomatically in this lifetime, does not believe Sabbath is ever used as an idiom for a day such as Nisan 15; this despite the fact the Pharisees demanded that understanding a few years after Jesus died.

Well, I don’t understand Greek idioms but that doesn’t mean Nisan 15 is a Sabbath.

Many Greek scholars believe it is an idiom. Whom am I to disagree?


Two reasons: 1) those that are in a position to know Greek idioms claim it is idiom and 2) Nisan 15 is not a Sabbath. The burden of proof that Nisan 15 is a Sabbath is on you, it is not on me to disprove it is a Sabbath.

Completely unknown? By whom? Many Greek scholars claim it is an idiom. I take their word over yours any day.

I am confused here. You two are arguing over whether Matthew 12:1-2's usage of Sabbath is an idiom, but what is the idiom that is being argued over? I don't think the word "Sabbath" used there is an idiom; it means Sabbath. Looking at the various translations of Matthew 12:1 and Matthew 12:2 on biblegateway, they are nearly unanimous in translating the word as Sabbath, and the ones that do not render it into an equivalent word, e.g. "day of rest".

Is the "idiom" being debated over the simple issue of the Sabbath being plural despite it seeming to be only a single Sabbath?

 

[Revelation Lad]

I am confused here. You two are arguing over whether Matthew 12:1-2's usage of Sabbath is an idiom, but what is the idiom that is being argued over? I don't think the word "Sabbath" used there is an idiom; it means Sabbath. Looking at the various translations of Matthew 12:1 and Matthew 12:2 on biblegateway, they are nearly unanimous in translating the word as Sabbath, and the ones that do not render it into an equivalent word, e.g. "day of rest".

Is the "idiom" being debated over the simple issue of the Sabbath being plural despite it seeming to be only a single Sabbath?

Matthew 12:1 is

I am confused here. You two are arguing over whether Matthew 12:1-2's usage of Sabbath is an idiom, but what is the idiom that is being argued over? I don't think the word "Sabbath" used there is an idiom; it means Sabbath. Looking at the various translations of Matthew 12:1 and Matthew 12:2 on biblegateway, they are nearly unanimous in translating the word as Sabbath, and the ones that do not render it into an equivalent word, e.g. "day of rest".

Is the "idiom" being debated over the simple issue of the Sabbath being plural despite it seeming to be only a single Sabbath?

Matthew 12:1 is τοῖς σάββασιν, the Sabbaths. Both article and noun are plural. Saber Truth claims this is an idiom of unknown meaning.

Matthew 12:2 is ἐν σαββάτῳ, on Sabbath singular.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I am confused here. You two are arguing over whether Matthew 12:1-2's usage of Sabbath is an idiom, but what is the idiom that is being argued over?

In the Greek text, it is literally SABBATHS and the translations are not literal. They render it as singular Sabbath. Therefore, they are translating it as an idiom, plural usage but singular in meaning. That is why I am calling it an idiom. And you are right, the majority of Greek scholars and translators translate it into the singular.

I don't think the word "Sabbath" used there is an idiom; it means Sabbath.

Literally, it means SABBATHS, but with a singular meaning. That is why it is an idiom.

Looking at the various translations of Matthew 12:1 and Matthew 12:2 on biblegateway, they are nearly unanimous in translating the word as Sabbath, and the ones that do not render it into an equivalent word, e.g. "day of rest".

Exactly. The vast majority of English translators of Greek to English translators believe SABBATHS is an idiom. It doesn't make sense to me, but they are the Greek experts.

Is the "idiom" being debated over the simple issue of the Sabbath being plural despite it seeming to be only a single Sabbath?

Yes.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

What do the Greek scholars state the meaning of the idiom is in Matthew 12:1?

As another guest has commented, the vast majority of Greek scholars have translated Matthew 12:1 with a singular Sabbath. I am not the Greek expert here, so I do not say this with my own authority, but most believe it is an idiom meaning singular SABBATH. That is what the scholars say. I don't understand it but that is the fact of the matter.

 

[JSRG]

In the Greek text, it is literally SABBATHS and the translations are not literal. They render it as singular Sabbath. Therefore, they are translating it as an idiom, plural usage but singular in meaning. That is why I am calling it an idiom. And you are right, the majority of Greek scholars and translators translate it into the singular.

Okay, I think I get it more now.

The thing is, I don't really see that as an idiom, hence my confusion. An idiom is a group of words where the meaning can't be figured out by just that group of words, like "raining cats and dogs" or "see the light". The fact Sabbath in plural could refer to a single Sabbath seems to not be an idiom to me, but just a grammar thing.

An analogous thing is the word pantalón in Spanish. This means, as you might have guessed, pants (the word is always plural in English). In Spanish, a single pair of pants can be expressed as pantalón (singular) or pantalones (plural). However, if there are multiple pairs of pants, you have to use the plural. But I don't think anyone would call this an idiom.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Okay, I think I get it more now.

The thing is, I don't really see that as an idiom, hence my confusion. An idiom is a group of words where the meaning can't be figured out by just that group of words, like "raining cats and dogs" or "see the light". The fact Sabbath in plural could refer to a single Sabbath seems to not be an idiom to me, but just a grammar thing.

An analogous thing is the word pantalón in Spanish. This means, as you might have guessed, pants (the word is always plural in English). In Spanish, a single pair of pants can be expressed as pantalón (singular) or pantalones (plural). However, if there are multiple pairs of pants, you have to use the plural. But I don't think anyone would call this an idiom.

I completely agree. The claim it is an idiom is just a way to avoid addressing the actual language. The argument runs something like this. 1) Sabbath can only mean weekly a Sabbath. 2) Therefore when a writer uses the plural of Sabbaths they mean the singular (unless it is clear they are referring to multiple weekly Sabbaths). 3) This plural/singular weekly Sabbath is an (inexplicable) "idiom" for a single weekly Sabbath, because Sabbath can only mean a weekly Sabbath.

The reasoning is obviously circular and it is inherently inconsistent. That is, if in fact the Sabbath was as claimed in point #1, no one would conceive of making an idiom for the Sabbath and expect a reader to understand what it means. Ironically, with all our research no one knows what the idiom means, nevertheless scholars are certain the original audience understood the plural as an idiom, not the plural.

 

[AFrazier]

If what you say about the Sabbath is true, then there is never a question of which day of the week is the Sabbath. Every week the Sabbath will fall on the same day, and every week the day before the Sabbath will always fall on the same day and every week the day after the Sabbath will always be on the same day. There will never be an exception. You can count the days inclusively. Friday (1), Saturday (2), Sunday (3). Sunday is the day after the Sabbath (singular, as it is every week).

If this is true, why is the day of the resurrection called the day after the Sabbaths? If there is never anything other than a weekly Sabbath at this time of year, then why does each writer say Sabbaths? And why is the plural Sabbath called the first day of the week? The first day of the week is always going to be the day after the Sabbath. If there can never be a plural Sabbath, there is no reason to say the day after the Sabbaths. The correct terminology is always, the day after the Sabbath, because the singular Sabbath always identifies the same day of the week, Saturday and the day before is Friday and the day after is always Sunday.

Just to throw in my two cents on this particular argument, if Christ was crucified on the 15th, as I have argued all along, then Friday and Saturday are both Sabbaths, one of the holiday variety, the other of the weekly variety. So, Sunday, the first day of the week, would be the day after the Sabbaths, plural.

As to the question of the 15th being a Sabbath, it would have been recognized as such. The practice at that time was to begin the count to Pentecost on the 16th, which, according to the law, is the morrow after the Sabbath. Josephus, the Talmud, and the Megallit Ta’anit all confirm this practice at that time. So, the 15th was considered a holiday-based Sabbath.

I also find it significant that Matthew specifies the day following the crucifixion circumlocutively. Rather than simply saying that it was the Sabbath, he says that it was the day that followed the day of preparation, which is the Sabbath. However, to avoid confusion in a week that contained a second Sabbath, he specified the day in an alternate manner. If he said “The next day, on the Sabbath . . .,” it could have been understood as two different days. But only one of the Sabbaths can be understood as being the day following the day of preparation.

Thanks for your point. It gave me a new element to argue. I didn’t realize that Sabbaths was plural. It makes a lot of sense that it does.

 

[JSRG]

I completely agree. The claim it is an idiom is just a way to avoid addressing the actual language.

Well... my issue wasn't with the basic argument Saber Truth Tiger was making, but with him referring to it as an idiom. Sabbath in the New Testament can be pluralized even in senses where it would be singular in English; he is correct on that. But I wouldn't call that an idiom; it's just a feature of grammar and vocabulary, in the same way in Spanish someone can use pantalón (singular) or pantalones (plural) to refer to a single pair of pants.

I agree with his argument as I understand it, but disagree with term he uses to describe it (idiom), which I think is misleading and caused considerable confusion to me and made me think he was arguing something different.

The argument runs something like this. 1) Sabbath can only mean weekly a Sabbath. 2) Therefore when a writer uses the plural of Sabbaths they mean the singular (unless it is clear they are referring to multiple weekly Sabbaths). 3) This plural/singular weekly Sabbath is an (inexplicable) "idiom" for a single weekly Sabbath, because Sabbath can only mean a weekly Sabbath.

The reasoning is obviously circular and it is inherently inconsistent. That is, if in fact the Sabbath was as claimed in point #1, no one would conceive of making an idiom for the Sabbath and expect a reader to understand what it means. Ironically, with all our research no one knows what the idiom means, nevertheless scholars are certain the original audience understood the plural as an idiom, not the plural.

I mostly agree with the argument from Saber Truth Tiger as you present it, with only two points of disagreement.

The first is I disagree with the claim that Sabbath in Greek always mean the seventh day of the week. It can, in a few idiomatic phrases, actually mean "week". However, aside from that, it appears to only mean the weekly Sabbath. "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature", also known as the BDAG, is probably the most scholarly and up to date Greek lexicon on the subject available. Here are the definitions it offers for the Greek word σάββατον (sabbaton), found on pages 909-910 in the 2010 edition:

"1. the seventh day of the week in Israel's calendar, marked by rest fr. work and by special religious ceremonies, sabbath
2. a period of seven days, week"

There is of course more to its entries on the word but I am limiting my quotes to the definitions themselves. It should be noted it does mention how the plural version of Sabbath can be used for a single Sabbath day, giving copious examples from both biblical and extrabiblical material of such (including Matthew 12:1).

So the first definition only applies to seventh day of the week, and the second definition (used in idioms) refers to a week rather than a specific day. While it does give a definition beyond simply the weekly Sabbath, because the other definition means week, there is no mention I see that when referring to days, it can mean anything other than the seventh day of the week in Greek.

The other disagreement, as I mentioned above, is that I think to describe the fact they use plural Sabbaths to refer to singular ones as an "idiom" is to use a misleading term, which ended up causing me to think a different argument was being had. When words that are plural in one language are singular in another, or vice versa, that's not idioms, but grammar. The basic argument is simply to point out that the word Sabbath in plural can still refer to a single Sabbath.

But neither of these disagreements seem to actually make a difference to the bottom line of the argument.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Explanation #1 - In 12:1 rather than write the singular σαββάτῳ (Sabbath) Matthew wrote the plural σάββασιν (Sabbaths) as an idiom which he wants the reader to understand as σαββάτῳ (Sabbath). Then in verse 12:2 he did not use the idiom σάββασιν, instead he wrote σαββάτῳ. And there is no explanation for this unusual use of language.

Young's Translation reads: "At that time did Jesus go on the sabbaths through the corn, and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears, and to eat, and the Pharisees having seen, said to him, `Lo, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on a sabbath.'"

The Pharisees say the disciples are engaging in unlawful work, harvesting, which is servile work.

The Feast of Weeks follows a weekly Sabbath and celebrates a harvest and prohibits servile work. The Feast of Tabernacles also celebrates the harvest and begins with a day prohibiting servile work.

Explanation #2 - Matthew's use of the plural Sabbath means the Pharisees are taking issue with the disciples "harvesting," performing servile work, when it was prohibited. [All of the days prohibiting servile work come during a time of harvest and all follow a weekly Sabbath.]

Do they not both follow and precede a weekly Sabbath?

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I completely agree. The claim it is an idiom is just a way to avoid addressing the actual language. The argument runs something like this. 1) Sabbath can only mean weekly a Sabbath. 2) Therefore when a writer uses the plural of Sabbaths they mean the singular (unless it is clear they are referring to multiple weekly Sabbaths). 3) This plural/singular weekly Sabbath is an (inexplicable) "idiom" for a single weekly Sabbath, because Sabbath can only mean a weekly Sabbath.

The reasoning is obviously circular and it is inherently inconsistent. That is, if in fact the Sabbath was as claimed in point #1, no one would conceive of making an idiom for the Sabbath and expect a reader to understand what it means. Ironically, with all our research no one knows what the idiom means, nevertheless scholars are certain the original audience understood the plural as an idiom, not the plural.

You are basically claiming the Greek scholars who translate the majority of our English Bibles and lexicons are lying. Why should I take your word over them? How many years have you studied Greek in a University setting? I don't know Greek well enough to call the Greek translators lying or inconsistent.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Just to throw in my two cents on this particular argument, if Christ was crucified on the 15th, as I have argued all along, then Friday and Saturday are both Sabbaths, one of the holiday variety, the other of the weekly variety. So, Sunday, the first day of the week, would be the day after the Sabbaths, plural.

As to the question of the 15th being a Sabbath, it would have been recognized as such. The practice at that time was to begin the count to Pentecost on the 16th, which, according to the law, is the morrow after the Sabbath. Josephus, the Talmud, and the Megallit Ta’anit all confirm this practice at that time. So, the 15th was considered a holiday-based Sabbath.

I also find it significant that Matthew specifies the day following the crucifixion circumlocutively. Rather than simply saying that it was the Sabbath, he says that it was the day that followed the day of preparation, which is the Sabbath. However, to avoid confusion in a week that contained a second Sabbath, he specified the day in an alternate manner. If he said “The next day, on the Sabbath . . .,” it could have been understood as two different days. But only one of the Sabbaths can be understood as being the day following the day of preparation.

Thanks for your point. It gave me a new element to argue. I didn’t realize that Sabbaths was plural. It makes a lot of sense that it does.believe

Just to throw in my two cents on this particular argument, if Christ was crucified on the 15th, as I have argued all along, then Friday and Saturday are both Sabbaths, one of the holiday variety, the other of the weekly variety. So, Sunday, the first day of the week, would be the day after the Sabbaths, plural.

As to the question of the 15th being a Sabbath, it would have been recognized as such. The practice at that time was to begin the count to Pentecost on the 16th, which, according to the law, is the morrow after the Sabbath. Josephus, the Talmud, and the Megallit Ta’anit all confirm this practice at that time. So, the 15th was considered a holiday-based Sabbath.

I also find it significant that Matthew specifies the day following the crucifixion circumlocutively. Rather than simply saying that it was the Sabbath, he says that it was the day that followed the day of preparation, which is the Sabbath. However, to avoid confusion in a week that contained a second Sabbath, he specified the day in an alternate manner. If he said “The next day, on the Sabbath . . .,” it could have been understood as two different days. But only one of the Sabbaths can be understood as being the day following the day of preparation.

Thanks for your point. It gave me a new element to argue. I didn’t realize that Sabbaths was plural. It makes a lot of sense that it does.

I believe the proper approach is to ignore any question about what day He was crucified until you are settled on how best to understand the singular and plural uses of Sabbath

You are basically claiming the Greek scholars who translate the majority of our English Bibles and lexicons are lying. Why should I take your word over them? How many years have you studied Greek in a University setting? I don't know Greek well enough to call the Greek translators lying or inconsistent.

Lying. Pretty strong language. Can’t they just be mistaken?

Modern scholars often deal with things they can’t explain by positions which assume their understanding is superior to a scribe or copyist. Which brings up an interesting point. If there was no difference between plural and singular, why didn’t copyists clear up any potential confusion? As someone who believes Scripture is inspired, I find a position that a writer using different words has no signifance contrary to inspiration.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I believe the proper approach is to ignore any question about what day He was crucified until you are settled on how best to understand the singular and plural uses of Sabbath


Lying. Pretty strong language. Can’t they just be mistaken?

Yes, you are right, they could be mistaken. But if it is obviously circular logic, then they are being intellectually dishonest. Or not? The bottom line though is still true. I don't have enough Greek knowledge to know whether Greek translators are lying or not.

Modern scholars often deal with things they can’t explain by positions which assume their understanding is superior to a scribe or copyist. Which brings up an interesting point. If there was no difference between plural and singular, why didn’t copyists clear up any potential confusion? As someone who believes Scripture is inspired, I find a position that a writer using different words has no signifance contrary to inspiration.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I believe the proper approach is to ignore any question about what day He was crucified until you are settled on how best to understand the singular and plural uses of Sabbath


Lying. Pretty strong language. Can’t they just be mistaken?

Modern scholars often deal with things they can’t explain by positions which assume their understanding is superior to a scribe or copyist. Which brings up an interesting point. If there was no difference between plural and singular, why didn’t copyists clear up any potential confusion? As someone who believes Scripture is inspired, I find a position that a writer using different words has no signifance contrary to inspiration.

I believe the proper approach is to ignore any question about what day He was crucified until you are settled on how best to understand the singular and plural uses of Sabbath

Yes, that would help. But when I read the last three gospels, I see them clearly refer to Jesus's death as occurring the day before the weekly Sabbath. Matthew can be problematic and I can't answer all the questions Matthew presents. But the last three gospels provide ample proof that Jesus died the day before the weekly Sabbath.

Lying. Pretty strong language. Can’t they just be mistaken?

Modern scholars often deal with things they can’t explain by positions which assume their understanding is superior to a scribe or copyist. Which brings up an interesting point. If there was no difference between plural and singular, why didn’t copyists clear up any potential confusion? As someone who believes Scripture is inspired, I find a position that a writer using different words has no signifance contrary to inspiration.

 

[Revelation Lad]

Well... my issue wasn't with the basic argument Saber Truth Tiger was making, but with him referring to it as an idiom. Sabbath in the New Testament can be pluralized even in senses where it would be singular in English; he is correct on that. But I wouldn't call that an idiom; it's just a feature of grammar and vocabulary, in the same way in Spanish someone can use pantalón (singular) or pantalones (plural) to refer to a single pair of pants.

I agree with his argument as I understand it, but disagree with term he uses to describe it (idiom), which I think is misleading and caused considerable confusion to me and made me think he was arguing something different.


I mostly agree with the argument from Saber Truth Tiger as you present it, with only two points of disagreement.

The first is I disagree with the claim that Sabbath in Greek always mean the seventh day of the week. It can, in a few idiomatic phrases, actually mean "week". However, aside from that, it appears to only mean the weekly Sabbath. "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature", also known as the BDAG, is probably the most scholarly and up to date Greek lexicon on the subject available. Here are the definitions it offers for the Greek word σάββατον (sabbaton), found on pages 909-910 in the 2010 edition:

"1. the seventh day of the week in Israel's calendar, marked by rest fr. work and by special religious ceremonies, sabbath
2. a period of seven days, week"

There is of course more to its entries on the word but I am limiting my quotes to the definitions themselves. It should be noted it does mention how the plural version of Sabbath can be used for a single Sabbath day, giving copious examples from both biblical and extrabiblical material of such (including Matthew 12:1).

So the first definition only applies to seventh day of the week, and the second definition (used in idioms) refers to a week rather than a specific day. While it does give a definition beyond simply the weekly Sabbath, because the other definition means week, there is no mention I see that when referring to days, it can mean anything other than the seventh day of the week in Greek.

The other disagreement, as I mentioned above, is that I think to describe the fact they use plural Sabbaths to refer to singular ones as an "idiom" is to use a misleading term, which ended up causing me to think a different argument was being had. When words that are plural in one language are singular in another, or vice versa, that's not idioms, but grammar. The basic argument is simply to point out that the word Sabbath in plural can still refer to a single Sabbath.

But neither of these disagreements seem to actually make a difference to the bottom line of the argument.

The LXX describes the Feast of Unleavened Bread stating there are Sabbaths, plural. It states the

Well... my issue wasn't with the basic argument Saber Truth Tiger was making, but with him referring to it as an idiom. Sabbath in the New Testament can be pluralized even in senses where it would be singular in English; he is correct on that. But I wouldn't call that an idiom; it's just a feature of grammar and vocabulary, in the same way in Spanish someone can use pantalón (singular) or pantalones (plural) to refer to a single pair of pants.

I agree with his argument as I understand it, but disagree with term he uses to describe it (idiom), which I think is misleading and caused considerable confusion to me and made me think he was arguing something different.


I mostly agree with the argument from Saber Truth Tiger as you present it, with only two points of disagreement.

The first is I disagree with the claim that Sabbath in Greek always mean the seventh day of the week. It can, in a few idiomatic phrases, actually mean "week". However, aside from that, it appears to only mean the weekly Sabbath. "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature", also known as the BDAG, is probably the most scholarly and up to date Greek lexicon on the subject available. Here are the definitions it offers for the Greek word σάββατον (sabbaton), found on pages 909-910 in the 2010 edition:

"1. the seventh day of the week in Israel's calendar, marked by rest fr. work and by special religious ceremonies, sabbath
2. a period of seven days, week"

There is of course more to its entries on the word but I am limiting my quotes to the definitions themselves. It should be noted it does mention how the plural version of Sabbath can be used for a single Sabbath day, giving copious examples from both biblical and extrabiblical material of such (including Matthew 12:1).

So the first definition only applies to seventh day of the week, and the second definition (used in idioms) refers to a week rather than a specific day. While it does give a definition beyond simply the weekly Sabbath, because the other definition means week, there is no mention I see that when referring to days, it can mean anything other than the seventh day of the week in Greek.

The other disagreement, as I mentioned above, is that I think to describe the fact they use plural Sabbaths to refer to singular ones as an "idiom" is to use a misleading term, which ended up causing me to think a different argument was being had. When words that are plural in one language are singular in another, or vice versa, that's not idioms, but grammar. The basic argument is simply to point out that the word Sabbath in plural can still refer to a single Sabbath.

But neither of these disagreements seem to actually make a difference to the bottom line of the argument.

There are significant deficiencies in Saber Truth's position.

First, the oldest historical record describing the practice of observing Firstfruits is found in the LXX. It states the waving of the sheaf (observing Firstfruits) takes place on "the day after the first." It continues by saying the counting of the omer is to begin after the Sabbaths (plural). This describes observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16, "the day after the first" which could mean first day of Unleavened Bread. But counting of the omer which begins after the weekly Sabbath is described as "after the Sabbaths" means Nisan 15 was the first Sabbath.

Second, Saber Truth acknowledges the practice of observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16 (which means Nisan 15 was understood as a Sabbah). He has no choice since that is what Josephus records: like the LXX it is recorded history. The "work around" to the recorded history of observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16 (which continues to this day) is claiming the practice was stopped and Firstfruits was being observed correctly at the time of Jesus. Even if this assertion is correct, other than a belief the Sadducees followed the correct practice, there is no historical documentation.

Third, all of the Gospel accounts use both the plural and singular Sabbath. Sometimes the explanation seems to be more than one weekly Sabbath, but most, like Matthew 12 and 28, cannot have this meaning. Hence, most translations simply ignore the plural or in the case of resurrection texts, translate as "first day of the week." The rebuttal to this is if in fact the Sabbath can only mean Saturday (the weekly Sabbath), then the day after the Sabbath (singular) is always Sunday. The "day after the Sabbaths" is unnecessary and confusing since it leads some (like myself) to conclude the plural use of Sabbaths identifies Nisan 15 and the weekly Sabbath, exactly as described in the LXX and in Josephus and practiced to this day in Judaism.

Fourth, another factor Saber Truth ignores is the dating of the writing of the Gospels. Since he admits the practice of observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16 was in affect sometime after the crucifixion, any Gospel written when the practice was reestablished (remember the LXX written before Christ describes the practice) was essentially misleading their initial audience with respect to their experiences. (For example, if a Christian went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, they would see Nisan 15 as the Sabbath which determined when Firstfruits, the day of the resurrection occurred.) This despite the admitted fact the singular Sabbath would always correctly describe the day.

Fifth, most accept John was written after the destruction of the Temple and most certainly reflects an understanding of the synagogue/Diaspora observation of Firstfruits. Therefore, his position is that the Christian understanding of Firstfruits was not as it was practiced by the Jews in the synagogue (and possibly themselves), and it was not like the LXX (which was the Christian Old Testament) and it was not like Josephus, written in their lifetime. Rather it was what the Sadducees allegedly did. His "proof" is John continued the practice of writing Sabbaths (plural) despite a belief the Sabbath was always and only the weekly Sabbath. In addition he ignores how John's use of the plural Sabbath in describing the resurrection would be confusing to a Gentile readers, who only knew the synagogue tradition, and only read the LXX and only had Josephus to rely on. In other words, Gentile Christians understood the resurrection should be remembered as taking place on Nisan 16, the day after the Sabbaths.

This explanation for a hiatus in observing Nisan 16 as Firstfruits is far-fetched in my opinion, especially when the plural is intelligible, reflects what they would see in the synagogue, agrees with the LXX, and agrees with Josephus.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

The LXX describes the Feast of Unleavened Bread stating there are Sabbaths, plural. It states the

Show me where in the LXX it states there are Sabbaths in the days of Unleavened Bread, plural. In Leviticus 23:15 the LXX states there are seven WEEKS, while the Hebrew states seven Sabbaths. Since there are seven of them, the Sabbaths are plural.

Leviticus 23 - LXX - Bible Study Tools

Leviticus 23 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The feasts of the Lord which ye shall call holy assemblies, these are my feasts. Six days shalt thou do works, but on the seventh day is the sabbath; ... Read verse in Septuagint...

www.biblestudytools.com

Leviticus 23​

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The feasts of the Lord which ye shall call holy assemblies, these are my feasts.
3 Six days shalt thou do works, but on the seventh day is the sabbath; a rest, a holy convocation to the Lord: thou shalt not do any work, it is a sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings.
4 These the feasts to the Lord, holy convocations, which ye shall call in their seasons.
5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the evening times is the Lord's passover.
6 And on the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread to the Lord; seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread.
7 And the first day shall be a holy convocation to you: ye shall do no servile work.
8 And ye shall offer whole-burnt-offerings to the Lord seven days; and the seventh day shall be a holy convocation to you: ye shall do no servile work.
9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
10 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, When ye shall enter into the land which I give you, and reap the harvest of it, then shall ye bring a sheaf, the first-fruits of your harvest, to the priest;
11 and he shall lift up the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you. On the morrow of the first day the priest shall lift it up.
12 And ye shall offer on the day on which ye bring the sheaf, a lamb without blemish of a year old for a whole-burnt-offering to the Lord.
13 And its meat-offering two tenth portions of fine flour mingled with oil: it is a sacrifice to the Lord, a smell of sweet savour to the Lord, and its drink-offering the fourth part of a hin of wine.
14 And ye shall not eat bread, or the new parched corn, until this same day, until ye offer the sacrifices to your God: a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
15 And ye shall number to yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day on which ye shall offer the sheaf of the heave-offering, seven full WEEKS:
16 until the morrow after the last week ye shall number fifty days, and shall bring a new meat-offering to the Lord.

There are significant deficiencies in Saber Truth's position.

We'll see.

First, the oldest historical record describing the practice of observing Firstfruits is found in the LXX. It states the waving of the sheaf (observing Firstfruits) takes place on "the day after the first." It continues by saying the counting of the omer is to begin after the Sabbaths (plural). This describes observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16, "the day after the first" which could mean first day of Unleavened Bread. But counting of the omer which begins after the weekly Sabbath is described as "after the Sabbaths" means Nisan 15 was the first Sabbath.

EDITED BY SABER TRUTH TIGER 05/19/2025

REVELATION LAD wrote:
There are significant deficiencies in Saber Truth's position.

First, the oldest historical record describing the practice of observing Firstfruits is found in the LXX. It states the waving of the sheaf (observing Firstfruits) takes place on "the day after the first." It continues by saying the counting of the omer is to begin after the Sabbaths (plural). This describes observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16, "the day after the first" which could mean first day of Unleavened Bread. But counting of the omer which begins after the weekly Sabbath is described as "after the Sabbaths" means Nisan 15 was the first Sabbath.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 1 responds:

False. The Hebrew text preceded the LXX and it was the original waving of the Omer that occurred on the first Sunday after the Seder meal.

REVELATION LAD wrote:
Second, Saber Truth acknowledges the practice of observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16 (which means Nisan 15 was understood as a Sabbah). He has no choice since that is what Josephus records:

SABER TRUTH TIGER 2 responds:

It is irrelevant what day Josephus recorded as the waving of the Omer. Josephus was wrong. The LXX was wrong, most modern Jews are wrong, and the rest (the Karaites) observe Firstfruits on the first Sunday after the Seder meal.

REVELATION LAD wrote:

like the LXX it is recorded history.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 3 responds:

The LXX may be recorded history, but so is the Hebrew text. And the original Hebrew dates back long before the LXX was written. If Moses wrote the Torah, it dates back to the 15th century BCE.

REVELATION LAD wrote:

The "work around" to the recorded history of observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16 (which continues to this day) is claiming the practice was stopped and Firstfruits was being observed correctly at the time of Jesus.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 4 writes:

It doesn’t matter how long the practice of observing Nisan 16 as the Omer dates back to, it is in error to do so. You cite the longevity of the practice as proof of its truth but yet you reject the Good Friday tradition despite its longevity. You are inconsistent how you apply logic.

REVELATION LAD writes:

Even if this assertion is correct, other than a belief the Sadducees followed the correct practice, there is no historical documentation.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 5 responds:

The Hebrew text is a historical document, and it claims the waving of the Omer occurred on the day after the first weekly Sabbath of Passover.

REVELATION LAD writes:
Third, all of the Gospel accounts use both the plural and singular Sabbath. Sometimes the explanation seems to be more than one weekly Sabbath, but most, like Matthew 12 and 28, cannot have this meaning. Hence, most translations simply ignore the plural or in the case of resurrection texts, translate as "first day of the week." The rebuttal to this is if in fact the Sabbath can only mean Saturday (the weekly Sabbath), then the day after the Sabbath (singular) is always Sunday. The "day after the Sabbaths" is unnecessary and confusing since it leads some (like myself) to conclude the plural use of Sabbaths identifies Nisan 15 and the weekly Sabbath, exactly as described in the LXX and in Josephus and practiced to this day in Judaism.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 6 responds:

It may lead someone like you to confusion, but it is unlikely the Jews of that time period were confused. Greek scholars with more Greek expertise than you and I combined believe it can be either singular or plural and still mean one Sabbath.

REVELATION LAD

Fourth, another factor Saber Truth ignores is the dating of the writing of the Gospels. Since he admits the practice of observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16 was in affect sometime after the crucifixion, any Gospel written when the practice was reestablished (remember the LXX written before Christ describes the practice) was essentially misleading their initial audience with respect to their experiences. (For example, if a Christian went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, they would see Nisan 15 as the Sabbath which determined when Firstfruits, the day of the resurrection occurred.) This despite the admitted fact the singular Sabbath would always correctly describe the day.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 7

The gospel writers wrote after an oral tradition that was passed down from about 33 BCE and they dated the crucifixion from the day before the Sabbath. If Nisan 15 was the Sabbath they meant, why didn’t they just say so, you know, call it the day before the annual Sabbath since one would otherwise believe it to be the weekly Sabbath. Calling Nisan 15 a Sabbath when it wasn’t would be anachronistic when the gospel writers wrote their texts. Even Josephus did not call it a Sabbath but referred to it as the day AFTER the first day. The LXX did not call it a Sabbath either but the day AFTER Nisan 15. No one doubts the weekly Sabbath existed at the time of Jesus but it is in doubt Nisan 15 was celebrated as a Sabbath by the Jews during the life of Christ.

REVELATION LAD
Fifth, most accept John was written after the destruction of the Temple and most certainly…

SABER TRUTH TIGER 8

Most certainly?

REVELATION LAD

reflects an understanding of the synagogue/Diaspora observation of Firstfruits.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 9

If Jesus died on Friday, Nisan 14, then what would it matter what day the Pharisees were celebrating in the Diaspora when John wrote his gospel? When he wrote about the Sabbath in John 19 why would someone conclude it can only be Nisan 15? Actually, Nisan 15 fell on the weekly Sabbath the year Jesus died and since he was in the tomb Nisan 15, a Saturday, then both the Pharisee and Sadducee calendars would be in sync. Isn’t it amazing how Yahweh was able to bring it about that all the Jews observed the waving of the Omer on the correct date for both calendars?

REVELATION LAD

Therefore, his position is that the Christian understanding of Firstfruits was not as it was practiced by the Jews in the synagogue (and possibly themselves), and it was not like the LXX (which was the Christian Old Testament) and it was not like Josephus, written in their lifetime. Rather it was what the Sadducees allegedly did. His "proof" is John continued the practice of writing Sabbaths (plural) despite a belief the Sabbath was always and only the weekly Sabbath.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 10

There was more than a weekly Sabbath, there was a holy day Sabbath in the seventh month and tenth day. The early Christian church observed the Sadducean calendar, not the Pharisee calendar. I don’t know if they observed all the annual holidays but it seems from Colossians 2:16 some of them may have.

REVELATION LAD

In addition he ignores how John's use of the plural Sabbath in describing the resurrection would be confusing to a Gentile readers, who only knew the synagogue tradition, and only read the LXX and only had Josephus to rely on.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 11

Prove it would be confusing to Gentile readers. I am a Gentile and even though I can’t prove it is true, it is not confusing to me. I can accept it when a expert in the language tells me plural spelling does not always mean it is plural. If a Greek teenager was a new convert and he wondered why the word for Sabbath was often plural, why couldn’t he understand it when an elder told him that in Palestine sometimes they used the plural spelling for a singular meaning and then showed you a few samples? From the Greek text?

REVELATION LAD

In other words, Gentile Christians understood the resurrection should be remembered as taking place on Nisan 16, the day after the Sabbaths.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 12

The resurrection WAS on Nisan 16, the day after the weekly Sabbath.

REVELATION LAD
This explanation for a hiatus in observing Nisan 16 as Firstfruits is far-fetched in my opinion, especially when the plural is intelligible, reflects what they would see in the synagogue, agrees with the LXX, and agrees with Josephus.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 13

The hiatus for observing Nisan 16 as Firstfruits is not far-fetched in my opinion, so why should your opinion rule over mine? The plural usage for a singular case is accepted by many Greek scholars such as those of the BDAG and Robert Mounce. If you want to ask me a question about such usage, you will be sorely disappointed. I do not know or understand the reason for that usage. But some Greek scholars believe that who can answer your questions.

It is interesting to note that neither the LXX nor Josephus directly claims the first day of Unleavened Bread is a Sabbath. We must deduce this from comparing the Hebrew Bible’s account in Leviticus 23 and that with the Septuagint. The LXX ignored the original language and used a misinterpretation of the Hebrew to arrive at their rendering of “the first day.”

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

The LXX describes the Feast of Unleavened Bread stating there are Sabbaths, plural. It states the


There are significant deficiencies in Saber Truth's position.

First, the oldest historical record describing the practice of observing Firstfruits is found in the LXX. It states the waving of the sheaf (observing Firstfruits) takes place on "the day after the first." It continues by saying the counting of the omer is to begin after the Sabbaths (plural). This describes observing Firstfruits on Nisan 16, "the day after the first" which could mean first day of Unleavened Bread. But counting of the omer which begins after the weekly Sabbath is described as "after the Sabbaths" means Nisan 15 was the first Sabbath.

The LXX mistranslates Leviticus 23:11 from the Hebrew. Get a good copy of an English translation of the LXX and get a good copy of the English translation (like the NASB, KJV, ESV, LSB) and read Leviticus 23 out of both copies, the Hebrew translation on your left hand and the Greek LXX translation on your right. If you want to check out my comments on these, see post # 82 on page 5 of this thread. You will see that the LXX is an unreliable translation of the Hebrew. It is more of a misinterpretation than mistranslation.

 

[Revelation Lad]

The LXX mistranslates Leviticus 23:11 and 15 from the Hebrew. Get a good copy of an English translation of the LXX and get a good copy of the English translation (like the NASB, KJV, ESV, LSB) and read Leviticus 23 out of both copies, the Hebrew translation on your left hand and the Greek LXX translation on your right. If you want to check out my comments on these, see post # 82 on page 5 of this thread. You will see that the LXX is an unreliable translation of the Hebrew. It is more of a misinterpretation than mistranslation.

Here is the pertinent sections of LXX-Leviticus (from the University of Pennsylvania as published by Oxford University Press in 2009):

23:11 καὶ ἀνοίσει τὸ δράγμα ἔναντι κυρίου δεκτὸν ὑμῖν τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πρώτης ἀνοίσει αὐτὸ ὁ ἱερεύς
And he shall raise up the sheaf before the Lord, acceptable for you; on the day after the first the priest shall raise it up.

23:15 καὶ ἀριθμήσετε ὑμεῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπαύριον τῶν σαββάτων ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἂν προσενέγκητε τὸ δράγμα τοῦ ἐπιθέματος ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδας ὁλοκλήρους
And from the day after the Sabbaths, from the day on which you bring the sheaf of the addition, you shall count until the day after the last week, fifty days, and you shall present a new sacrifice to the Lord.

What you say is a mistranslation, is a description of what the people did, exactly as Josephus describes. You can cry all you want that the people were wrong. That does not change recorded history. The LXX states what the people did; Josephus states what the people did; they are still doing it today. The fact you understand their behavior as contradicting Scripture, does not change how they determined it should be applied in their lives.

The reason they did this is they understood Nisan 15 could be considered the Sabbath in Leviticus 23:15, as Josephus shows and as the current practice shows. You can say they were wrong and I understand your position. But being wrong does not permit us to change history, especially when it is confirmed by multiple sources and is still in practice today.