Posted by RudPersson on Sun - Jun 15 - 5:29pm:
Run Persson said: Underlying the view that Jesus died on a Thursday and rose on a Sunday - also the view that he died on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday - is the taking of the plural form of the word sabbath in texts like Matthew 28:1 quite literally, claiming that actually two sabbaths passed beteen the death of our Lord and his resurrection. It is stressed that the text should read "After the sabbaths" in Matthew 28:1 rather than "after the sabbath" as the overwhelming majority of Bible translations read. The plural form of the word sabbath at Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1 and John 20:1,19 is also referred to by some. It is then claimed that one of the sabbaths was the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, Nisan 15, while the other sabbath was the regular seventh day sabbath.
Rud,
Malik responds: While the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, Nisan 15 may be claimed by some that day and that first meal was now past. Time does not move backwards to now include it. This was preparation, the second preparation that took place during this Passover (also called the feast of unleavened bread). This day of preparation would make the unleavened bread used on that mandated 7 th holy day from new grain as this was the beginning of the feast of weeks as well. So when John wrote these words such a claim was no longer possible. John 19:31 when placed on a calendar of that month this verse shows that it was the 7 th day of that Passover feast that combined with a weekly Sabbath on that year. "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." When such a 7 day feast begins on a Saturday or weekly Sabbath the way it did that year we have a Sabbath of only 24 hours. But then the 7 th day of that feast will always produce such Friday and Saturday combinations at the end of it of for a 48 hour duration. This is inevitable and common to other feasts as well. So John was correct in saying of this longer duration that it was a great Sabbath and he expected us to understand its meaning. Other combinations of Sabbaths are also possible for similar reasons and all of them should be tried and fitted to the texts involved. Claiming it was Nisan 15 means nothing in this such a discussion.
Rud said: This view fails to take into account that (1) the plural form of the Greek word for "sabbath" must often be understood in a singular sense and also may mean "week" and (2) that a festival day on which no laborious work was permitted was never called "sabbath" in the OT or in the rabbinic writings, where other terms were used.
Malik responds: Sabbaths can indeed mean other things in other cases of longer duration but we are not talking about them here. However saying that a festival day was never called "sabbath" is simply false as it was done in this case and many times by other authors as well. Your comments simply deny what anyone can see for themselves. We have such confirmation from Matthew and others as well. The very Law you refer to allowed for the preparation of food on such a sabbaths so such activity does not constitute proof or alter such facts presented to us in scripture as it takes precedence over your opinion and weekly sabbath law as well.
Rud Persson said: As to the first issue, the translation of Robert Young is frequently appealed to. At Matthew 28:1 it says: "AND on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre."
If the plural "sabbaths" here, used twice, is to be taken at absolute face value we will get a very strange sense indeed!
Malik responds: This comment made it clear that it was now the first of the week and stressed this point as if to emphasize it Do we see this done in the other accounts of it as well? No! Then there is nothing strange here other than your denial and attempts to discredit this text. If we turn to Mark we see this recorded like this: Mark 16: 1 And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him, 2 and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun, In this verse sabbaths plural is mentioned only once. Since that second sabbath was a weekly one, the exact one "having past" the sabbath for the feast was not taken into consideration until the second verse where it was now included. You can do this either way as such context shows but two sabbath days are still meant.
Rud Persson said: But fortunately we should not. "Sabbaths" frequently means just "sabbath", and sometimes, as in the second instance, it means "week". As to the singular meaning of "sabbaths" it is helpful to note that the LXX, the Greek pre-Christian translation of the OT, used the plural form with singular meaning again and again and again. It was so used even in the central text of Ex. 20:10. Strictly literally the LXX here reads "On the seventh day is the SABBATHS of the Lord your God". (Emphasis added) Undisputable evidence that "sabbaths" may mean just "sabbath"!
Malik responds: But it does not say that in the Hebrew texts does it? And since the numbering system used for the LXX you refer to does not match the one I have we do not even know what the verse is all about do we? This is the problem with translations. I would expect the word Sabbaths to be plural in some cases but not in all cases since such things happened. This is the very thing we are discussing. Is it plural in all cases? If not then your evidence is not undisputable and that text may mean just what it says at that particular time. Your confirmation should have been taken from the Hebrew text and not a translation of it anyway if it is to be taken as undisputable evidence. We had a discussion on the LXX here some time ago. It was about when it was compiled. While some Hebrew texts existed in Greek at the time of our Lord evidence was presented that the LXX did not so you cannot even provide evidence that any of the disciples actually read from the manuscripts versions you offer, but that is another matter. You can Google it for yourself..
Rud Persson said: The same is true in the NT. With the logic of the literal translation of Matthew 28:1 etc. Matthew 12:1 could then be rendered "At that time Jesus went trough the grainfields on the SABBATHS; his disciples were hungry" (emphasis added) Mark 3:2 could then equally properly be rendered: "They watched him to see whether he would cure him on the SABBATHS, so that they might accuse him." (Emphasis added) We could then also treat the plural at Mark 2:23; Luke 4:16; 13:10; Acts 13:14; 16:13 and other texts in exactly the same way. Nobody has ever been tempted to do just that. And therefore the plural in texts like Matthew 28;1 should not be taken that way either. The singular is used in Greek at Mark 16:1, so in the parallel text of Matthew 28:1 the first plural should also be taken as singular in meaning.
Malik responds: Somebody did make such an attempt. The reality of plural Sabbaths is found in such texts and yet it is denied. This is what I have been saying all along. The evidence is right there in front of you in plain sight but no one believes it.
Rud Persson said: The second plural in that text means "week", and that is the sense also in Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1 and John 20:1,19. Robert Young himself understood all these texts that way, as can be seen in his CONCISE COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY BIBLE from the early 1890 ยด s. A text like Luke 18:12 is crucial here. "I fast twice a week" - which all translations say - could in fact be rendered "I fast twice a sabbath" if the meaning "week" was not obvious here. Not even Young and not even Ferrar Fenton used the word "sabbath" in this text!
Malik responds: Sabbath is singular here and no one is denying that this word can be used in this way. Such use does not alter other verses where it appears. Since it literally says I fast twice a sabbath how do you know it does not really mean that? Missing two meals on that day would be a reasonable assumption as well. Is it any wonder that to deny the reality of Mark 16:2 that you must run all over the bible where other matters are being discussed looking for evidence to the contrary? Word matches are not proof and often distort the meaning of texts.
Rud Persson said: So the common Bible translations have not fiddled with Matthew 28:1 and related texts. Only one sabbath is in view and then the first day of the week, Sunday, is also in view.
This means that Matthew 28:1 and related texts cannot be used to change the traditional view about Good Friday, nor can it be used to replace the Sunday resurrection with a Saturday resurrection.
Malik responds: Common Bible translations have fiddled with Matthew 28:1 and similar verses and now everyone can see it for themselves. They do this with other verses as well which is why we have so many. The traditional view? Is that your proof?
Rud Persson said: In addition, there is no legitimate way of counting Nisan 15 as one of two alleged "sabbaths" between crucifixion and resurrection. The Scriptures differentiate between sabbaths and festival days in no uncertain terms, even though a number of festival-days had some characteristics of the sabbaths. Lev. 23:37,38 is to the point:
Malik responds: There is no legitimate way of counting Nisan 15 as one of the two alleged "sabbaths" between crucifiction and resurrection. This is indeed true and I am not doing that. I am counting Nisan 21 and the weekly Sabbath of Nisan 22 which is legitimate. On Sunday afternoon we have: Luke 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. So today is the third day of this death by crucifiction. Count back now three days from this statement on Sunday afternoon. Saturday afternoon is one day. Friday afternoon is two days. Thursday afternoon is the third day which was Nisan 20 and a day of preparation for the seventh day of the feast of Nisan 21, Friday that year. They normally counted days from evening to evening anyway but the starting time in this verse was specific so this is not unusual. You have known this for over 25 years now and took me to task over it as and we covered this on Channel C already.
Rud Persoon said: "These are the appointed festivals of the LORD, which you shall celebrate as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD offerings by fire - burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day - apart from the sabbaths of the LORD". (NRSV)
Malik responds: They are indeed apart from the sabbaths and this gives them precedence over them when they occur at the same time. So what is your point? How does this alter Matthew 28:1 or Mark, or John? What it does do is verify that such festivals at times not only override but also extend such sabbaths of the LORD.
1 Chron. 23:31 is another clear example: "whenever burnt offerings are offered to the LORD on sabbaths, new moons, and appointed festivals, according to the number required of them". (NRSV)
Malik responds: More than one new moon and festival is being discussed here and for this reason sabbaths is plural. Such use is expected and has nothing in common with the verses under discussion.
Rud Persson said: The same difference is made in 2 Chron. 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Neh. 10:31,33; Is. 1:13; Lam. 2:6; Hos. 2:11 and also Col. 2:16.
Rud Persson said: Too, there is a whole Tractate in the Mishnah dealing with "Festival Days", called Yom Tob or Betzah. It never calls any of the festival days "sabbath". There is also a whole Tractate covering the Sabbath, and it never applies the word "sabbath" to any festival day.
Rud Persson said: There were substantial differences, accounting for this. It was allowed to prepare meals on the festival days, except the Day of Atonement, and no death penalty for working was mentioned or applied concerning most of the festival days. Working on the sabbath meant the death penalty. Working on, say Nisan 15, meant 40 stripes save one. (Maimonides)
Malik responds: This is more of the same reasoning, non of which applies to the subject under discussion. Then once again:
Rud Persson said: There has been assertions to the effect that the festival days were real sabbaths, also in name, but proof has never come forth. That is not surprising. The evidence is to the contrary.
Malik responds: The evidence is simply denied as shown in this discussion. Such feast days were not only Sabbaths but they had precedence over such weekly Sabbath days as they were apart from them.
Rud said: There will be one more post on "the great sabbath" addressing objections, but after that I will concentrate on writing. There is a lot of writing to be done, so discussions here must end, othewise very little will come off my hands.
Malik responds: I look forward to it Rud.
Joseph
