note50

Shalom Bruce,

It is always a challenge to discuss Biblical Chronology. Thank's for the reply.

"First problem: the suggestion that Jesus rose on a Sabbath day. Luke tells us that the women did NOT come to the tomb but RESTED on the Sabbath day, in obedience to the command (23:56). But how could they then turn around and come on a Sabbath day! (Actually, under this construction they could have come on the non-Sabbath [Friday] that intervened.)"

The word "Sabbath" in the Greek language "sabbaton" represents two possible Hebrew words, Shabbat, and Shabbaton. You can see this in Lev. 23:32, where the LXX translates the Hebrew "Shabbat Shabbaton" as "Sabbata Sabbaton," (A Sabbath of sabbatical rest) and Lev. 23:3, where the same words are rendered "Sabbata anapausis" (A Sabbath of Rest). In fact, the Greek "sabbatwn" sounds like the Hebrew "Shabbaton" (sabbatical rest), which is used for the feast days -- as well as the weekly Sabbath. On the other hand, the word Shabbat is confined to usage for the Sabbath with two exceptions (Lev. 23:11 -- the Sabbath (i.e. the Passover Feast Day) and Lev. 23:32 --your Sabbath (i.e. the Day of Atonement).
Thus using the LXX (Septuagint) as our precedent, we can see that "Sabbatwn" can be either a feast day or a weekly Sabbath. Now Luke 23:56, in Greek, is a typical men ... de construction, and so should go with Luke 24:1: Here is how it translates:

And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, but [the] Shabbaton (solenm rest) they rested according to the commandment (Lev. 23:7); yet on the first of the Sabbaths, at deep dawn, upon the tomb they came ..."

     In the first case, the Sabbaton is the feast day, and the commandment is in Lev. 23:7. In the second case, the Sabbaton is the weekly Sabbath (the first one after Passover; cf. Lev. 23:15-16, KJV). The men...de construction is usually contrastive. Luke is pointing out that they had reason not to strictly rest on the weekly Sabbath. The reason for this is that that weekly Sabbath was the third day. There are two reasons why they might go to the tomb on the third day. (1) According to tradition, this is when the soul departs, and it was traditional to make the last visit on this day --- even if other visits had been made. Even anointing was allowed (Tractate: Shabbat 23a) on the Sabbath. (2) Yayshua had predicted his resurrection on this day, and though we are not told that this was "a" reason the women went to the tomb, niether are we told it wasn't in the back of their mind influencing them to take one last look.
      It is quite true that they could have come on Friday also. Graham Scroggie suggests that this was the day that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus wrapped the body with additional spices. The women may also have gone at that time. Certainly, they at least "bought' the spices on that day --- between the two Rest Days.
     So to conclude my answer on this. (1) The day refers to a feast day -- a rest day, and (2) there is a commandment to rest on that day, which is not the fourth commandment (3) Luke, Like Matthew and Mark, is careful to contrast the two days, and what happened with respect to each.

"Second problem: your suggestion about the "first (day) of the Sabbaths" meaning the first of the seven Sabbaths preceding Pentecost. First, I can find NO example of this way of referring to these days in this way. Can you give ONE text in which there is any reference to the "second (day) of the Sabbaths" (or "third," etc.)"

     There is a commandment to count the Sabbaths between the Passover and Pentecost (see Lev. 23:15-16, KJV), which was literally kept by the Jews up to the time of the common era. Since the usual phrase for the Sabbath is hmera twn sabbatwn (day of the sabbaths), the way you would count them in Greek is simply by prefixing the appropriate number onto the idiom --- and dropping the word day, as illustrated in the various idioms for the "first [day] of unleavened bread". When one goes about translating a phrase in Greek, one does not look for the same phrase elsewhere. What one does is translate the literal meaning of each word, and then determine the sense in the context for the whole phrase that comes from the individual words. The reason translators do not look for the same phrases elswhere is that the occurance -- or non occurance of those exact words elsewhere is of no relevance. Only the sense made by the words in the phrase is of relevance. You can find hundreds of phrases in the Bible which occur only once.
     Now the phrase in question here occurs 8 times in the New Testament, and always in context between the Passover and Pentecost, which is a strong contexual hint that the seven sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost are being counted (Lev. 23:15-16). These 8 pasages are the examples of such counting. Unfortunately, the Church prefers to suppress the presence of the Sabbath under the non-literal translation "week" (a meaning which has been questioned by scholars; cf Anchor Bible, Mt. 28:1), and which is contradicted by at least one Greek Church Father (John Crystostom) who argued that the texts were changed from "Lord's Day" to "first of the sabbaths."
      There is a reference to the seventh Sabbath in Lev. 23:16, and a reference to the "second-first" Sabbath in Luke 6:1, called the Sabbath in Mt. 12.

"Second, the identical expression occurs is in Acts 20:7. In that passage the usual translation "first day of the week" works just fine. But, according to the previous verse this meeting in Troas took place at least 12 days AFTER the
Feast of Unleavened Bread, making your translation impossible. (You do mention this verse as supporting your view, but it specifically dates the event too late to be on the first Sabbath between Passover and Pentecost!)"

I have explained this verse many times. I didn't mention it, because I like to start with literal and simple matters and simple texts. I started out explaining the mistranslation of the resurrection passages. Acts 20:7, is likewise a mistranslation --- with a few complicated twists in Greek, and some needed background on Jewish customs. First I will quote from John Calvin, to show that he took it even more literally than I do, and still ended up with the Sabbath day. I translate mia as first. He translates it "one.":

[This] means either the first day of the week, the day after the sabbath, or one particular sabbath [emphasis mine], and the latter would seem to me more likely for this reason, that according to custom that day was most suitable for holding a meeting (Calvin's Commentaries, Acts 20:7).

Calvin continues,

For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place (ibid).

In his commentary on John 20:1, he comments,

On the first day of the week; or literally, on the first day of the Sabbaths. The Evangelists do not relate when or how Christ rose; for it was enough for them to explain at what time, and to what persons, His Resurrection was made known. John therefore says, that Mary came on the first day of the Sabbaths. Literally the words may be rendered, on one (mia) day of the Sabbaths; but it is customary with the Hebrews to use the word (dxaXe) one, instead of first because in reckoning we begin with one.

     So, even if I went with Calvin's more literal translation, the resurrection would still be on the Sabbath --- only now it would be "a Sabbath." There is another possibility: it could be "one of the sabbaths" (i.e. any one of the seven sabbaths -- in this case the third one. It could also be the Sadducees "first of the Sabbaths," which would be a week after the Pharisees. However, I support none of these positions. I consider one of the following the likely truth.
        (1) By meta taV hmeraV twn azumwn Luke means "into the midst of the days of unleavened bread" and we should go with the received text at the end of vs. 6, i.e. ou instead of opou, and revese the accents so that the passage reads, "we did not take up seven days," to indicate that all of their traveling was on the intermediate days of the feast.
        (2) Or instead of trans. "into the midst," trans. "after the days of unleavened bread" and take "days of unleavened bread" as the traditional doubled holyday of the dispersion, i.e. "days" plural means the two Seder days, not the whole feast. (This view also requires us to go with the received text and take ou as a negative.)
        I should mention that the astronomy for 57 c.e. fits with either 1 or 2. There were five intermediate days between Passover and the first of the Sabbaths in that year. Personally, I favor option #1, because the basic meaning meta of is "midst" unless the context contradicts such a notion.
       In concluding, there are five choices, all of which are more literal than "first day of the week" on Acts 20:7, and all of which have it as the Sabbath.

      "In both the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament the singular and plural forms of this word are often
interchanged--"the day of the Sabbath" and "the day of the 'Sabbaths'" have the same meaning. (In fact, parallel
passages in the Gospels vary the form. [I'll list some references if you would like.])

I find that the plural always makes plural sense, and the singular singular sense. Singular and plural are not interchangeable in meaning. In many contexts, they are functionally equivalent. For example, "day of the sabbaths," refers to the seventh days because there are many seventh days, i.e. the seventh days -- the day of the sabbaths. But day of the sabbath only views one seventh day. Both mean the sabbath. The plural and singular just go about pointing this out in different ways. In the resurrection pasages, the plural comes out "first sabbaths day" (i.e. the first of the seventh days after Passover).
On the other hand, Mt. 28:1 "On the Latter of the Sabbaths ..." must refer to two Sabbaths. My point. The plural is never of no significance.

"This is also true when the word "Sabbath" is used as "week," and so we find the "first (day) of the week ['Sabbath']" with the singular form in 1 Cor.16:1."

There is a textual difference on this vs. Many MSS read the plural. But again we are between Passover and Pentecost. Only I would render it "Each one of the sabbaths," (i.e. each of the seven Sabbaths).

"Finally, the translation "on the latter of the Sabbaths" in Matthew 28:1. The one thing that makes it plausible is the plural form "Sabbaths." But, as you have already noted yourself, the Greek frequently uses the plural form to indicate ONE Sabbath day. So the translation "after the Sabbath [singular]" is perfectly consistent with the usual Greek idiom."

I said when it does so to indicate "one sabbath" that the plural still has plural meaning --- see above. In any case, the bigger problem is the translation "after," which is not literal, and which translation has resulted in widespread controversy among scholars. The word means "Later," in the sense of "latter of these," vs. "former of these." About this, there is no controversy. They just don't want to apply it here.

"I conclude that the women did NOT come on the Sabbath, but after it--on the day of the resurrection, the FIRST day of the week. The uses of the plural form in idioms about ONE Sabbath or week, and especially Acts 20:7 remove any need to argue for more than one Sabbath during the week of Jesus' death. (And frankly, if for some reason we decide there were two Sabbaths, the Thursday-death, Sunday resurrection theory avoids more of the problems.)

The literal translations say they did come on the Sabbath. I have explained Acts 20:7 (five ways), and your objections from Luke 23:56. I have shown that the notion that plural and singular mean the same thing is a falacious theory -- and even if they did, it would not damage the Sabbath Resurrection, because the word used is the word for "Sabbath," whether it refer to one or more than one.
The Thursday-Sunday view's biggest problem is that it does not take the passages literally, "first day of the Sabbaths." Whatever other view you wish to believe, there is nothing to contradict this literal approach, and so it deserves consideration as a valid viewpoint.

"Others in this debate can inform you I am not at all convinced by the attempts to precisely date Jesus' death from the prophecy of Daniel 9 [just check The decree of Daniel 9:25 and the discussion that followed]. I don't believe the
prophecy was ever intended for that purpose . And I cannot escape the evidence of that context, Isaiah 45, Jeremiah
and 2 Chron 29 that the decree in view is Cyrus's decree ca. 537 B.C., which began the restoration. (BTW, I'm
always curious with things like this. You claim that Jesus was born on the Feast of Trumpets. If this is so [I do not
deny the possiblity] and had some sort of prophetic significance why doesn't the N.T. make any point of it?)

The Cyrus problem is easily resovled on two points. First it is a throne name, not a personal name (co-nomen, surname) -- see Baumgartner. Second Cyrus is prophesied to conquer Egypt. Cyrus the Great did not do that. Cambyses did it --- which illustrates that it was a throne name, not a personal name --- ergo, we don't have to adopt 537 b.c.e.
There are a lot of prophetic things that the N.T. does not make a point of, Like the trimphal entry on Nisan 10, which was the day the lamb were officially selected and set appart --- so the lamb of God was presenting himself to the people officially for the sacrifice.

Daniel

Home Page -Under Construction