Posted by Daniel on March 15, 1998 at 14:20:42:

In Reply to: Re: Crucifixion/Resurrection to Chris posted by Chris Lingle on March 14, 1998 at 23:07:14:

Chris,

You have a Sabbatical Year Tishri 28 to Tishri 29, correct? Then how do you explain John 4:34, "Yet four months it is, and the havest comes?" And then John 4:43, "And after the two days, he went out from there into Galil ..." And then it mentions the feast, "For they also went to the feast." It could NOT be the day of atonement, because the day of atonement was not a pilgrim festival! Furthermore, the day of atonement was not four months before the harvest. And the day of atonement was not a feast. It was a fast. The Greek "eortn" answers to the Hebrew "chag," not to the Hebrew "moedim" (set time). Only the three pilgrim feasts were called "feasts." The rest were called "Moedim." Finally, if it was the day of atonement and a sabbatical year, there could be no harvest four months hence!
And then Luke 6:1 has an additional problem. For this is in your Sabbatical year, and the word "sporimwv" means "sown fields," "standing grain," The root word means grain that was sown. The LXX uses this word in the sabbatical prohibition, and uses different Greek words for "that which grows of itself." Thereofre Luke 6:1 could not be in a sabbatical year.

: 1st year of John's ministry = Lk.3:1 = Fall 27 CE
: 1st year of Yahushua's ministry = early 28 CE
: John 2:13 = Purim 28 CE
: John 3:24 = Pentecost 28 CE
: John 4:45 = Atonement 28 CE
: John 5 = Tabernacles 28 CE
: Mt.5:14 = Chanukkah 28 CE
: Mt. 6:39 = around Purim 29 CE
: Lk. 6:1, John 6 = Immediately after Passover 29 CE
: John 8 = Sukkot/LGD 29 CE
: Lk. 13:1-9 = Winter/Spring of 30 CE
: John 11:55 = Passover 30 CE

: Accordingly, I have Yahushua's ministry at around 2 1/4 years versus your 4 3/4 years.

2 1/4 years does not fit Luke 13:1-9.

"All you have to do is count from 37-36 BCE to Herod's 18th year which brings you to 19-18 BCE as per Josephus' text. The 46th year locks with 28 CE. You need to artificially drop 1.5 years from the count which in effect makes you add these years. Highly unnatural yourself don't you think?"

Herod was in complete disrepute among the people, and publically in disrepute after his death in 1 b.c.e. Therefore, his contribution to the project is minimized. Also, Herod proposed the project in his 18th year, but he did not lay a single brick or take out an old one until all the needed material had been assembled, and all the workers hired and trained. In those days, getting the material to the site took longer than the actual building project, which is said to have taken 1.5 years. I allowed only six months for getting the project ready, but if I assumed it took two years, you could have nothing against that either. In the construction buisiness, we don't build anything until the material is at the site. Transportation is not building. Herod had a "thousand waggons," and "ten thousand workmen," and did not begin to "build" (Jos. Ant. xv.xi.ii) "until everything was well prepared for the work."

"Luke 4:16-18 fits 28 CE astronmically on Atonement - a weekly sabbath that year and a sabbath year"

But this does not fit Luke 6:1.

"Atonement of 28 was a Sabbath year so this does fit."

The Sabbath year was 25/26, and the jubilee 26/27

"Luke 6:1 fits 29 CE as there is back to back Passover Systems with a conflagrance about picking barley. I mention this one on my web site somewhere."

I read this theory on Trimm's site. It requires the 14th to be a feast Sabbath, and says that the "second first" sabbath was the 15th, so that they ate the grain on Sunday before the 16th of Aviv. This requires you to put the 15th on Sunday on 29 c.e. But the astronomical chances of that are just as slim as the 15th being on a Friday in 30 c.e.
Finally, the theory that the 14th was a feast Sabbath (=first day of unleavened bread) is untenable. For then there would be eight legal days of unleavened bread, not seven. Marlin is right, the second sabbath after the first is the weekly sabbath of Passover week, and this was in 31 c.e. Thus Luke 6:1 refutes the Sadducean Pentecost.

"Yes, and as Herman Hoeh put it - Clover nails it. I think his work on this was outstanding. "

Clover thinks that Aviv begins the year. He is incorrect. Aviv begins the months (Exo. 12:1-3), but the 7th month begins the year (Eze. 40:1). It is the "going forth" of the year. And Aviv is the "turn of the year." This arrangement was to rule out the use of the second Ellul, which the Babylonians were so fond of. Numbering from the spring forces intercalculation to take place in the spring. When the second Ellul was used, it was not called "the seventh month."

E: 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

As you can see, in the Ellul II system, the 7th month is really the eighth month (remember Jeroboam?) Try to number Ellul II as 7? You only end up back with the Adar II system.

The year is lunar, so that the "going forth" and "turn" of the year occur with the seventh and first months. This is why the feast of trumpets is also called Rosh Hashana. The new moon day for Aviv, on the other hand, is marked by no solemnities any different than the other new moons.
The other mistake Clover makes is trusting Thiele's chronology of the kings. The fall of Israel was in 719 b.c.e., which was the 6th year of Hezekiah, and the nineth year of Hoshea. The 15th year of Hezekiah was on a Tisrhi basis (as are all the kings) 711/710 b.c.e., which is equal to the sabbatical year.

"You know full well that I did not depart from normal language and history with regard to sabbaton. This word can and does mean sabbaths"

So, then if you adopt the meaning of "sabbath," for it, which is the normal meaning, then how do you deal with "first of the sabbaths"?

"You are dead wrong about Hebrew Matthew.
: You are not aware of Textual Criticism much are you. Hebrew Matthew has been demonstrated in dozens of places to have more viability than the Greek. For instance, how did the Name get into an antithetical treatise preserved by the Jews!? There are many ways to demonstrate that our present Hebrew Matthew is a direct descendent from the original. Collation happened in all of our texts between the 2nd and 5th centuries so a superioir text must be identified on a reading per reading basis. Your blanket dismissal of Hebrew Matthew is, I assure you, unwarranted."

So, because it has the name, it is more accurate than the Greek? You may not be aware of this, but the early Greek Papyri we have do not contain "insous," "kurios," "xristos," "theos," "pveuma" "patnr" or "uios" when refering to deity. They use a device called "nomina sacra," which C.H. Roberts almost succeed in explaining. If you recall that the tetragrammaton was copied into Greek MSS of the LXX, then you will have a good clue as to why the MSS use the coded abbreviations with the suprascripted line: it was so the reader to substitute the proper Hebrew pronunciation when he came to those symbols in the text.

"No one is dismissing anything here but you. Am I to take it that you disagree with Clover's work on the Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle?"

Most definitely. I also disagree with Clover's other work. It echo's the cultic belief of many in the sacred name movement that believe one must say the full name properly in order to be saved. It is ironic that such a notion is a Greek concept of "name", and not what the Hebrews meant. Those who depend on saying his name a certain way are missing the boat. Yahweh's name is "keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression and sin ..." (Ex. 34:7). His name means his reputation.
Since Clover holds out no hope for the Gentiles who invoke the name "Jesus Christ," yet who understand his forgiveness, I can only conclude that he belongs to a cult. If I am mistaken, then you can please point to something he wrote that shows I am misunderstanding him. Until then, this is my position.
It is a mitzvot to use the name properly, but salvation does not depend on such knowledge.

"Several of my maps show the location of Emmaus and the text in Luke gives its distance from Jerusalem. I would say that you are just a wishful thinker on this one."

Maybe I just need to think your way. Let's say those two men lost faith (seems like they could have), and decided to dump torah (or what they thought torah was) in their unbelief. So out goes the Sabbath limit. Then Yayshua comes along to rescue them and redeem them -- a work of mercy permitted on the Sabbath. For if a donkey falls into a pit will you not rescue it. But if your disciples fall into a pit, will you not rescue them?
What do you say?

"I just can't see how you justify your math! 30th year from 3 BCE brings you to 27 CE!"

I suppose that you subtracted 3 from 30 to get 27? That's not how it works. A child is not one year old until the end of the first year. And there is no year zero. So you made a two year error: 27+2 = 29.

Tishri 3 - Tishri 2 = first 12 months, age is counted by months.
Tishri 2 - Tishri 1 = first year
Tishri 1 b.c.e. - Tishri 1 c.e. = second year
Tishri 1 c.e. - Tishri 2 c.e. = third year
... ... ...
Tishri 28 c.e. - Tishri 29 c.e. = 30th year.

"Man, I give a very brief but a way better theory of Daniel 9/11Q Melchisedec in my paper then you have which arrives at 30 Ce quite naturally unlike your manufactured conclusion to 34"

Exactly what does 11Q Melchisedic prove? The 20th year of Artaxerxes is Nisan 1 445 to Nisan 1 444 according to normal Persian reckoning, and is confirmed by cuniform documents linked to multiple astronomical synchronisms. The scholarly work recogized the world over on this was done by Richard A. Parker, and Duberstein. Starting with Tishri 445, exaclty 69 sabbatical years take us to the 69th sabbatical year of 32/33.
No fudging the data. No coregency alchemy. And we even have Nehemiah's remonstrating with the nobles to cancel all debts at the start of the sabbatical year to confirm that it was a sabbatical year. Furthermore, no less than E.W. Bullinger proved (and a host of other scholars) that Ezra comes after Nehemiah. This must be put in the 7th year of Artaxerxes II, which I put on a Tishri basis (actually Nehemiah did the same the 20th year), so that the reading of the law occurs in the sabbatical year also.

"I have and I have worked with it some. The Elephantine material is Babylonian in nature and not Biblical."

It's Tisrhi epoch for kings is certainly biblical. That I can prove from scripture.

"Is this so? Wow, Rohl has a great argument in general. Where is this error?"

His Ugarit Eclipse 9th May, 1012 b.c.e at 6:09 fails to compute delta T. Result. Said eclipse was invisible at the location in question. Rohl made the mistake of adopting the conventional chronology of liberal biblical scholars, just like Clover did. Rohl's archealogy is valid. His rejection of the sothic date is not. It fits exactly into my chronology. There is no need to abandon or shorten the traditional Egyptian chronology of the middle and early new kingdoms.

"Emmaeus and Bikkurim have hurt your argument."

Is that all? When firstfruits is reckoned according to the common day, the resurrection does fall on it: viz. Frid sunrise to Sab sunrise.

"Seems like you have been somewhat influenced by Peter Michas"

Not at all. Met him though. Tried to teach people that the proper Greek for the first day was "kuriakn." Michas does know that "mia ton sabbatwn" is an obvious reference to the Sabbath though. But I figured it out just by studying the Greek.

Shalom,

Daniel

• Sabbath Resurrection HTML under construction