spin

KB, your last statement

Hi Sheshbazzar, you really shouldn't drink when you post. It's unbecoming. KB

is a breach of the forum rules, as it is an insult to another forum member.

spin

They probably weren't.

First, we have to establish when the day begins and Mk 16:2 tells us that the first day of the week began in the morning, so the day in Mk goes from morning to morning, the Roman concept of the day. This means that in Mk 15:42 the evening is that of the (day of) preparation, the day before the sabbath, ie "Friday" (for linguistic convenience--the only named day at the time was the sabbath). Josephus talks of the "day of preparation", παρασκευη, as related to the sabbath in AJ 16.163 (16.6.2) with a discussion that leads to the παρασκευη being the day before the sabbath. Hence Mk 15:42's προσαββατον.

Mt 27:62 tells us that the next day after the death of Jesus was the day after the day of preparation: the next day was the sabbath, so the death was Friday.

Lk 23:54, using the Jewish concept of the day, tells us regarding the burial that it was the day of preparation and the sabbath was beginning, ie Jesus died on Friday.

Jn 19:31 indicates that as it was the day of preparation, the Jews didn't want to leave the body up on the sabbath, ie Jesus died on Friday. Incidentally, this particular sabbath was special as it occurred on the passover. The text is clear however, that this was still a sabbath in the normal sense of the seventh day, so the day of preparation for the passover (Jn 19:14) coincided with the normal day of preparation, just as this sabbath coincided with the passover.

The synoptic gospels indicate that the last supper was in fact the passover meal (Mk 14:14-25), the first day of unleavened bread, so the passover was over when Jesus was crucified, which would be 15 Nisan. This means that Jn tells a different story from the synoptics regarding the death of Jesus in relation to the passover for the passover was yet to be eaten.

Ken Brown

Hi Spin, it's obvious we have some disagreements. Concerning Mark 16:2 and Mark 15:42, haven't you ever heard of the phrase, "between the evenings." You have an evening of the ending day, and an evening of the beginning day. Why would Mark, a Jew, write from a Jewish perspective in Mark 15, and then as you say, change over to a Roman perspective. I don't think you can spin it that way with rational and free thought.

It's good that you recognize there can be a preparation day for the weekly Sabbath, and a Feast day Sabbath. Obviously, the preparation day for the weekly Sabbath falls on Friday, but the preparation day for a Feast Sabbath can fall on any day of the week. There is nothing in the historical account that indicates the Feast Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath fell on the same day. In fact, it can be conclusively proven that they didn't.

I have a question for you that might help clarify what really happened. There were several women who followed Yeshua from Galilee, and they were at the tomb as the stone was rolled over it's entrance. Can you explain to me WHEN do the Scriptures say that they bought the ingredients and prepared the burial perfumes for anointing Yeshua's dead body? KB

Robert Tulip

Robert M Price has a superb long essay that helps illustrate this problem of how Christianity developed without Jesus. It is well worth reading to inform yourself about the use of midrash.

New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash is available free online at http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

It goes systematically through the New Testament to illustrate how nearly all of the ideas in the Jesus story copy similar stories in the Old Testament. It seems the Gospel authors were so familiar with their scriptures that they used them as their main imaginative source.

Price does a great job of showing how the Gospel authors used the Old Testament. However, this book does not touch on the question why the Jesus story was constructed in this way. To answer that, the themes of cosmology and politics have to be explored.

My experience is that Christians are simply unable to even discuss these big issues because they present too difficult a set of problems in exploring the origins of their faith. If we want to know why the authors bothered to go to such lengths to reconstruct all the Old Testament stories in a recent past, we have to understand both their political agenda of spiritual subversion, and their cosmic agenda of explaining how the imagined messiah reflected on earth the observed movements of the stars seen in precession.

stephan huller

No, the obvious answer is simply that - that's the way that Jewish people write. Have you ever read a 'historical' narrative in the rabbinic literature. It's like one of those modern musicals where all the characters are singing songs written in other contexts. In this case though, the lyrics are Jewish scripture. It's funny how you try and find a context for the nonsense you promote. If there is a context it has nothing to do with Christianity, which explains why I presume, you are consistently not interested in talking about earliest Christianity. Your interest and the interest of your ilk is merely to use the dying carcass of Christianity as a launching pad to reintroduce pagan myths. Good luck with that at this forum.

spin

As you either didn't read or take in what I said on the issue, I'll wait till you do.

You didn't need to reiterate what I'd basically already said.

Here you did not read what I said.

According to Leviticus there is no feast sabbath (other than the feast that falls on the sabbath). This should be clear to you from the separation of feast days and sabbaths (Lam 2:6), feasts, new moons and sabbaths (1 Chr 23:31), etc. The day of atonement, Lev 16:31 calls a sabbath sabbaton, ie a sabbath observance, requiring the same observance as a sabbath. This is also the case for the first and eighth days of Sukkot. It is not the case for other holy days. Passover is neither a sabbath (nor a sabbath observation), unless, of course, it falls on the sabbath.

As you haven't responded to almost anything in my post, perhaps you should do so, before asking questions you'd like answered. (But here's a hint: I've indirectly answered the question already.)

Ken Brown

Hi Spin, I thought I was doing pretty good in responding to what you write.

I very clearly pointed out that Mark would not have been referencing the days of the week starting in the morning and going to the next morning for a full day. Mark 15:42 and Mark 16:2 does not indicate that. If Mark was indicating that the 1st day of the week started at sunrise, then that would mean the Sabbath ended at sunrise, and in the verse prior, Mark states that after the Sabbath, the women purchased the ingredients. So you have to ask yourself, did the women go and purchase the ingredients on their way to the tomb, early, the 1st day of the week? Obviously, someone has steered you in the wrong direction for how you are viewing this.

Here again Spin, it appears someone is steering you in the wrong direction, for during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, there are TWO days within the Feast that are Sabbaths...the 1st day (15th of Nissan), and the 7th day (21st of Nissan), but don't take my word for it, just read Leviticus 23:5-8:

So you really need to start completely over and adjust your thinking to what is written in the Scriptures. The evening which followed Yeshua's death started the High Sabbath for the 1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and that evening was on what we call Wednesday.

Now, since that is cleared up, I would really appreciate if you would directly answer my question that you said you indirectly already answered:

Thanks, KB.

spin

Sabbath ends; women get spices from agora very early; go to tomb when the sun had risen.

:deadhorse:

For some reason you just don't seem to be reading the text. Why is that? Is it because you are too busy assuming the text contains what you want it to contain rather than what is there? (So that you know, these are rhetorical questions.) Go back and look for the sabbath again. Isn't it strange there are none there? (Another rhetorical question.)

:hysterical:

My response hasn't changed. Why don't you answer the question yourself, seeing as the sabbath was over (16:1) and at the earliest (πρωι) on the first of the week they came, which was when the sun rose (16:2). You'd think the Lucan writer had heard your confusion and rewrote the text so the women prepared the spices on the day of preparation (23:56), rather than buying them early on Sunday morning.

Mt 28:1 simplifies the issue: "at the end (οψε) of the sabbath, as the first of the week was dawning [they] went to the tomb." This οψε is at the other end of the day from πρωι. It is where the day ends, ie with the dawning of the new day. The day goes from πρωι to οψε. Is there any way you can mangle this brief text to give you the hope of starting the day in the evening? (It's rhetorical.)

Back to Luke 23:54, "And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning to dawn (επεφωσκεν)." The sabbath came at dawn, didn't it? You don't need to confirm. You need to find some desperate excuse not to read what it says. Of course, before the sabbath actually dawned they prepared the spices.

And in Acts 4:3 when they arrested Peter and John and "put them in prison until the next day, as it was now evening", when did the next day start? Obviously with the daylight hours.

Robert Tulip

You are such a card Stephan! I love your amusing take – Jesus the Musical, more pastiche than superstar.

You appear to imply there was no guiding political motivation for the construction of the Christ Myth (leaving aside any talk of ancient cosmology which causes you such conniptions). Your Broadway Jesus, composed with “characters singing songs written in other contexts” sounds like you imagine the authors randomly plucked nice-sounding words from the Old Testament, without rhyme or reason, since you say it is “funny” to try to find a “context for the nonsense.” That is absurd. You may have a broader agenda, but in fact you are asserting that exploring the political motives for the Gospels is “nonsense”, that the Gospel Midrash cannot be explained within a coherent logic. Thanks, very ‘funny’ point.

Ken Brown

Hi Spin, ok, so you are convinced that the Sabbath starts at sunrise, yet for millennia, the Jewish People have practiced a Sabbath that "dawns" or begins at sunset. And you take Matt 28:1 as proof the Sabbath ends at the dawn of morning, yet, if you would look at Luke 23:54, the same Greek word is used to speak about the Sabbath drawing near, and this is obviously meant for sunset...or do you think the Scriptures tell us that Yeshua was put to death early in the morning, at sunrise? Spin, I like discussing things with you but it appears that when it comes to understanding about the Sabbath, you really don't grasp what was going on.

It looks like you recognize the conflict between Luke and Mark. Luke states the women prepared the burial ointments and then rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the command, and Mark states they purchased the ingredients after the Sabbath. How can you prepare something without the ingredients? This is very easy to resolve Spin. The women were at the tomb on Wednesday evening as the Sabbath was dawning/drawing near, and then after that High Sabbath, on Friday, the women go out and purchase the ingredients to make the burial ointments, and then rest on the weekly Sabbath according to the command. The jaws of reason mandate that this is the only scenario in which all of these conflicts can be resolved.

Please do a little study on the process involved with making burial ointments/perfumes. It requires making a fire, boiling oils, adding the ingredients, and letting it cook all day, so there is no possible way that the women could have raced back to where they were after leaving the tomb as the Sabbath was starting, and have enough time to make these perfumes and then rest on the Sabbath in obedience to the command.

You really need to go back to the drawing board and totally revise your thinking on these issues. KB