Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-16-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But then you have the problem again of a death and burial just before sundown Friday being counted as a 'three day resurrection' a little over 24 - 36 hours later. Also why does Mark say 'after three days'? Obviously one could use 'third day' either as an ordinal value or the name of Tuesday. The most obvious example is the Samaritan calendar's designation of months is identical - i.e. the months have no names, but are designated by ordinal numbers (the first, the second, etc.). This because of course the Torah does not use the foreign names adopted by the Jews.

They seem to be counting: 1st day (Friday), 2nd day, third day (Sunday), ie on the third day raised.

stephan huller · 04-16-2011, 11:50 PM

But still spin, you bring up a good point insofar as why aren't there references to Sunday through Friday in the Old Testament? I think part of the reason is that the ancient Israelites were only interested in the Sabbath. The artificiality of the narratives (i.e. writing about figures and events that took place centuries earlier precludes the specificity of 'and then Monday'). But did the gospel have references to specific days? There are references to specific hours so why not specific days?

So what's so special about the 'third day'? As David Runia notes in his Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, while Plato's creation story 'descends' from highest to lowest vegetative form, Philo points out that the creation 'descends' until the third day (vegetables, plants) and then begins to 'ascend' from three to six. Does it have something to do with a neo-Platonic understanding of the creation of a perfect 'new man'? I don't know.

stephan huller · 04-16-2011, 11:55 PM

But "in the ninth hour" leaves three hours in Friday. Ninth hour Friday to ninth hour Saturday is a day. And then you have three hours and then its Sunday. Twenty seven hours. The 'after three days' is even more problematic as it clearly implies a little more than three full days.

spin · 04-16-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But "in the ninth hour" leaves three hours in Friday. Ninth hour Friday to ninth hour Saturday is a day. And then you have three hours and then its Sunday. Twenty seven hours. The 'after three days' is even more problematic as it clearly implies a little more than three full days.

It's just contradictory traditions. I wouldn't rupture a spleen over it. The average Joe wasn't the greatest mathematician those days anyway. (You'll note that a Matthean redactor changed Mk 10:31's "after three days" tο "on the third day", 17:23. Same with Mk 8:31-> Mt 16:21 = Lk 9:22.)

stephan huller · 04-17-2011, 12:11 AM

Another problem I have with it is that not only does the Sunday resurrection seem artificial 'mathematically' but the Quartodecimans didn't seem to know or care much about Sundays. I feel uneasy about assuming that the 'Sunday resurrection' was already there and all the Roman Church did was 'bring it out' more. I think the Sunday tradition was imposed on the tradition. Moreover the connection between 'day one' and the sun doesn't make any sense in Hebrew or Aramaic. You have to go outside of the Israelite culture to get that association.

spin · 04-17-2011, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another problem I have with it is that not only does the Sunday resurrection seem artificial 'mathematically' but the Quartodecimans didn't seem to know or care much about Sundays. I feel uneasy about assuming that the 'Sunday resurrection' was already there and all the Roman Church did was 'bring it out' more. I think the Sunday tradition was imposed on the tradition. Moreover the connection between 'day one' and the sun doesn't make any sense in Hebrew or Aramaic. You have to go outside of the Israelite culture to get that association.

I think you're missing the point. We have an established synoptic story, the dying on day six of the week and rising on day one, that doesn't fit another traditional marker, the sign of Jonah, ie three days and three nights in the belly of the fish (Mt 12:40)--and notice that the notion which reflects Mark's three days is brought into Mt from an external source, so we have two traditions to accomodate. It then gets smoothed in the other synoptics from three days to on the third day, which can be stretched to fit if you don't look too closely. So stop looking too closely: it isn't worth it. You don't want to burst a valve.

Toto · 04-17-2011, 08:32 AM

A new theory on the date of the last supper

Quote:

Sir Colin's book, The Mystery of the Last Supper (or via: amazon.co.uk), out this week, uses astronomy to re-create calendars, plus detail drawn from texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls to propose a timeline for Jesus's final days.

...

Sir Colin argues that Jesus celebrated Passover early using the pre-exilic calendar, dating from before the Jewish exile to Babylon, but still used by some marginal groups in society at the time. It would have been understood by early Christians as operating alongside the official Jewish calendar, he said.

Pope Benedict XVI spoke of a similar theory in 2007, when he said Jesus probably celebrated the meal with his disciples according to the Qumran calendar, at least a day before mainstream observances.

But Sir Colin said astronomy showed the Pope's theory, although arriving at the same conclusion, was incorrect: the Qumran calendar puts Passover at least a week after the likely date of the Crucifixion.

Minimalist · 04-17-2011, 09:02 AM

Far more likely that none of it ever happened at all.

stephan huller · 04-17-2011, 01:18 PM

I haven't read the book Toto but the Samaritan and Pharisaic calculation of Easter have always been different. Again haven't read the book but I don't see how someone could disprove or prove anything about early Christianity in this respect. It's all a matter of perspective. The relative coordinates of Gerizim and Jerusalem account for much of the difference but there are other factors too.

What I would be interested in hearing about is whether people have developed any systematic reasoning as to why Matthew does not specify that the day of Preparation was before a Sabbath. Mark does of course and so too Luke and John from memory. This is the only anchor which is used for dating the crucifixion relative to the says of the week. The previous comments say that everything was made up about the Passion. Perhaps but I they clearly had a year in mind. It is interesting as a mental exercise to piece together what was meant, what was believed and then from there we can dismiss everything as a hoax but not until then.

BTW I was initially doubtful about a Friday crucifixion being preserved in the early tradition but then I remembered that Friday is 'day six' and the Marcosians clearly took an interest in the number 6 (cf Irenaeus AH 1 13 - 21). Creation (bereshith) has always been read 'mystically' as 'created six' by Jewish and Samaritans since the very beginning.

Toto · 04-17-2011, 11:52 PM

Pete's post has been split off here since it seems to involve a different sort of chronology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-16-2011, 11:50 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But still spin, you bring up a good point insofar as why aren't there references to Sunday through Friday in the Old Testament? I think part of the reason is that the ancient Israelites were only interested in the Sabbath. The artificiality of the narratives (i.e. writing about figures and events that took place centuries earlier precludes the specificity of 'and then Monday'). But did the gospel have references to specific days? There are references to specific hours so why not specific days? So what's so special about the 'third day'? As David Runia notes in his Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, while Plato's creation story 'descends' from highest to lowest vegetative form, Philo points out that the creation 'descends' until the third day (vegetables, plants) and then begins to 'ascend' from three to six. Does it have something to do with a neo-Platonic understanding of the creation of a perfect 'new man'? I don't know.

04-16-2011, 11:55 PM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But "in the ninth hour" leaves three hours in Friday. Ninth hour Friday to ninth hour Saturday is a day. And then you have three hours and then its Sunday. Twenty seven hours. The 'after three days' is even more problematic as it clearly implies a little more than three full days.

04-17-2011, 12:11 AM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another problem I have with it is that not only does the Sunday resurrection seem artificial 'mathematically' but the Quartodecimans didn't seem to know or care much about Sundays. I feel uneasy about assuming that the 'Sunday resurrection' was already there and all the Roman Church did was 'bring it out' more. I think the Sunday tradition was imposed on the tradition. Moreover the connection between 'day one' and the sun doesn't make any sense in Hebrew or Aramaic. You have to go outside of the Israelite culture to get that association.

04-17-2011, 09:02 AM	#18
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Far more likely that none of it ever happened at all.

04-17-2011, 01:18 PM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I haven't read the book Toto but the Samaritan and Pharisaic calculation of Easter have always been different. Again haven't read the book but I don't see how someone could disprove or prove anything about early Christianity in this respect. It's all a matter of perspective. The relative coordinates of Gerizim and Jerusalem account for much of the difference but there are other factors too. What I would be interested in hearing about is whether people have developed any systematic reasoning as to why Matthew does not specify that the day of Preparation was before a Sabbath. Mark does of course and so too Luke and John from memory. This is the only anchor which is used for dating the crucifixion relative to the says of the week. The previous comments say that everything was made up about the Passion. Perhaps but I they clearly had a year in mind. It is interesting as a mental exercise to piece together what was meant, what was believed and then from there we can dismiss everything as a hoax but not until then. BTW I was initially doubtful about a Friday crucifixion being preserved in the early tradition but then I remembered that Friday is 'day six' and the Marcosians clearly took an interest in the number 6 (cf Irenaeus AH 1 13 - 21). Creation (bereshith) has always been read 'mystically' as 'created six' by Jewish and Samaritans since the very beginning.

04-17-2011, 11:52 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Pete's post has been split off here since it seems to involve a different sort of chronology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.