1.
“Resolving the debate about whether the Last Supper was on Nisan 14 or Nisan 15 between John and Mathew-Mark-Luke”
The “live back link”, “to this article” and “site” of origin, is, “torah times dot org”; I shall not therefore here give the ‘article’ in full, but for the sake of brevity shall only quote relevant extracts.
Reply:
Re:
“I will be covering material that is unavailable in the average source, and unfamiliar to most scholars.”
Such self-assuredness supplies the best of reasons to suspect its ‘scholarship’. The enquirer should do well to rather take more seriously the ‘familiar’ and ‘average source’. Being readily available and more ‘familiar’, the ‘source’ should more often, scholarly, academically and scientifically, have been put to the test.
Re:
“Our first text is Matthew 26:17, "*Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" *mistranslation”.
Although I differed with Daniel Gregg on his generalisation on the trustworthiness of the (old) English translations, in this instance I agree with him that “Matthew 26:17, "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread”, is in fact a “mistranslation”.
Mainly, my arguments that “Matthew 26:17, "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread”, is a “mistranslation”, are,
1) “Feast” is a supplied word;
2) “Bread” is a supplied word;
3) The Greek literally is “without” – ‘a-’, “leaven” – ‘dzymos’;
4) The Exodus text calls this day, “EVEN the first day”, or, “The VERY first day”, or, “The FIRST, first day you must REMOVE leaven” Ex12:15a. Cf. Deuteronomy, “The flesh which thou sacrificedst the FIRST day in the afternoon .... at the going down of the sun”. Dt16:4b,6b Ex12:4b. This was the day BEFORE, “the first day you must EAT (or ‘feast’) unleavened BREAD”, Ex12:15b, --- when unleavened bread, and the “flesh” were eaten together; “They shall eat the flesh WITH (the) unleavened bread”, Dt16:7 Ex12:8.
5) The parallel texts of “Matthew 26:17”, Mk14:12 and Lk22:7, give the DOUBLE-definition of the specific day referred to, “the day of un-leaven(ing) WHEN they always / had to KILL the passover” --- which corresponds with the Ex12 and Lv23 institution of Abib 14.
6) The CONTEXT in all four Gospels --- just like in the Law --- is about the SACRIFICE of the Lamb in the afternoon of DAYLIGHT of the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month. Only on the day after --- in the NIGHT of the FIFTEENTH day of the First Month --- would the passover sacrifice “WITH unleavened bread”, be EATEN, to form the “Feast” and “That Day (great-day-sabbath)” of passover. Jn19:14 Ez45:22.
Re:
“This seems to say that it was Nisan 15, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread when the disciples first approached Yeshua about Passover preparation. ”
Gregg would have been unambiguous, had he written, “This seems to say that it was Nisan 15, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.....” WITHOUT ALSO having written, “....when the disciples first approached Yeshua about Passover preparation”, because ‘WHEN the disciples first approached Yeshua about Passover preparation’, it was ‘Nisan’, FOURTEEN “the first day .... when they killed the pasover” --- not, “Nisan 15” when “the first day ye shall EAT unleavened bread” Ex12:15b and “eat the FLESH .... WITH unleavened bread”— the very first night after having “killed the passover” .... “the fourteenth day in the afternoon” Ex12:8,6.
Re:
“If you go to your master concerning a certain day, then you want to ask about that day, or what to do about that day. It does not mean that it is yet that day. ...... ”
Believed one an Abib 14 Crucifixion and Abib 15 ‘Feast Day’ of passover, the above may be considered roughly --- ‘logically’ --- a valid objection to the translation “"Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?".
Obviously there are important points on which Gregg and I agree. But then there are many obscurities no one knows why involved by Gregg, on which disagreement seems to be the order between us.
My main objection therefore to Gregg’s article is that it is forced and far too complicated. The real issue or issues concerning the matter of the translation of Mt26:17 and parallel texts, are actually open and understandable. Anyone with a ‘normal’ knowledge of the Scriptures and basic honesty, could see the difficulties; it needs no great learning to notice the erroneous aspects of the translations; the relevant Scriptures are just too many and too clear themselves that the ‘difficulties’ could be missed. It certainly needs no great learning in the original languages of the Bible to spot the apparent enigmas and find the most important answer to them from the SCRIPTURES itself, that they are ‘translation-issues’ rather than exegetical difficulties.
And --- I say it now --- it needs only a little bit of knowledge of the original languages to distinguish the many places where Daniel Gregg has a too high estimation of his own mastery of the Greek and Hebrew languages. It is just too good to be true that Daniel Gregg without the least provocation beats just about every scholar of note, times without exception --- men who developed their own views long before Daniel Gregg learned of their existence.
Then, like in the following, Daniel Gregg feels himself obliged to play down the “traditional” interpretation and translation, for no reason nor for any gain than to promote his own position ---
Re:
“Many translations even say "on the first day of unleavened bread" furthering the nonsense by adding the word "on" that is not in the Greek text. To correct the translations, we must render the dative case correctly in the context.”
The translations that “say "on the first day of unleavened bread"”, “further the nonsense by adding the word” --- not “"on"”, but ---, “bread”. The translations that “say "on the first day ....."” though, are not “adding the word "on"”; ‘the word "on"’, IS, “in the Greek text”, in that they render the Dative Case CORRECTLY in the context, as Gregg says himself,
“..... Daniel B. Wallace tells us that the dative case is commonly taken as a "Dative of Reference/Respect [with reference to] ..... Here is the full quote from Bibleworks 8.0 edition:
3. Dative of Reference/Respect [with reference to]
a. Definition
The dative substantive is that in reference to which something is presented as true. An author will use this dative to qualify a statement that would otherwise typically not be true.18 This dative can thus be called a frame of reference dative, limiting dative, qualifying dative, or contextualizing dative. This is a common use of the dative case; further, the dative is the most common case used for ref¬erence/respect.19
b. Key to Identification
Instead of the word to, supply the phrase with reference to before the dative. (Other glosses are concerning, about, in regard to, etc.) When the noun in the dative is a thing, the sentence typically makes no sense if the dative is removed, as, e.g., in Rom 6:2—”How shall we who died [to sin] still live in it?””
It is not allowed to ‘add’ the word ‘on’, but it is allowed to ‘add’ the words “with reference to”, “that is not in the Greek text”?
Why the different meanings of the Dative in contextually different applications are presented as were they contradictory --- the one “correct in the context” and “commonly” used; the other not “correct in the context” nor “commonly” used, and “nonsense” --- I, cannot tell.
Both the ‘Local Dative’ (with or without the Article) --- ‘Dative of time or place’, meaning, ‘in’, ‘on’ --- and, the ‘Dative of Reference’, are “correct in the context”; both are in ‘Case’ or ‘form’, and ‘function’, “commonly” used. With neither is there anything ‘incorrect’, ‘uncommon’ “in context”, or “nonsense” in the instance in “Matthew 26:17, "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread””. There is No “mistranslation” where the Dative in the text is translated ‘Locative’ or ‘Dative of time’.
So Daniel Gregg only makes a big noise. “Let us now apply this revelation”, says he. Religious ‘revelations’ usually are accompanied with much sound. But let him go on ....
Re:
“Let us now apply this revelation:
"And with respect to the first day of unleavened bread..."
"And concerning the first day of unleavened bread..."
.......... The above solution and rendition of this text is confirmed in the Anchor Bible Commentary, "Matthew" by C.S. Mann and W.F. Albright. I only cite it to show the non-scholar some authority for the matter. Otherwise, any Greek or Hebrew scholar in the world who is worthy of the name knows that the above is a common and legitimate understanding of the text.”
That is not the point; show us the ‘Greek or Hebrew scholar or “authority”, who “in the world is worthy of the name”, who would not “know that the above” Locative Dative, is AS “common and legitimate understanding of the text” as the “Dative of Reference/Respect”; THEN, Daniel Gregg would have ‘revealed’ us something “the non-scholar” (like myself) would have gained by.
Re:
Yes, “Matthew 26:17 need not say that it was the 15th of Nisan when they asked Yeshua where to prepare.” In fact, Matthew 26:17 says that it was the 14th of Nisan when they asked Yeshua where to prepare, I have no doubt; because it says it was “ON the day they had to remove leaven WHEN they had to kill the passover (sacrifice)” which things the Law both allocated to the fourteenth day of the First Month. How two people can so disagree while agreeing is just amazing!
Re:
“So, Matthew is narrating the statement. The questions were asked w.r.t (with respect to) the first day of unleavened bread, and they were asked before it at the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, which would be at sunset 24 hours before the start of the 15th of Nisan.”
Again agreement without disagreement is impossible it seems ....
“Matthew is narrating ..... The questions were asked w.r.t (with respect to) the first day of unleavened bread .....” No! “w.r.t (with respect to) the first day of” .... “un-leaven(ing)” (‘a-dzymos’)! “and the questions were asked”, not, “before it”, but, “on”, it, “at” --- or ‘while’: DATIVE! --- “on”, “at”, “the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, which would be at sunset 24 hours before the start of the 15th of Nisan” --- better, AFTER “sunset 24 hours before the start of the 15th of Nisan”. Refer Mk14:17 Mt26:20 Lk22:14 Jn13:1.
Perspective is what makes ALL the difference! The one perspective is from the simple viewpoint; the other from the presumed ‘scholar’s viewpoint’.
Re:
“The text in Mark is like the one in Matthew. I will use the abbreviation w.r.t. (with respect to) to translate the dative. First the mistranslated text:
Mark 14:12 "*On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?" *mistranslation. Now the correction:
"And w.r.t. the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?"
This time there seems to be a complication. It says "when they sacrificed the Passover", and most people will think of the Passover lamb sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan, however, the text does not contain the word "lamb"..........
In John 18:28, we are told the authorities would not enter Pilate's hall so they would not be defiled "that they might eat the passover". It that case, John is referring to the Passover lamb slain on the 14th, but in an amazing case of moving the goal posts, the Catholics tell us that this was the offering made on the 15th also called "the Passover".”
How’s that for ‘moving the goal posts’?!
Daniel Gregg incorrectly identifies the “mistranslation” or “complication”. He is pre-occupied with the textbook meanings given to the Dative of Reference and therefore does not --- or will not --- see “the text” is not only ‘mistranslated’ “the first day of unleaven(ED) BREAD”, but gets the issues confused --- ‘complicated’ --- because according to himself, “most people will think of the Passover lamb sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan” instead of that --- according to himself --- “there is another sacrifice that is on the 15th day that is also called "the Passover"”.
In fact the ‘mistranslation’ despite, “most people WILL think of the Passover lamb sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan”. It is only Daniel Gregg who ‘complicates’ the issues and thinks “there is ANOTHER sacrifice that is on the 15th day that is also called "the Passover"” and that to think like “most people WILL ..... of the Passover lamb sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan”, is a bit slow.
Well, it ain’t the case; “..... but in an amazing case of moving the goal posts”, it is Daniel Gregg --- and not “the Catholics” --- who “tell(s) us that this was the offering made on the 15th also called "the Passover"”.
Where did “the Catholics tell us that this was the offering made on the 15th also called "the Passover"”? No! “The Catholics tell us that” the sacrifice of Jesus did not atone for sin, but that the breaking of the bread --- ‘the mass’ --- does .... every time it is ‘celebrated’. That, the Catholics do tell us.
But how could that explain that “most people” are wrong if they “will think of the Passover lamb sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan” whether they read “Mark 14:12 ..... "And with reference to the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, his disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?"” or, whether they read, Mark 14:12, “Now (on) the first day of un-leaven, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the passover?” It makes NO difference. Daniel Gregg EXPLAINING TOO MUCH only gets the longer the more confused!
The text, translated, “On the (very) first day of un-leaven(ing when they “remove(d) leaven from the land”) when they sacrificed the passover (lamb), his disciples said to him .....” is simple and clear. People will, and people must “think of the Passover lamb sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan” when they read Mark 14:12 Mt26:17 Lk22:7 or Jn13:1, even though “the text does not contain the word "lamb"”, because it was the lamb that was sacrificed --- “killed” --- and the "lamb", ONLY. It’s common sense. It is literally so. It is linguistically correct. And it is soteriologically and eschatologically the only truth.
Re:
“In John 18:28, we are told the authorities would not enter Pilate's hall so they would not be defiled "that they might eat the passover". It that case, John is referring to the Passover lamb slain on the 14th, but in an amazing case of moving the goal posts, the Catholics tell us that this was the offering made on the 15th also called "the Passover". We only need to reverse this logic and apply it to Mark instead of John. In Deuteronomy 16:1-8 we are told about "the Passover" offering for the 15th of Nisan, and one can tell it is for the 15th because vs. 4 refers to "the flesh which thou sacrificedst the first day at even." And then vs. 8 says there are six more days of the feast left after that. This proves that "the Passover" in this passage is the offering of the 15th, and not the 14th.”
To which ‘passage’ does D. Gregg refer, to “Deuteronomy 16”, “John”, or, “Mark”? Is this a denial or a confirmation, “"the Passover" in this passage is the offering of the 15th, and not the 14th”? Was it “"the Passover" offering .... in this passage”? Why should it be ‘proved’, “"the Passover" in this passage is the offering of the 15th, and not the 14th” if “in an amazing case of moving the goal posts, the Catholics tell us that this was the offering made on the 15th also called "the Passover"”? It shows the present attempt at an explanation of the passage is a wild goose chase.
“This passage”, “proves” no, “offering of the 15th”. It proves that “they always” – Imperfect, Mark, “had to” – Luke, “kill” – ‘sacrifice’, “the passover” – ‘lamb’, which was the ONLY passover sacrifice “killed”, “on the fourteenth day of the First Month”. This day only, is referred to in both clauses of the passage, “On the (very) first day of un-leaven(ing when they “remove(d) leaven from the land”) when they sacrificed the Passover (lamb), his disciples said to him .....”.
I still object to interpreting the Dative in Mt26:17 for a Dative of Reference, because, if it were a Dative of Reference, the word order would have been different, and Matthew would have written, “The disciples came to Jesus and said to Him, With reference to the first day of unleavened bread, Lord, .....”.
Luke, would also have changed the Subject, and would have written, “When they sacrificed the passover, his disciples came to him, and said to him, With reference to the first day of unleavened bread .....” But as it stands, there are two Subjects in Luke, “the day”, and “He”, Jesus. “Then came the day”; “Then CAME THE DAY of un-/de-/without-leaven when the passover must be killed”; “Then came the day of un-/de-/without-leaven when the passover must be killed, and HE (Jesus), SENT Peter and John .....”
Mark even worse fits a Dative of Reference interpretation, because he identifies the specific day through his dual perception of it, “Then on the first day of de-leaven WHEN (‘hote’) the passover always gets slain, the disciples asked Him.....”
No; the translators of the KJV deserve more respect for their faithful rendering of the text despite the fact they did not see the day the passover was killed on, simply COULD not have been the first day unleavened bread would have been eaten on.
Re:
“In John 18:28, we are told the authorities would not enter Pilate's hall so they would not be defiled "that they might eat the passover". It that case, John is referring to the Passover lamb slain on the 14th.”
Why would the “reverse” of “this logic”, ‘applied’ “to Mark instead of John” make sense, but not make sense if ‘applied’ to John as by John himself? What is “this logic” that though found in John cannot be “logic” in John, but though not found in Mark, is ‘logic’ in Mark?
What is “this logic” that “we are told about "the Passover" offering for the 15th of Nisan, and one can tell it is for the 15th because vs. 4 (in Deuteronomy 16:1-8) refers to "the flesh which thou sacrificedst the first day at even"”? “And then vs. 8 says there are six more days of the feast left after that”? Ridiculous! “Vs. 4 (in Deuteronomy 16:1-8) refers to "the flesh which thou sacrificedst the first day at even"”: “the first day at even” dated in Ex12, on “the fourteenth day at even / in the afternoon”; as repeated in verse 15, “EVEN the first day” --- “the first day” THAT, “ye shall PUT AWAY leaven out of your houses”! NOT, “the first day until the seventh day whosoever EATETH leavened bread shall be cut off from Israel”!
Divide the verses of Exodus 12:14 and 15, after the words,
“.... seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread”. Period.
“.... seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread” belongs with verse 4, as follows:
“This day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a Feast unto the LORD; .... ye shall keep it a Feast by an Ordinance for ever: seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread.”
That constitutes the Institution --- the “Ordinance” --- the “Memorial” --- the “Feast” of ‘Unleavened Bread’.
The WHOLE passover is represented in this, one day: The FEAST DAY of Passover by “Ordinance: Seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread.”
The “first day” of the passover (“Nisan 14”) --- not the “Feast Day” “the first” of the passover of “seven days ye shall EAT unleavened bread” (“15th Nisan”). The “first day” of the passover of EIGHT days of passover from “the fourteenth day” until and including “the twenty first day of the First Month” Ex12:6,18, is in verse 5b on, summed up where this “VERY first day”, is declared: “EVEN the first day ye shall PUT AWAY leaven”.
It is the day’s NAME: “The First-first-day-ye-shall-PUT-AWAY-leaven”. The Gospels identify THIS “very first, first day” of the Old Testament passover with its other Old Testament identification, “The First (first) day WHEN THEY KILLED the passover” sacrifice. This was the first of the eight days of passover. “Passover” proper was the “sacrifice” per se as well as “the fourteenth day” per se— “even the first day” (of eight days passover) per se; as well as the “first day (of seven days) ye shall eat unleavened bread” per se. There is absolutely NO difference between the day of passover mentioned in Mk14:12 Mt26:17 Lk22:7 Jn13:1 and the day of passover mentioned in Ex12:6,18 Dt16:2,4,6 Lv23:5 Jos5:10 etc.
It is EVERYWHERE in the Bible “the fourteenth day of the First Month” so mentioned by date (Exodus) or not so mentioned by date (Deuteronomy). The day is recognised by its PURPOSE AND EVENT which is the slaughter of the ONLY passover lamb anywhere in the Bible spoken of or implied or alluded to when not mentioned by the word ‘lamb’, OR, that is / was “the very first day you shall remove leaven” on. With or without these ‘extra’ descriptions, “passover” in the Law is the fourteenth day of the First Month as such, and / or the passover sacrifice as such.
The fifteenth day of the First Month HAD NO SACRIFICE or “offering” as Daniel Gregg avers. The PURPOSE AND EVENT of the fifteenth day of the First Month was “ye shall EAT” THAT sacrifice or “offering” slaughtered --- “killed”: “ON the fourteenth day of the month in the afternoon”— both date and time, and sacrifice, called “the passover”.
The Gospels’ “ON ‘The-first-day-of-un-leaven’ WHEN they always had to slaughter the passover” rather than the Dative of Reference (which it can be interpreted for, yes), plainly is a direct translation of the date and day AND EVENTS --- of both main features of “passover the fourteenth” --- in the Law as the Gospel writers found it there.
Gregg’s is just another fancy invention to prove a Wednesday crucifixion simply because religious people are the least prepared of all people to admit mistake. Ironic, that Gregg while arguing like he does here, all along supposes the lamb slaughtered on the day before it was slaughtered. His arguments and illustrations prove it; it’s not what I am saying.
TWO ‘first’, days, were there:
--- the Gospels
“EVEN the first day ye shall PUT AWAY LEAVEN” = “EVEN the first day ..... they always had to kill the passover” --- first of the two “first” days;
--- the Law
“Ye shall put away leaven (on this ‘first’ day OF PASSOVER) FOR / BECAUSE / WITH REFERENCE TO / WITH THE VIEW TO: whosoever eateth unleavened bread from the first day (OF UNLEAVENED BREAD) until the seventh day (OF UNLEAVENED BREAD), shall be cut off.”
Re:
“There were two Passover offerings. The one on the 14th in the afternoon is what corresponds to the lamb in Egypt and the blood on the door posts, and this signifies the passing over of the death of the firstborn. The second passover offering was on the 15th day in the afternoon, and this was instituted later as a festive offering in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt.”
Re:
“.... then vs. 8 says there are six more days of the feast left after that ....”
“Six more days of the feast” were “left after that” “the first day ye shall EAT unleavened bread” had been observed. Deuteronomy 16 presupposes the fourteenth day of the First Month after which “the feast” occurred. And then after “the feast” occurred, “there are SIX more days of the feast left after that ....” --- “..... vs. 8 says”. After the fourteenth day of the First Month, SEVEN more days of the feast are left after it --- SEVEN more days lay ahead after the fourteenth day --- for eating unleavened bread.
“Thou shalt SACRIFICE the passover in the afternoon at the going down of the sun”, verse 6; “the first day (of passover) in the afternoon (‘at even’)”, verse 4 --- which is Abib 14 in Exodus 12 and all other passover Scriptures without exception.
Dt16:8 says, “Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread AND (also) on the seventh day: a solemn assembly (the second time) ....”.
“Seven days eat unleavened bread” Ex12:15; 13:6,7; 23:15; 34:18 Lv23:6 Nb28:17 Dt16:3;
“Seven days no leaven be found” Ex12:19 Dt16:4;
“Eat unleavened bread the fourteenth day until the one and twentieth day” Ex12:18.
That leaves but one day that leaven could be “REMOVED” on— “the fourteenth day of the First Month” --- “the day they had to, always, kill the passover”.
NEVER EVER “were there two Passover offerings”. NEVER EVER was there a “second passover offering on the 15th day ..... instituted later as a festive offering in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt.” It makes a mockery of the ‘passover offering .... on the 14th’! If the ‘passover offering .... on the 14th’ was not “a festive offering in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt”, then what was?
“I will pass through the land of Egypt THIS NIGHT .... and the BLOOD (of the lamb killed “in the afternoon” the previous day “on the fourteenth day” before “this night”) shall be to you for a token .... and THIS DAY shall be unto you for a memorial.....” Ex12:12-14 .... It means ONE ONLY ‘passover offering .... on the 14th’ “a token” of the ‘festive offering in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt’.
“And it shall come to pass when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, IT IS THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD’S PASSOVER.....” as EARLY as Exodus already, 12:26-27. “In the fourteenth day of the First Month is the passover of the LORD.” Nb28:16. “The sacrifice” per se is called “the passover of the LORD”! What, a “second passover offering .... instituted later”! Greater nonsense has never been heard.
There was ONE passover sacrifice; the figure of the Lamb of God: the ONLY killed on the 14th in the afternoon and for the REST of the ‘Passover Feast’. To Christ corresponds the lamb in Egypt and the blood on the door posts, and signifies the Passing Over of Yahweh and the Death of the Firstborn of God. “The flesh” of this ONLY passover lamb was EATEN on the 15th day in the NIGHT before midnight beginning part of it, before “the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt BY NIGHT”, “in the morning of the night on the fifteenth of the First Month” Nb33:3, “in the morning after the passover” --- “the passover” of ‘sacrifice-day’ the FOURTEENTH day of the month! “Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the (ONE AND ONLY) PASSOVER unto the LORD thy God of the flock of your herd ..... Thou shalt eat no leavened bread WITH, IT. Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread THEREWITH (without saying, “thereafter”)”. “Thou shalt eat with” that ONE, sacrifice’s flesh, ONCE, “unleavened bread .... the first day”. (Ex12:8,15b) “There shall not anything of the flesh which thou sacrificedst the FIRST day in the afternoon [“on the 14th in the afternoon”], REMAIN all night until the morning” next day Abib 15. In Exodus the two days of Abib 14 and 15 are dated one day Abib 14; in all subsequent Scriptures, Abib 15 is Abib 15; it NEVER received a second ‘passover’ or passover “offering”.
This is the WHOLE Law of the passover “in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt”. Compare Joshua 5:10-12; where is that ‘later offering’? Where is a ‘later offering’ sacrificed for the passover anywhere in the Scriptures in or after Exodus? Nowhere!
Whoso shall add to this prophecy, of the plagues shall be added unto him. That another “offering ..... on the 15th day ..... was instituted later as a festive offering” besides “the passover of the LORD”, IS A LIE; an abominable LIE wherewith Daniel Gregg thinks he succeeded to reach a WEDNESDAY CRUCIFIXION.
Re:
“So Mark 14:12 is a question w.r.t. the 15th of Nisan, on which they sacrificed the additional passover offering. Why would Mark add in the narrative a reference to the festive offering on the 15th? We may ask the same question of Deut. 16:1-8. Why would the passage there in the Torah talk about the festive offering of the 15th and not mention the passover lamb for the passover in Egypt? Since the Torah deigns to mention one without the other, it may not be argued that Mark cannot mention one without the other. Also, let us use a bit more logic here. If one really wanted to think that Mark was saying the preparation was done on the 15th of Nisan rather than correctly that the questions were asked w.r.t. preparations for the 15th, then it would still follow that the passover sacrifice mentioned in the text is the one that pertained to the second passover offering, the one for the 15th, mentioned in Deut. 16. For it is simply not possible to place the 14th offering on the 15th.”
All this by now, it is clear, is a waste of words; ‘much ado about NOTHING’. Simply because, in the first place, there was no such thing as Gregg’s imagined “second passover offering, the one for the 15th, mentioned in Deut. 16.” His claim proved itself, an outright lie.
Next, the DAY in the Gospels MENTIONED in so many words in Mark 14:12 Mt26:17 Lk22:7 Jn13:1 as it is mentioned, described and defined in the Old Testament, is the identical day throughout the Scriptures without exception DATED the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month; NEVER, the fifteenth day of the First Month.
The saintly question, “Why would Mark add in the narrative a reference to the festive offering on the 15th? Why would the passage there in the Torah (Deut. 16:1-8) talk about the festive offering of the 15th and not mention the passover lamb for the passover in Egypt?” is hypocritical contemplated attempt to deceive. Where “in the narrative” does “Mark add a reference to the festive offering on the 15th”? Where 14:12 has the words, “tehi prohtehi hehmerai tohn adzymohn” – “on the first day of un-leaven” directly from “the very first day you must remove leaven” Ex12:15? Does that “add a reference to the festive offering on the 15th”? Not at all! “On the first day of un-leaven” is a very economic, virtually verbatim quote FROM, the Old Testament; it “adds”, NOTHING! It is Daniel Gregg who “adds”!
And “on the first day of un-leaven” is a direct reference TO, something that has nothing to do with sacrifice or “offering”; INSTEAD, “on the first day of un-leaven” has direct bearing on “UN-leaven”, “REMOVE leaven”, not, “offer” ANYTHING LEAVENED; “WITHOUT leaven”, not, “offer” THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN!
“Why would the passage there in the Torah (Deut. 16:1-8) talk about the festive offering of the 15th and not mention the passover lamb for the passover in Egypt?” is a false allegation. It presumes “the passage there in the Torah (Deut. 16:1-8) talks about the festive offering of the 15th” which it does not! The “question” deceives, pretending that “the passage there in the Torah (Deut. 16:1-8)” does “not mention” “the 14th offering”, “the passover lamb for the passover in Egypt”, while Deuteronomy 16:1-8 unmistakably implies as well as pronominally and referentially mentions “the 14th offering”, and “the 14th offering”, only. “Remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt” --- a reference to Exodus 10 to 15 and FOURTEENTH Abib. Deuteronomy 16 speaks of the very same ‘14th offering’.
“Thou shalt eat no leavened bread WITH IT”, pronounces the very same prohibition placed upon the very same ‘eating’ of the very same sacrifice of “the 14th offering” in both Deuteronomy and Exodus.
To “eat” was of the essence of the “Passover-Feast”, “ON, the fifteenth day of the First Month”. It was not its EATING nor its SACRIFICE, that made of the passover-sacrifice an ‘offering’. The ‘offering’ of the Passover’ sacrifice of the fourteenth day, BEFORE the exodus, was made ON THE DOORPOSTS that acted as ‘altar’ for “presentment” or “offering” or “display”. After the exodus an altar was built for the ‘offering’ of the blood. See Josua 5.
Then ‘eating’ of the blood-sacrifice FOLLOWED the ‘offering’ or ‘presentation’ of its life-blood. The ‘eating’ of “that which remained” --- of the “FLESH” --- meant the death of the sacrifice SEALED unto forgetfulness: its return to dust. Eating of the “FLESH” of the blood-sacrifice symbolised the BURIAL – ‘interment’ – of the victim or sacrifice; typified the re-assimilation of the corruptible --- sinner, sin, death and earth --- via the SINNER’S bowls by eating. By ‘eating’ their ‘offering’, sinners and ‘offering’, by faith become one with their sin’s and death’s destiny: the grave. In other words, by eating the “flesh” of the blood-sacrifice of passover --- the 14th’s sacrifice --- the Israelites CONFESSED THEIR SINS AND SINFUL HEARTS and EXCUSED not their sins nor DISTANCED THEMSELVES FROM either their sins and sinfulness or, their ‘offering’ of it before the LORD through the blood of the sacrifice on the altar. They ate and believed the Messiah-To-Come and their own guilt and participation in the killing of HIM the Passover Lamb of Yahweh. They confessed and believed He “was made SIN FOR US” and through faith accepted all the consequences of Christ’s having “made Sacrifice of Himself” in our stead; Who even descended into hell; Who died; and Who was buried AS, one OF, and, ONE with, US --- “to us-ward, who believe”. (Eph1:19). All, by their eating.
The Israelites had to WAIT after they had slain the victim “in the afternoon” until after sunset and LATER “in the evening” “before MIDNIGHT”, had to eat THAT, ‘festive offering’ of their passover, the sacrifice of Abib 14 --- the “FLESH” of it! Then immediately after MIDNIGHT they had to “MOVE OUT” and take “THAT WHICH REMAINED, WITH,” INTO THE WILDERNESS. ALL, was of the significance of the Passover Lamb of Yahweh’s own BURIAL, “in the fullness of time” through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Away therefore with this unholy “festive offering of the 15th” that does “not mention the passover lamb for the passover”! It is ‘offered’ with STRANGE FIRE on an altar that is not the Altar of God’s own Son, but rather the altar of unrepentant, ‘festive’, noisy Baal priests!
Daniel Grebb’s theories are worse than ‘the Catholics’’.
Re:
“So, now let us turn to the Luke 22:7 passage: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." This time, in Luke, the word "first" has been omitted, and properly so, because Luke is using the reckoning of Josephus in which 8 days are celebrated for unleavened bread, but only 7 are still counted: ”
Luke is NOT “using the reckoning of Josephus”; all four Gospels speak from the Law of Moses as point of departure. And Luke had in mind – obviously – precisely the same Hebrew texts from the passover-Scriptures, Exodus 10-15, Deuteronomy 16:1-8, Leviticus et al until ‘the later prophets’, that Mark and Matthew relied on and referenced to. And when it is Josephus who speaks of a passover-season of eight days, he, Josephus, relies on exactly the ‘sources’ used for the Gospels by their compilers / writers. Because the Mosaic passover-Scriptures and the Gospel writers --- even Paul --- depart from the to them only ‘FAMILIAR’ eight-day-passover-season ‘of the Jews’ (Jn19:40). No one until recent dissatisfaction with the harmony of the Gospels knew about another passover than the eight-day passover of the Law and the rest of Holy Scriptures.
Re:
“.... in Luke, the word "first" has been omitted, and properly so” .....
‘because Luke is using’ his Christian freedom to translate the Hebrew into his Greek vernacular, and who wants to forbid him? The fact he does not say the ‘first’ day, SHOWS the familiarity of himself and his readers, with the eight-day passover of which the “very first day” WITHOUT SAYING, was, “the day of unleaven, when the passover must be killed.” It cannot be more simple, Luke, like the other Gospel-writers, has in mind the fourteenth day of the month of Abib. “Observe the MONTH of Abib!” Dt16:1a .... ‘We are not going to bother about the dates we are so familiar with they don’t need mention every time we refer to their events’, the author of Deuteronomy says between the lines ....
The house of Julius Malema was broken into; his house was cleared. More upsetting was Malema’s five books stolen; most disconcerting the two books stolen he hadn’t finished colouring in.
Re:
“8 days are celebrated for unleavened bread, but only 7 are still counted”
Where are the sources for “8 days celebrated for unleavened bread”? Exodus 12 and Deuteronomy 16?
Daniel Gregg is not the only who misinterprets Mk14:12, Mt26:17 and Lk22:7. The unfortunate deviation in ‘translation’ from the exact, literal and SIMPLEST possible reading of the passover-texts in both Old and New Testaments, is the main cause of rampant misunderstanding in our times of these texts. Translated exactly, these texts virtually verbally repeat the Old Testament texts which mention and involved only seven days that were ‘celebrated for unleavened bread’; in fact the same ‘days’ and dates ‘still counted’, involved, and in fact mentioned, in the New Testament.
Therefore, from where comes the confused idea “8 days are celebrated for unleavened bread, but only 7 are still counted”? From the MIStranslation of the Old Testament text, “EVEN the first day you must REMOVE leaven”, into “the first day of unleavened BREAD” (eaten). So actually according to the erroneous ‘TRANSLATION’, it is the New Testament, and not the Old, that teaches “8 days are celebrated / counted for unleavened bread” because it takes “the first day when they KILLED the passover” for “the first day of unleavened BREAD”, EATEN. But of course, only if MIStranslated, “celebrated for unleavened bread”; when correctly translated, “.....celebrated for to remove leaven”, only 7 days are celebrated for unleavened bread.
Re:
“317 Hence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread. (Ant 2:317 JOE)
99 and on the feast of unleavened bread, which was now come, it being the fourteenth day of the month of Xanthikos [Nisan], (Jwr 5:99 JOE)
250 But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them. And while they suppose it proper to honour God, from whom they obtain this plentiful provision, in the first place, they offer the firstfruits of their barley, and that in the manner following: (Ant 3:250 JOE)
If we logically parse Josephus' information, we see that he includes the 14th in the overall measure of 8 days, and that he reckons the 14th part of the feast of unleavened bread, but when it comes to numbering the days, it is evident that he numbers the 15th as the 1st day from the fact that he calls the 16th of Nisan the 2nd day. Josephus also separates the two feasts:”
It appears Daniel Grebb has not checked on this ‘translation’ of Josephus’ work. Could the above by Josephus be translated ....
“Hence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread. And on the feast of unleaven ....” ‘adzymos’? Perhaps “And on the DAY of unleaven ....” ‘tehi prohtehi tohn adzymohn’ cf. Mt26:17? If so .....
“Hence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread. 99And on the DAY of UNLEAVEN which was now come, it being the FOURTEENTH day of the month of Xanthikos ....” THEN THERE’S NO PROBLEM with whatever might follow in ‘100’ because “..... on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month” would make perfect sense— it would mean the FIFTEENTH day of the month was “the first day of unleavened bread” eaten. Of course, that is what I think only. At least I am sure that is exactly how it is in the Bible. And, as everybody can see, that agrees with what Gregg further quotes, “249 The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; (Ant 3:249 JOE)”.
And, again, as everybody can see, my explanation of what I suppose should be the correct translation of Josephus’ passage, does not seriously clash with Gregg’s own conclusions in the following,
“The Galileans abstained from leaven from sunset at the start of the 14th, while the Judeans abstained only from noon on the 14th day. According to the Torah, one only need abstain for seven days, starting with the 15th of Nisan. So when Luke is referring to the "day of unleavened bread" that "came" he is saying the 14th, and in this case he is referring to the passover lamb on the 14th the way Josephus or some other Galilean would refer to the 14th day. The removal of leaven from the houses was done on the 14th of Nisan, and so for this reason, it came to be called the "day of unleavened bread". For not only was leaven removed, but unleavened bread was baked in preparation of the 15th, which unleavened bread must be eaten.” .....
Not that we are in perfect agreement, except on the dates of the several events of the several days referred to in this statement of Gregg’s. Why then, may it not be concluded that my (supposed) translation of Josephus with reference to Mt26:17 Mk14:12 Lk22:7 is correct? May it not because it proves Daniel Gregg in the wrong?
Re:
“Therefore, the disciples questions were asked just after sunset at the start of the 14th of Nisan. It was after sunset when they went into the city and were shown the upper room, and Yeshua and his disciples arrived there when it was dark.
The gospel of John, of course confirms all of this. The last supper was before the Passover (John 13:1).”
Confirmed: The goal posts have been moved .... again. But I shall shout hurray, because my last attempted kick at goal went skew, while the posts were moved centre in front of the ball .....
‘At the end of the day .....’ of this long, long day, and Daniel Gregg and I, stranded on the same shore? Incredible!
To make sure, allow me now to present my induction of texts, taxed and tested times without number .....
Three days NT texts
All these Scriptures are in PERFECT AGREEMENT in every respect :
And yes, they have everything to do with the “three days prophecy” BECAUSE :
1A) HERE BEGINS the NIGHT and the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
wherein Jesus ENTERED IN in “the Kingdom of my Father” (Jesus’ Jonah’s descent to hell) :–
Mk14:12/17; Mt26:17/20; Lk22:7/14; Jn13:1.
1B) HERE BEGINS the MORNING of the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
in which Jesus was delivered and crucified :–
Mk15:1/Mt27:1/Lk23:1/Jn19:14
1C) HERE is the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the FIRST of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
when Jesus DIED and was deserted by all :–
Mk15:37–41; Mk27:50–56; Lk23:44–49; Jn19:28–30
2A) HERE BEGINS the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
the day whereon Joseph WOULD BURY the body of Jesus :–
Mk15:42/Mt27:57, Lk23:50–51, Jn19:31/38.
2B) HERE is the NIGHT of the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
wherein Joseph begged the body, and according to the law of the Jews – the passover’s law – undertook and prepared to bury Jesus:–
Mk15:43–46a; Mt27:58–59; Lk23:52–53a; Jn19:31b–40
2C) HERE is the LATE NOON AND MID–AFTERNOON of the SECOND of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
when Joseph and Nicodemus laid the body and closed the tomb; and men and women left for home :–
Mk15:46b–47; Mk27:60–61; Lk23:53b–56a; JN19:41–42
3A) HERE BEGINS the THIRD of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
THAT JESUS WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD ON :–
Lk23:56b
3B) HERE is the MORNING of the THIRD of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
Pilate ordered a guard “for the third day” :–
Mt27:62–66
3C) HERE is “IN the Sabbath’s Fullness MID–AFTERNOON” of the THIRD of the “three days”, “according to the Scriptures” – the passover–Scriptures :–
First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD :–
Mt28:1–4.
4A) HERE begins the day AFTER the “three days” (fourth day of the passover season) :–
that Jesus WOULD APPEAR on :–
Mk16:1, “When the Sabbath was past ..... they BOUGHT ....”
4B) HERE is the EVENING of this day,
Jn20:1–10 Mary sees the DOORSTONE was away from the tomb (discovers tomb has been OPENED);
4C) HERE is the NIGHT of this day,
Lk24:1–10 “DEEP(EST) DARKNESS” ––– “women with their spices” and ontments go to salve the body; “they found Him NOT” (discover tomb is EMPTY);
Mk16:2–8 “very early (before) SUN’S RISING” ––– women’s return–visit to ascertain; “they fled terrified and told NO ONE”.
4D) Here is sunrise (‘Sunday’ morning),
Jn20:11f, Mk16:9 “Mary had had stood behind” .... saw the gardener (sunrise); “Risen, early (sunrise) on the First Day, Jesus first APPEARED to Mary ....”
Mt28:5–10 “The angel explained to the (other) women (Mt28:1–4) .... As they went to tell .... Jesus met them” (after sunrise).
Mt28:11–15 Guard to high priests.
USE BIBLES OF BEFORE THE TWENTIETH CENTURY – they are not as wangled as the later ones. And compare those ancient translations with the modern ones to see the truth of the older ones!
Objection:
“The same verse you earlier used to assert that He resurrected on the Sabbath, can also be used to assert that He resurrected on Sunday!”
Answer:
If the verse you have in mind is Mt28:1, it CANNOT “also be used to assert that He resurrected on Sunday!”
1) BECAUSE of all the reasons I have already given from ALL the Scriptures;
2) BECAUSE of its ONLY CORRECT literal meaning:
“opse de” and in fullness / late on / in
“sabbatohn” of the Sabbath
(“sabbatohn”) the Sabbath’s / Sabbath’s–time’s
“tehi” in the
“epi” very / midst
“phohs” light / daylight / (noon)
“ousehi” in the being
“eis” towards / before / tending / against
“mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn” Acc=excluded First (Day) of the week.
3) Precisely as used in Lk23:54 for Friday “mid–afternoon before the Sabbath”.
4) BECAUSE of the Exodus and Leviticus passover instructions concerning Abib 14, 15, and 16.
5) BECAUSE of Mt12:40 and “three days AND three nights”.
6) BECAUSE of ‘the God-given and therefore eschatological IMPERATIVE WHOLENESS’ of the “three days” of “three days and three nights”, “on the third day” of which God raised Christ from the dead --- in particular also, ‘the God-given and therefore eschatological IMPERATIVE WHOLENESS’ of “That Day great day-sabbath” of the passover, the “in-the-bone-of-day-day”, “that which remain shall be burned with fire” in the wilderness of sin’s wages, “This Day” of the entombment and tomb of Jesus Christ.
THEREFORE:
1) Fifth Day : Wednesday night and Thursday day ––– Abib 14, Remove leaven and slaughter lamb;
2) Sixth Day / “the Preparation WHICH IS the Fore-Sabbath” : Thursday night and Friday day ––– Abib 15, “that which remaineth” carried out and burned (interred);
3) Seventh Day Sabbath “according to the (Fourth) Commandment” : Friday night and Sabbath, day ––– Abib 16, “First Sheaf Wave Offering Before the LORD” --- RESURRECTION! 28 April 2010
(8043 Words)
|
Print this article
Show the next latest work
