Crucifixion Happened ON Wednesday

Ed Sutton
"If I am so prejudiced, why would I not just "go with the flow"; accept a Friday crucifixion; and "take the easy way out"? "

GE
I'm grateful you don't hit the ceiling of pure emotionalism like others have done in response to my bad taste and behaviour.

Therefore I take the opportunity to tell you, you are prejudiced - The 'Thursday' issue is a smallie. But you beforehand have dicided Sunday shall be the day of the Resurrection. If you accepted a Friday crucifixion, nobody would give a dime. But just hint in the direction of Sunday all the while having been a mistake at best ...
Last thing though I would find pleasing, is that you admit a mistake against your better knowledge and conscience. But of course, there's no chance of it ...
'Transgression fails not with many words', says Solomon or somebody. This much talking of mine about nothing is getting irksome to myself. Let us return to subject-matter!

 

Ed Sutton
"The late Dr. A. T. Robertson I ain't, but I do still manage to understand the meaning of the Greek phrase "και μετα τρεις ημερας αναστηναι", to properly be 'rendered' as "and after three days, rise", ..."

GE
You need not be another AT Robertson to take his for correct. That's what it says, 'literally'!

Only thing is, this 'expression' cannot contradict the many others that say "the third day", "on the third day", "in three days", "after two days" and so on. Then the ONLY way contradiction is avoided, is to allow 'after the third day' its 'idiomatic' force, which makes it say PRECISELY, what all the other 'expressions' say. And a can put my head on the block, AT Robertson meant NOTHING different! Also the Translation you refer to, must have so intended the 'expression' (accusative) -- as idiomatic FOR, 'in / on / just the dative', et al.

 

Ed Sutton
Qouting GE, "For, for the phrase "towards the First Day of the week” to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’ and for the phrase “On the Sabbath” not to ‘tie in to the idea of the Resurrection’, every grammatical and syntactical aspect of ‘words’, ‘phrases’, and ‘idea’, MUST be corrupted. Once again, I believe you are trying to make me say something I did not say, since I didn't say "towards the first day of the week", that I've been able to find, on this thread, at least, and don't actually recall saying it on the "competing" thread, either. If I did say this, would you mind posting the Post #, please. And since I apparently did not say this stuff, how could I have corrupted any grammar or syntax?"

"I believe you are trying to make me say something I did not say ..."

GE
No, I don't nor intended. I am simply 'arguing' the different angels of approach. But sorry; I could have done it simpler. ('Truth expresses itself through simplicity' - my current slogan.)

 

A serious charge, to say the least. One may well debate whether or not a translation of a word, or phrase is the best possible rendering. However, this "blanket charge" directed at the NKJV (or any other version) is completely unwarranted. Especially, as I was merely making reference to an allegation, in the first place, where you were suggesting I was incorrectly reading this. I don't get particularly "hot under the collar" about a lot of things. But I do make an exception, here, when someone starts attacking a Bible version, and/or the motives that lay behind the translators of said version, by referring to such as "a fraud".

Ed

 

From everything I've been able to find, this is simply incorrect. The Jewish 'religious' calender was not, then or now, corrected to more or less equal the solar calender, by the adding of any "part-month", on an annual basis, but rather, is 'corrected' by the addition of a "full month", (called 'first' Adar, with the month of Adar, being dubbed 'second' Adar, when occurring in a 'leap-year') periodically, Without checking again, I believe it to be either 7 or 8 months in a 19 year 'cycle', and is known as the Jewish "leap-year". That in no way affected the seven day week, to be sure. Nor did it matter where the previous year 'ended', but rather was calculated and 'inserted' based on when the succeeding year would 'begin'. And, of course, it also does not affect when the equinoxes occur, either. I have seen and checked out several references to the Hebrew calender, but none have anything about what you are suggesting, as to any "part-month".

More later.

Ed

 

GE
Tyndale took his task of translation so seriously, he said if but IN ONE instance he translated against his conscience, may his part in Christ be taken away from him. I have told you about this before.
Will the translators of the NKJV say the same? Perhaps, if they don't really believe in God.
You say I made a 'blanket' statement. Yes, I did. The NKJV is just one of several 'versions' _supposedly_ from the original -- but -- by the priciples of the dynamic equivalent method of Bible-translation. That, justifies my 'blanket'- statement for the MANY things implied by the 'method', as well as text from which the 'translation' (if one could call it that, strictly) has been made.

I assume you aren't one for 'KJV-onlyism'. Why? because no translation is 'inspired'. But when one of the newer 'versions' are cirticised, you are up in arms? Are these newer ones 'inspired'. But I'll tell you, my experience has been the translators are convinced they are!

 

GE
The things you say here, are the way MODERN Judaism works. This 'method' was started about -- I can't remember off hand -- the fourth or sixth century? The systems were introduced BECAUSE NOT EVEN THE JEWS THEMSELVES were of one mind on this issue. But disregarding everything after the New Testament era, indications CLEARLY imply the 'method' I proposed --- from the Bible - Check up in 'LD', http://www.biblestudents.co.za.

 

Antithesis

(A)
“... the "high Sabbath" of the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, ... Scriptures that specifically testify to this are Matt. 26:1-5; Mk. 14:1-2 ...

The "High Day" of the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread ... Scriptures that imply this, are, i.a., Mk. 14:1-2. Matt. 26:1-5 does not apply.

Counted according to Mark 14:1, – “after two day was the Feast of the Passover”: Jesus spoke these words on Wednesday, Nisan 13.

“The day on which Jesus was speaking ... ‘after two days is the Feast’,

the following day starting at sundown
with the Lord’s Supper (Not, with the partaking of the Passover Seder),

would have been 14 Nisan (Thursday)
until ... the Passover sacrifice would be killed
“in the afternoon” “between the two nights” (literal for the Dual ‘behn-ha-arbahim’).

The second day following (Nisan 15, Friday)
starting at sundown and the night-half
of the Passover Seder’s partaking
by the Jews (Thursday-night),
the "high Sabbath" of the first day
of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15, Friday)
would have been until ...
Joseph had closed the sepulchre, and up to before, “the women had begun to rest the Sabbath”.

Note,
“... the partaking of the Passover Seder by Jesus and the disciples and His crucifixion which followed ...” The Passover Seder followed after the Crucifixion. What went before the Crucifixion, was the Lord’s Supper.

Note,
“... the Passover Seder by Jesus and the disciples and His crucifixion which followed about 9:00, the next AM. (still on 14 Nisan)” The Seder was eaten “in the evening”, on Nisan 15, night-its-first-part. Seder was not, “still on 14 Nisan”. Seder of the Passover was the sacrifice eaten – it could not be eaten before slaughtered; so must follow after, Nisan 14, on Nisan 15 beginning “in the evening”.



Thesis
(B)
and the disciples and His crucifixion which followed about 9:00, the next AM. (still on 14 Nisan) and the "Feast" of 15 Nisan.”

“... the "high Sabbath" of the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, ... Scriptures that specifically testify to this are Matt. 26:1-5; Mk. 14:1-2 ...

Antithesis

(B)
Counted according to Mt26:2, – “after two days was the Pascha - slaughtered ” (Mk14:12): Jesus spoke these words on Tuesday. He spoke of the ‘pascha’ – “the day they killed the passover on” – not, the day on which they ate the Passover.

The day on which Jesus used the phrase, "after two days is the Passover", the day following would have been the day on which He spoke Mk14:1, “after two day was the Feast of, the Passover”. He would have been speaking two days “before the Feast” (Jn13:1), called, “Preparation of Passover” (Jn19:14), which would have been 14 Nisan, “when always they killed the Passover” (Mk14:12), “When they were obliged to kill the Passover” (Lk22:7). This day, Mark, Matthew and Luke, describe as ‘heh hehmera tohn a-dzymohn’ –‘day without leaven / leaven removed’. No ‘bread’ yet! Only the unleavened dough was ‘prepared’ on Nisan 14; the bread was baked while the lamb was roasted, no longer ‘between the evenings’ but after sunset, in the evening, “on the "Feast" of 15 Nisan”. (Another ‘work’ of the Feast-Sabbath.)

 

I am not one for any "only-ism". (And yes, I will defend the KJV, just as I will defend the NKJV, or another 'legitimate' (as opposed to one 'contrived' IMO, such as the NWT, e.g.) version - no more; no less. Every version we have available today, in every language, including the texts we use from the Hebrew, Chaldee/Aramaic, and Greek are apparently "not from the original", since we do not have these actual manuscripts. (Obviously, some versions are 'better' than are others.) Nor did the NJKV translators, the KJV translators, Coverdale, Rogers, Tyndale, Luther, Erasmus, Wescott or Hort, Farstad or Hodges, Robinson, Beza, or anyone else as far back as at least the times of Jerome, et al., "have the 'original'".
At best, Jerome, Origen, Augustine, et al., of that era, may have had first , second, or third generation copies. That argument is spurious, at best.

However, it is an error to ascribe the NKJV as generally in the camp of "DE", just as it would be wrong to ascribe this to the KJV or Tyndale. This simply is not so.

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' "word-for-word" translation, not will there ever be. It, likewise, simply is not so, nor is it even possible.

And, BTW, the only reason I do use an NKJV these days, is because my 'Scofield' wide margin KJV was stolen from my cab, a few years ago, and I could not get the same edition to replace it, anywhere at any price. As I am very partial to the Majority text (contrasted to the TR) tradition for the NT, to overall formal equivalence translations, generally (the occasional 'DE' readings that are to be found in all versions for 'sense', notwithstanding), to fairly wide margins for notes (always), and large print, for ease in reading (even that has become an impossibility, these days), I got the best combination available at a reasonable cost that I could find.

My MLB was not acceptable to me, as a primary Bible, for the above reasons. Nor was an NIV, which was the other alternative, I could get at that time. I can get two or three editions that are probably acceptable ten years later, at a price higher than I am really willing to pay, however, but do not see the need.

And I can now get all sorts of Electronic versions, as well. But I prefer a hard copy to hold in my hand. It's kinda' hard to write marginal and study notes on a two inch screen.

And it is faulty reasoning to equate Tyndale and the KJV translators, as well. They were not the same, being separated by a century. (FTR, nor did any individual KJV translator, to my knowledge, quite achieve the level of Tyndale, as a language scholar, IMO.) I do not use a Tyndale, simply because the spoken English of today is not the same as it was in his day. I can say the same as to the KJV language, as well. And the best I have, of all worlds put together, is the NKJV, currently.

However, the allegations implied about the motives of the late Arthur Farstad, are just as baseless as the same allegations would be about the late John Rainolds or the late William Tyndale, since we are mentioning the NKJV, KJV and Tyndale's versions. Not one of them deserves their motives to be judged post-humously, in absentia, and absent any evidence.

And FTR, I would offer that the only version of the three that could be strictly called a translation from the original languages, would be that of Tyndale, and even that not in 100% entirety. For Tyndale drew on his vast studies and intellectual abilities in linguistics and certainly his knowledge of the Vulgate and Wycliffe, as well. Some of Wycliffe's words and phrases can be found in Tyndale, as well.

Ed

 

Thesis
“"In the very light of its being", as referring to "the Sabbath" is merely a "theological construct" "from the get-go". There is no such wording even remotely close to this, anywhere in Scripture, to my knowledge.”

Antithesis
‘No such wording’? ‘anywhere in Scripture’?
Lk24:54, “And that day was / has been the Preparation”, “which is the Fore-Sabbath” (Mk15:42) “light=fohs tending towards=epi Sabbath=sabbaton” (Akk);
‘eti faous ountas’ – while there was still daylight;
‘pannucha kai faethontai’ – whole nights and days;
‘heh epifasis’ – ‘appearance high in the field of vision’ (Lampe);
‘epilampoh’ – ‘to shine after or upon’ (Classic);
Job 31:24-25, ‘hehlion ton epifauskonta X ekleiponta’ – ‘the sun shines; the moon fades’;
Job 25:4-6, ‘selehnei ouk epifauskei’ – ‘the stars are not bright’;
Job 41:9, ‘At the serpent’s sneezing a light hurtles down’, ‘epifausketai fengos’;
Cf. its OPPOSITE, ‘UP-coming light’, ‘Diafohskoh;
‘The brightness of His coming’, ‘epifaneia’, 2Th2:8;
‘Neither sun nor stars in many days appeared (in heaven above)’, Acts 27:20;
‘The appearing of our Lord who inhabits light unapproachable’ – ‘epi-fain-oh’;
OPPOSITE: ‘Tehi epi-ous-ehi NUKTI’ (Acts 23:11) X ‘tehi epifohskousehi sabbahtohn’ – ‘the very same night’ X ‘the very same Sabbath’;
1Sm13:21 ‘in the end of the year’ – ‘en tehi epionthi etehi;
“Everything manifest is light; That’s why He says, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon – ‘epifausehi’ – you. Eph5:14”;
Etc.etc.etc.

“...merely a "theological construct" ... no such wording even remotely close”? To THIS: “epi”=acme of “Fohs”=light / day OF the Sabbath’S=“Fohs” it BEING=“ontas” IN=“ousehi” (Dat) – “no such wording even remotely close”? You give me nearer words, more literal, more intentional the meaning of the author?

 

Ja wel, All you say is reasonably acceptable and to a large extent also reflects my own viewpoints.

I have a problem though with you saying, “Not one of them deserves their motives to be judged post-humously, in absentia, and absent any evidence.” Does this now mean obvious differences must be overlooked? Does it mean no ‘translation’ has got mistakes in it? Does it mean one has no right to show mistakes or doubtful renderings? Does it mean the reader must either be blind for differences / and or errors, or keep himself too dumb to notice any and too timid to point them out?

Do you mean the translators truly experienced no preconceptions? If so, were they truly human? How could they close them off from their own world? Just like “Tyndale drew on his knowledge of the Vulgate and Wycliffe”, just so “the late John Rainolds” drew on the trends and opinions of his day, and it must be a blind man who cannot recognise the necessary differences the GREEK SHOULD show, to accommodate his and Tyndale’s renderings.

Now is it not truly remarkable that – as far as I know and I do not know everything of course – isn’t it truly remarkable THERE ARE NO ‘VARIANTS’ on the whole of Mt28:1 as well as of Mk15:42. The nearest to a variant of Mark 15:42, is Mt27:57! The changes made to these two – and other – ‘Sabbath-implying’ texts in translations CANNOT have happened unpremeditatedly, accidentally, or, UNPRETENTIOUSLY! It certainly is no case of ‘motives judged in absence of any evidence’. The ‘evidence’ is found IN these instances, each time! I will never be able to “defend the KJV, just as I will defend the NKJV” – they are just not in the same class!

 

Somehow, you are managing to find a number of "'Sabbath-implying' texts" all throughout Scripture, even when such are not stated in the text(s) to which you sometimes refer. Are we to surmise that everyone has gotten it wrong, for 2000-3500 years, until you, and a small handful of others have "re-discovered" this hidden truth, somehow? One may or may not have accurately translated a verse or verses, but that is not always the same thing you are suggesting, in these posts, as well as your profile statement.

And once again, you unfortuantely are confuting what I said, out of context. I was referring to the motives of the translators, and not my opinion of the accuracy of the translation.

Your opinion that the KJV and NKJV are not is the same class, is just that, your opinion. I do not necessarily share this opinion, or even necessarily disagree with it, but do recognize that it is your (and my) opinion, here. It is also my opinion that the NIV is nowhere near same class as the KJV or NKJV (or several other versions, for that matter), either. But, again, it is still only my opinion, and I will say that my view here, is an opinion.

And not one thing (or at least very little) in any of your and my last several exchanges has anything to do with the OP, which is that the crucifixion happened on Wednesday. It did not occur on "Wedneday", as Eliyahu, Gerhard Ebersoehn, and EdSutton (and perhaps some others) have well shown. And I would suggest, very adequately.

But you and I have moved far from this question, here. I shall not post again about this in this thread, and would suggest you starting one on why you believe the resurrection occurred on the Sabbath, should you so desire.

I will post there, if it appears, but not again here. You and I are, I believe, appearing to 'quibble', about a periphreal issue, and take away from the OP question.

By no means am I unhappy, or do not have responses, I could put together, but have decided to let this one rest, as we have slid into this side issue. Besides, I have to leave for a while, and do not know if I can get back to the thread, for a day or so.

God bless,

Ed

 

Ed Sutton
"I hardly consider all of them as "blind"."

GE
This whole process of discovering the matter in hand, started while I, in the Church, sat reading from the Bible two 'versions' and the differences we are talking about, showed themselves to me while I had NO knowledge of the Greek

 

As I previously have written, If these mighty ones in their fortified castles had no 'ulterior motive' why barred they me, personally, from confronting them face to face? Why was I answered with blunt rebuttal (even from my Greek tutor); why was I, yes, insulted? But worst os all, why have my attempts at exposing the faultiness of their translations been ignored dead? Why would Tuebingen not do as much trouble as collect their copy of 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace'? Why has this book been removed from the shelves of the theological library of the University of Stellenbosch? Etc. and no 'ulterior motives'? If not 'motives', then FEAR drove men in positions of power and influence to suppress this KNOWLEDGE. It got through to even the SDA institutions, and 'LD' was given into the hands of several Americans with the promise the book will be put onto thieir shelves; but they did not.

 

Ed Sutton
"Are we to surmise that everyone has gotten it wrong, for 2000-3500 years, until you, and a small handful of others have "re-discovered" this hidden truth, somehow? "

GE
Good point, and the answer is just as easy and good as the question! From when of is the Bible available to everyone? Not from centuries ago; only from very recently - The Bible became available in Afrikaans as late as 1933! But from when do all these newer 'versions' date? Only from the Nida-Commission started the tsunami!
Then here's the crux! THEY, this new generation of critics of Holy Scriptures, discovered it --- not I --- and THEY, this day, show it to you, Ed Sutton! They do it like they did it to me (and others). They did it with their OBVIOUS OBFUSCATING of the implications of the Sabbath-resurrection. And it is even possible to show how as time went on, the one after the other implication, was discovered, so that the later / newer the version, the more of the relevant factors, were 'translated' out.

 

Very enlightened discussion on this topic, thanks!
Can anyone please explain where Mark 16:1 fits within crucifixion week?