More on the Day of the Crucifixion Part 3
David Lee
Crucifixion", a Usenet debate between myself and a knowledgeable
evangelical by the name of Dave Steiger in the summer of 1999.
I have two more posts after this one. I hope they will be of use to
someone.
More on the Day of the Crucifixon Part 3
HUNTER
John considered it a 'Sabbath', that is, a "rest", or an
"intermission", but
you'll tell us, and John, that we're wrong? Please, reconsider, at
least
study the issue first.
DAVE
I am telling YOU that you are in error on this. John is right on. I
have
given you scripture after scripture to support my claims. You keep
posting
the verses that nowhere call the festivals a Sabbath. You keep saying
that
mere cessation of work was sufficient to call a day a Sabbath without
offering any evidence. I have, on the other hand, shown where the two
days
called "Sabbaths" were days that forbad *any* work. The remaining six
festival days were not only ever called "Sabbaths" but the author made
sure
he distinguished *servile* work when he wrote the laws in Numbers
28,29 and
Levitiucs 23. He did refer to three of the festivals with a very
similar yet
different word. The "Sabbitism" was simply a rest that did not merit
the
usual appellation "Sabbath".
Dave (earlier) Only the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement were
ever
called "Sabbath" in the OT(not including the Sabbath Year).
HUNTER
It's irrelevant what it was 'called', the idea is clear.
DAVE
Yo bud, its very relevant. Just because you don't like it you call it
irrelevant. The idea IS clear. ONLY the Day of Atonement and the
weekly
Sabbath were ever called "Sabbaths" in the OT and you don't like it. I
know
one of your precious doctrines is threatened here but that is not my
fault.
When you see something you don't like you post insults and claim it is
"irrelevant". That's too bad.
HUNTER
It was a 'Sabbath' in that they were to do absolutely no work beyond
eating! That's a heck of a 'non-Sabbath' if I use your line of
thinking.
If God told you to do absolutely NOTHING other than eat, what would
YOU call it...? And, Dave Lee, tell me, just how would they have been
able
to *celebrate* the Passover 'Sabbath' *if* God hadn't told them the
only single thing they could do WAS eat...? You see how that
works...?
DAVE
On a Sabbath you could not even prepare food. You had to do your
food
preparation on Friday. On the other six (festival) days you could work
to
prepare your food but you couldn't on the Day of Atonement (a fast
day).
That is why the Day of Atonement is called a Sabbath. No work *at all*
even
food preparation. And yes, according to the Bible it (N. 15) was a
"heck of
a non-Sabbath!" It was at best a "Sabbitism", another word for rest
that
distinguished it from the weekly Sabbath and the Sabbath of Atonement.
According to the Bible, if God told me to rest from *servile* work and
that I could prepare food I would NOT call it a Sabbath because I
would
have no scriptural authority to do so! Dave Steiger does not determine
what is called a Sabbath and what isn't. The Bible does that and it
does
that quite well. You can holler all you want but the OT decides what
the
Sabbath is and what it isn't. You can stamp your foot and shake your
fist
and insist that a day of rest alone was sufficient to call it a
Sabbath but
you have not and cannot name one single scripture in the OT that calls
a day of rest a Sabbath unless it was a day in which no work of *any
kind* was to be done. You are unwilling to let go of a precious
doctrine
or belief either because you cannot face the fact you may be wrong or
you are just too filled with pride to do so. I have scripture to back
up
my claim. You have none.
HUNTER
It doesn't need to have a proper 'title', it's clearly, easily,
implied;
it's a 'Sabbath', and John thought so, thus so do I.
DAVE
Sorry, YOU don't determine what is called Sabbath or what isn't. The
Bible
makes that determination. John was right. You are not.
HUNTER
Otherwise it's meaningless, as the 'High Sabbath' would be nothing
more
than another 'Saturday', and man, there ain't nothing 'High' about
that.
DAVE
John disagrees with you. He called that Sabbath a big Sabbath. And
yes, it
was the weekly Sabbath. If John called the coming Saturday a "big
Sabbath"
then by jove it was a big Sabbath, whether Dave Steiger agrees with it
or
not. You can argue with John if you want to. If John says it was a
big one
then I believe he meant just that. I am not going to cry out "Hey
John, what
is so high about Saturday, huh?" If I did John would probably look at
me
with pity and say "Weren't you paying attention? Tomorrow is not only
the
weekly Sabbath, which is a holy day to our people, but it is also
Nisan 15,
a festival day that we celebrate! That makes it pretty darn big I
would
say!"
Of course Dave Steiger will stomp his foot, hoot and holler, and say
it *couldn't* be big, because Nisan 15 falling on a weekly Sabbath
just
isn't big enough to merit it being called big! But *if* Nisan 15
falls on
any other day of the week it most certainly is big! It is big if it
falls on
a Thursday, but it isn't big if it falls on the weekly Sabbath! Go
figure!
Go ahead Dave and post insults, put downs and cry about how you
understand
the Jews and I don't. I will NOT convince YOU and that is self
evident.
Further, consider that we call the day on which the Super Bowl is
played
a "big" Sunday. That doesn't mean Sunday means some other day of the
week, it just means this Sunday has more significance than the others
becuase it is a regular Sunday on which somethinh significant occurs.
Also,
Easter Sunday is a "big" Sunday but that doesn't mean it is some other
day of the week, now does it?
HUNTER
Read it again...
John 19:31
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies
should
not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day
was an
high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that
they
might be taken away."
There was something very special about this day, nothing run of the
mill
about it.
DAVE
Yes, there was something special about this day. It was first of all
a
Sabbath! Now that already got the Jews attention. But it was also the
first
day of unleavened bread, a very special day in Jewish history. The
"big
Sabbath" expression found in the first century was NOT an expression
used
for Jewish feast days. It was used for Sabbath days on which big
things
happened, whether a feast day or a newsworthy event. It was used in
*The
Martyrdom of Polycarp* twice to refer to a weekly Sabbath that
occurred in
Februrary. The "Preparation" (greek) was translated "Friday" in
Martydom 7:1
(Lightfoots translation) and the "BigSabbath" (greek) was translated
"high
day" in 8:1 and 21:1. This can be checked out at:
http://wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nicene/polycarp/pol/mart/htm
It was NOT uncommon to refer to a weekly Sabbath as "big" if
something
important happened to fall on that day. I bet Hunter cannot find a
single
early reference (apart from the one in dispute) where a Jewish feast
day
exclusively was called a "big day" or a "high day". The "Preparation"
was
used by early greeks to refer to the day before the Sabbath (as used
in
Martyrdom 7:1 and Josephus _Antiquities_ xvi. 6. 2. 163). Even today
it is
used for Friday by modern greeks. And "high day" was used to reference
a
regular weekly Sabbath. These are the undeniable facts. Hunter will
probably
call me a liar or maybe he won't. But I predict he will NOT accept the
fact
that "high day" could refer to a normal weekly Sabbath on which
something
big happened. After all, as he wrote above, "High Sabbath would be
nothing
more than Saturday and there is nothing high about that!"
HUNTER
Dave, maybe you never heard this, but consider it. Most Believers
generally
consider Christ to have been crucified in the year 30 A.D., once the
proper
adjustments in the calendar had been understood. Now, I don't know if
you
agree with that, or not, but I do. It makes sense when you hear the
whole
argument, but that's not for today.
DAVE
Some say 31AD, some say 32 AD, others say 33AD, and now you say
30AD. This
is supposed to be the most important man in the history of the world,
yet
most believers cannot only agree on which year he was born, but cannot
agree
on which year he died or even on which *day* he died. And the
important
thing is they all believe they are right!
HUNTER
Anyway, *if* Christ was crucified in 30 A.D., then you're wrong
anyway, and
here's why.
DAVE
Yes, *if* ! That can be a big word.
HUNTER
The 14th of Nisan would have been a Wednesday in that year,
it's easily verified.
DAVE
Actually it is NOT so easy to verify. There is a lot of dispute on
this.
According to _Jean Meeus' Astronomical Alogorithims_ the new moon
occurred
in Palestine at 23.27 on what would be Wednesday night on March 22.
Now the
equinox occurred on March 23rd then (not like it is now on March 21)
so I
am not sure if the new moon that occurred that night would begin the
month
of Nisan or the intercalary month that was sometimes inserted if the
new
moon that would normally be Nisan occurred before the spring equinox.
But
for sake of argument suppose it *was* the beginning of what was
supposed to
be the new first month of the Jewish year. If so, then it would take a
sharp
eyed observer to spot the thin crescent of the new moon the following
evening (Thursday evening).
If he were lucky and caught it the first time out (which is a
possibility)
then Thursday sunset would be Nisan 1. If that is the case, then Nisan
8 would also begin on a Thursday sunset and Nisan 15 would also begin
on a Thursday
sunset. That would place Nisan 14 on a Thursday, and only if the sharp
eyed observer caught the crescent on the first possible night. Now I
realize
that many believers reject the Astronomical Alogorithims as "bad
science"
and claim they cannot be "relied upon".
Of course that makes sense if you have a pet doctrine to uphold.
Others just parrot what others have said over the years and claim that
a
Wednesday crucifixion is possible in 30AD. Well Dave, maybe it is. But
I
have a dilemma. Should I reject the Alogorithims (which are accepted
by
scientists for fixing new moon dates and even eclipses and such) and
accept
your data? Is your data more convincing? Some scholars have used the
Alogorithims to support the Friday crucifixion in 30AD since a
sighting a
day later than the one mentioned above would place the beginning of
Nisan
15 on a Friday sunset March 24, 30AD. However, it is possible that
30AD
was an intercalary year (I don't know). I say that because the new
moon occurred just before the spring equinox. I have heard that if the
new moon that normally marked the beginning of the first month
occurred before the spring equinox then that month was an intercalary
month. Maybe you have
some data that would override the data I have.
Now there was another new moon that spring. It occurred on Friday
April 21
at 3:17pm which isn't much help for the Wednesday crucifixion theory.
I know
many scholars reject the scientific dates for the new moon and set
their
own. I am not qualified to debate this. All I can do is offer my
evidence
and let the chips fall where they may.