Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:01 am

John 19: 31 (RSV):

[31] Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Numbers 28: 16 - 18 (RSV):

[16] "On the fourteenth day of the first month is the LORD's passover.
[17] And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
[18] On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work

Which leads to this very unusual verse:

Mark 14: 12 (RSV):

[12] And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?"

The "Day of Preparation"?

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12069
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:28 am

The fact that Josephus - in a text altered or written by Greeks at or near the turn of the first century - makes the reference Andrew cites important. But the gospel reference(s) are earlier and ultimately the nexus is peculiar. Jews did not celebrate a day a preparation.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:15 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:28 am
Jews did not celebrate a day a preparation.
Agreed. I also agree that the "nexus is peculiar".

This might be a point that would suggest that the early NT Authors became aware of this Flaw early in the Construction of the NT and manufactured a solution, one that would install a wedge between "The Jews" and the "Early Christians". Since the Jewish Culture had been destroyed and "Jesus" was the son of God, the eight day Passover/Feast could become a seven day Set of Events and no one would be the worse for wear.

There is another alternative. Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah":

"According to another opinion, the priests of Bilgah delayed too long in entering upon the performance of their functions; so that those of the division Jeshebeab were compelled to act in their place, and consequently received the prerogatives of Bilgah..."

The Markan Story of the Disciples asking where to find the proper Passover Celebratory Apparatus is a Version of this possibility. "The Day of Preparation" becomes a Label that allows a "Way Out". The Passover becomes a "Day of Preparation" ahead of the High Sabbath of the First Day of Unleavened Bread. John appears to run with this and makes "Jesus" the Passover Lamb for Humanity, not just the Jews.

The Romans wouldn't understand the delicate Nature of these Arguments or more likely wouldn't care. The Jews would see this as an attempt to rewrite the obvious Jewish History. The Wedge is introduced.
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12069
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:19 am

This might be useful:
Irenaeus himself used only the Greek word, which was replaced or glossed in the Latin translation bycena puraat a much later date. For a gloss see 5.23.2 hoc est parasceue, quae dicitur cenapura ('that is the parasceue, which is called cena pura'), = toutstin n t¦ legomnh paraskeu¦. More interesting is an example at 1.14.6, where cena pura replaces parasceue: etpropter replaces parasceue: etpropter hoc Moysen in sexta die dixisse hominem factum, et dispositionem autem in sexta die, quae est [in] cena pura ('and because of this Moses said that man was made on the sixth day, and the “economy” [was made] on the sixth day, which is the cena pura')." The Greek of the final two clauses is: kaa tn o«konom©an d n t¦ kth tän ¡mrwn, ¤tiv stan ¡ paraskeu. Thus the Greek word is rendered by cena pura. The virtual equivalence of cena pura with 'sixth day' shows that (in the later translation) cena pura could in some (Judeo-Christian) circles in effect be used of 'Friday', though it would hardly have lost its religious significance. https://books.google.com/books?id=yu9zS ... 22&f=false
There seems to have been a cultural setting where the term simply meant 'Friday.' But the question of course is what cultural setting was this? It is assumed there was a Judeo-Latin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Latin "Other possible source are loanwords in other languages, like in Sardinian cenabura [ken'abura] 'Friday' (from Latin cena pura) and caputanni, 'September', a literal translation of Rosh Hashanah." But I am not sure this is true.
One such example is where Tertullian responds to the charge that Christians worship the sun. In Ad nationes, he turns the charge on his opponents, showing how their practices of taking a day of rest (otium 1.13.3) and celebrating purity (cena pura) are similar to Jewish rites. (1.13.5) While mocking the audience's gods (diis uestris, 1.13.4), Tertullian claims that “We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest” (non longe a Saturno et sabbatis uestris sumus, 1.13.5)
Ad Nationes:
Others of kinder disposition imagine that the sun is the Christian god. They have observed that when we pray, we face to the east and we rejoice on the day of the sun. Do you do anything less than this? Do you not sometimes cause your lips to quiver toward the rising sun as an act of adoration? It is most definitely your preference to single out Sunday, the seventh day from the sequence, to refrain from bathing, at least until evening? This is also your designated day for leisure and festivity. By doing this you depart from your traditional practices in favor of alien religions. The Jewish festivals are the Sabbath and the feast of purification. And the Jews also have the rite of the lamps and of fasting with unleavened bread and prayers at the seashore -- all of which are alien to your gods. Now to return to our subject, you who deride us for sun worship and Sunday worship, see how close you are to us. We are not far removed from your Saturn and your Sabbath.
What is this Jewish festival 'the feast of purification'????
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Charles Wilson » Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:46 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:19 am
There seems to have been a cultural setting where the term simply meant 'Friday.'
'N therein lies the Tale.

One Sabbath begins at our Friday sundown but the John quote shows that there were those who realized that there could be more than one Sabbath in a week. The first day of the Feast was a High Sabbath. That day could be on a Wednesday and that would be lost to the early Christians who were told that the "Jewish Sabbath" began on Friday night.

Thus the "Problem" of "Three days and three nights...":

Matthew 12: 40 (RSV):

[40] For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If it's Friday night to Sunday morning, there are problems. These problems disappear if there can be more than one Sabbath in a week but that introduces problems for early Christianity given its purpose of suppressing the underlying Jewish Culture.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12069
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:30 pm

I've always thought the commentary on the Marcionite interpretation of a section corresponding to:
And after that, Jesus went out, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting among the publicans: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left everything, and rose, and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his house. And there was a great multitude of the publicans and others sitting with him. And the scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said unto his disciples, Why do ye eat and drink with the publicans and sinners? Jesus answered and said unto them, The physician seeketh not those who are well, but those that are afflicted with grievous 30, sickness. I came not to call the righteous, but the sinners, to repentance. And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast always, and pray, and the Pharisees also, but thy disciples eat and drink? He said unto them, Ye cannot make the sons of the marriage feast fast, while the bridegroom is with them. Days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them; then will they fast in those days. And he spake unto them a parable: No man inserteth a new patch and seweth it in a worn garment, lest the newness of the new take from the worn, and there occur a great rent. And no man putteth fresh wine into old skins, lest the wine burst the skins, and the skins be destroyed, and the wine spilled; but they put the fresh wine in the new skins, and both are preserved. And no man drinketh old wine and straightway desireth fresh; for he saith, The old is better.

And while Jesus was walking on the sabbath day among the sown fields, his disciples hungered. And they were rubbing the ears with their hands, and eating. But some of the Pharisees, when they saw them, said unto him, See, why do thy disciples on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? But Jesus said unto them, Have ye not read in olden time what David did, when he had need and hungered, he and those that were with him? how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the table of the Lord, which it was not lawful that any should eat, save the priests, and gave to them that were with him also? And he said unto them, The sabbath was created because of man, and man was not created because of the sabbath. Or have ye not read in the law, that the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and yet they are blameless? I say unto you now, that here is what is greater than the temple. If ye had known this. I love mercy, not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned those on whom is no blame. The Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man. And his relatives heard, and went out to take him, and said, He hath gone out of his mind.
I have argued many times that what is preserved in Against Marcion Book 4 is something written by someone before Tertullian and Irenaeus without reference to the Gospel of Luke. This idea necessarily means I have to cite the entire existing commentary from Tertullian and point out the passage which I think was interpolated later in bold:
The publican who was chosen by the Lord, he [Marcion] adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. [Matthew!] He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick." For since by "those that are sick" he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were "whole" for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in want of a physician."

How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it? For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion's god-made men [Homo a deo Marcionis] having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! [there is no reference to John baptizing John at the beginning of Marcion's gospel' the first mention of John is here] After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system.

... For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank,to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [Celsus makes a similar reference to a Marcionite belief that John and Jesus had different gods]

For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity.

But as it is, while modestly [the Marcionitge interpretation must assume some bravado] giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force.

I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, [the Marcionite thought it was 'their Christ] of whom the psalm says: "He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again" ... Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a caelebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism. Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them.

You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how "old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new," does He not advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done.

And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition of the gospel from the old state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to have been branded [notandam] as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification, by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed. So likewise the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances from the law----a different thing from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary ... If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.

Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to premise, that this question could not have arisen, if Christ did not publicly proclaim the Lord of the Sabbath . Nor could there be any discussion about His annulling the Sabbath, if He had a right to annul it. Moreover, He would have the right, if He belonged to the rival god; nor would it cause surprise to any one that He did what it was right for Him to do. Men's astonishment therefore arose from their opinion that it was improper for Him to proclaim the Creator to be God and yet to impugn His Sabbath. Now, that we may decide these several points first, lest we should be renewing them at every turn to meet each argument of our adversary which rests on some novel institution of Christ, let this stand as a settled point, that discussion concerning the novel character of each institution ensued on this account, because as nothing was as yet advanced by Christ touching any new deity, so discussion thereon was inadmissible; nor could it be retorted, that from the very novelty of each several institution another deity was clearly enough demonstrated by Christ, inasmuch as it was plain that novelty was not in itself a characteristic to be wondered at in Christ, because it had been foretold by the Creator. And it would have been, of course, but right that a new376 god should first be expounded, and his discipline be introduced afterwards; because it would be the god that would impart authority to the discipline, and not the discipline to the god; except that (to be sure) it has happened that Marcion acquired his very perverse opinions not from a master, but his master from his opinion!

All other points respecting the Sabbath I thus rule. If Christ interfered with the Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator's example; inasmuch as in the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark of the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day, actually378 annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator's command----according to the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St. Luke, in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then broken379 by Joshua,380 so that the present charge might be alleged also against Christ. [4] But even if, as being not the Christ of the Jews, He displayed a hatred against the Jews' most solemn day, He was only professedly following381 the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: "Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth."382 Now, in whatever sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge.

I shall now transfer the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ seemed to annul the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that the Sabbath day they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; by thus preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them, and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees bring the charge against Him. Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of the controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to ridicule his arts), both in the scriptural record and in Christ's purpose. For from the Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colourable precedent ----as from the example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread.385 [6] Even he remembered that this privilege (I mean the dispensation from fasting) was allowed to the Sabbath from the very beginning, when the Sabbath-day itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, He yet permitted it on the one occasion only of the day before the Sabbath, in order that the yesterday's provision of food might free from fasting the feast of the following Sabbath-day. [7] Good reason, therefore, had the Lord for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath (since that is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for expressing the Creator's will,386 when He bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there387 put an end to the Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had commanded His disciples to fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the intention388 of the Scripture and of the Creator's will. [8] But because He did not directly defend389 His disciples, but excuses them; because He interposes human want, as if deprecating censure; because He maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work;390 because he puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in their fault and their extenuation; because He is pleased to endorse391 the Creator's indulgence:392 because He is Himself good according to His example----is He therefore alien from the Creator? [9] Then the Pharisees watch whether He would heal on the Sabbath-day,393 that they might accuse Him----surely as a violator of the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god; for perhaps I might be content with insisting on all occasions on this one point, that another Christ394 is nowhere proclaimed. The Pharisees, however, were in utter error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not observing that its terms were conditional, when it enjoined rest from labour, making certain distinctions of labour. For when it says of the Sabbath-day, "In it thou shalt not do any work of thine,"395 by the word thine396 it restricts the prohibition to human work----which every one performs in his own employment or business----and not to divine work. [10] Now the work of healing or preserving is not proper to man, but to God. So again, in the law it says, "Thou shalt not do any manner of work in it,"397 except what is to be done for any soul,398 that is to say, in the matter of delivering the soul;399 because what is God's work may be done by human agency for the salvation of the soul. By God, however, would that be done which the man Christ was to do, for He was likewise God.400 Wishing, therefore, to initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration of the withered hand, He requires, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or not? to save life, or to destroy it? "401 [11] In order that He might, whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a soul,402 remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade----even human works; and what it enjoined----even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of any soul,403 He was called "Lord of the Sabbath,"404 because He maintained405 the Sabbath as His own institution. Now, even if He had annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do so,406 as being its Lord, (and) still more as He who instituted it. [12] But He did not utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken407 by the Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that was really408 God's work, which He commanded Himself, and which He had ordered for the sake of the lives of His servants when exposed to the perils of war. [13] Now, although He has in a certain place expressed an aversion of Sabbaths, by calling them your Sabbaths,409 reckoning them as men's Sabbaths, not His own, because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God "with the lip, not the heart,"410 He has yet put His own Sabbaths (those, that is, which were kept according to His prescription) in a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later passage,411 He declared them to be "true, and delightful, and inviolable." [14] Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of His disciples, for He indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry, and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it,"412 although Marcion has gagged413 His mouth by this word.414 For even in the case before us He fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a dear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath415 and while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by His own beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards,416 ----a course which417 His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. [15] Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman,418 you see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proper employment for the Creator's Sabbaths of old419 to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example,420 the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example He fulfils421 the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: "The weak hands are strengthened," as were also "the feeble knees"422 in the sick of the palsy.
If we look at the commentary we see that the 'Lord of the Sabbath' comment appears out of its natural order in the existing narrative:
And after that, Jesus went out, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting among the publicans: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left everything, and rose, and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his house. And there was a great multitude of the publicans and others sitting with him. And the scribes and Pharisees murmured, and said unto his disciples, Why do ye eat and drink with the publicans and sinners? Jesus answered and said unto them, The physician seeketh not those who are well, but those that are afflicted with grievous 30, sickness. I came not to call the righteous, but the sinners, to repentance. And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast always, and pray, and the Pharisees also, but thy disciples eat and drink? He said unto them, Ye cannot make the sons of the marriage feast fast, while the bridegroom is with them. Days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them; then will they fast in those days. And he spake unto them a parable: No man inserteth a new patch and seweth it in a worn garment, lest the newness of the new take from the worn, and there occur a great rent. And no man putteth fresh wine into old skins, lest the wine burst the skins, and the skins be destroyed, and the wine spilled; but they put the fresh wine in the new skins, and both are preserved. And no man drinketh old wine and straightway desireth fresh; for he saith, The old is better.

And while Jesus was walking on the sabbath day among the sown fields, his disciples hungered. And they were rubbing the ears with their hands, and eating. But some of the Pharisees, when they saw them, said unto him, See, why do thy disciples on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? But Jesus said unto them, Have ye not read in olden time what David did, when he had need and hungered, he and those that were with him? how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the table of the Lord, which it was not lawful that any should eat, save the priests, and gave to them that were with him also? And he said unto them, The sabbath was created because of man, and man was not created because of the sabbath. Or have ye not read in the law, that the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and yet they are blameless? I say unto you now, that here is what is greater than the temple. If ye had known this. I love mercy, not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned those on whom is no blame. The Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man. And his relatives heard, and went out to take him, and said, He hath gone out of his mind.
I think that the original passage was so unusual because the Pharisees were not complaining about sitting with sinners but the fact that they were eating on a day which was supposed to be reserved for fasting - the Sabbath.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by arnoldo » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:04 am

Charles Wilson wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:15 am
Secret Alias wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:28 am
Jews did not celebrate a day a preparation.
Agreed. I also agree that the "nexus is peculiar".

This might be a point that would suggest that the early NT Authors became aware of this Flaw early in the Construction of the NT and manufactured a solution, one that would install a wedge between "The Jews" and the "Early Christians". Since the Jewish Culture had been destroyed and "Jesus" was the son of God, the eight day Passover/Feast could become a seven day Set of Events and no one would be the worse for wear.

There is another alternative. Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah":

"According to another opinion, the priests of Bilgah delayed too long in entering upon the performance of their functions; so that those of the division Jeshebeab were compelled to act in their place, and consequently received the prerogatives of Bilgah..."

The Markan Story of the Disciples asking where to find the proper Passover Celebratory Apparatus is a Version of this possibility. "The Day of Preparation" becomes a Label that allows a "Way Out". The Passover becomes a "Day of Preparation" ahead of the High Sabbath of the First Day of Unleavened Bread. John appears to run with this and makes "Jesus" the Passover Lamb for Humanity, not just the Jews.

The Romans wouldn't understand the delicate Nature of these Arguments or more likely wouldn't care. The Jews would see this as an attempt to rewrite the obvious Jewish History. The Wedge is introduced.
FWIW,


G-d gave a ceremony of searching and removing leaven from the house prior to the festival of Unleavened Bread in preparation for the festival. In Hebrew, this ceremony is called Bedikat HaMetz, which means "the search for leaven" The ceremony is as follows:

The preparation for searching and removing the leaven (Bedikat HaMetz) from the house actually begins before Passover (Pesach)
http://www.mayimhayim.org/Festivals/Feast4.htm


User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12069
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:15 am

It's not quite the same thing as a feast of purity
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Solving the Mystery of the Day of Preparation (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31)

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:13 am

Perhaps helpful:

https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=42

"Notice also that some leaders did not hesitate to allow "the trimming of vegetables" ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT ITSELF! It goes without saying that IF it was acceptable for a person to actually trim vegetables on the Day of Atonement, in preparation for the meal after the Day of Atonement had concluded, then they were in effect using the Day of Atonement TO PREPARE for what they would eat on the day after Atonement. So they used a Friday Day of Atonement to prepare what they would eat on the weekly Sabbath after the Day of Atonement..."

Post Reply