Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 24:1
#73
Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Quote:I'm going to get back with you on this, because I think I can provide such a reference when I'm not hurrying to get ready for Shabbat. However, for the moment I would like to point out a few things:
If this was "at the beginning of the Sabbath" as you suggest, then why do some accounts say "before dawn" since the beginning of Shabbat would be in the evening?

I have never suggested it was at the beginning of Sabbath, If you read my post Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:24 am you will see that I said Sabbath morning, which I am sure you will agree is quite a different from the beginning of Sabbath.

Quote:Why were the women going to the tomb on Shabbat? Wouldn't that be a violation of Shabbat?

You would not be the first person to raise the objection that the women could not have gone to anoint Yeshua's body on the weekly Sabbath because it would have been against the Law (Exo. 20:8-11; Deu. 5:12-15). The Jewish Mishnah (which records the oral law as it would have been observed in Yeshua's day) addresses the legality of anointing a dead body on a weekly Sabbath. This is what the Mishnah says would have been allowed:
A. They prepare all that is needed for a corpse.
B. They anoint and rinse it,
C. on condition that they not move any limb of the corpse.
D. They remove the mattress from under it.
E. And they put on [cool] sand so that it will keep.
F. They tie the chin,
G. not so that it will go up, but so that it will not droop [further].
H. And so in the case of a beam which broke ???
I. they support it with a bench or the seams of a bed,
J. not so that it will go up, but so that it will not droop [further].
K. They do not close the eyes of a corpse on the Sabbath,
L. nor on an ordinary day at the moment the soul goes forth.
M. And he who closes the eyes of a corpse at the moment the soul goes forth, lo, this one sheds blood. (p. 207, The Mishnah, A New Translation, Shabbat 23:5)
The women rested according to the Law on the Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23:6-7), but they had legal justification to go to the tomb on the weekly Sabbath. It was the Jewish custom (in fact, an obligation) for grieving friends and relatives to go to a grave on the third day to pay last respects. It was at this point in time that death was considered permanent. So a Sabbath morning visit to Yeshua's tomb by the women for the purpose of anointing his body would have been in accord with the Jewish oral law and would not have broken the Sabbath commandment (Exo. 20:8-11).


Quote:Just one more thing. A reference from the TN"K will not actually apply in this case

I???m not sure what you mean? and what is TN"K short for is it tanakh?



In respect of your most recent post Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:25 pm. I would like to submit the following:
Many Church scholars argue that the phrase "first day of the week" was based on the Jewish method of counting days of the week in respect of Sabbath
They cite the late Talmudic phrase for first day in the week ???? ???????????? and claim that this justifies the sense of "week" for the word "Sabbath" in the enumeration of the days of the week. Indeed, the Talmud does have a method for enumerating the days of the week, but the usages tell a different story to the glottochronologist ( a linguist who studies the history of changes in languages)

The Talmudic idiom ???? ???????????? is an Aramaic dialect. So also the rest of the days of the week:
1.?????? ?????????? on one in the week*
2. ???????? ?????????? on second in the week*
3.?????????? ?????????? on third in the week*
4.???????????? ?????????? on fourth in the week*
5. ???????????? ?????????? on fifth in the week*
6. ?????????? ?????????? on preparation to Sabbath
7. ???????????? on the Sabbath
What should first be observed is that ?? is rejected in the forms for days one to five. In a few cases the ?? is retained(e.g. Shabbat and preparation to Shabbat)



The form ???????? does not originate with Shabbat .It derives from the Aramaic word for "seven" ???????? only with an ?? exchanged for ??. This is an alternate spelling of the Aramaic for "seven,". Therefore, the usage ?????????? ?????? in the Talmud is literally "one in the seven" and not "one in the *Sabbath"!
Furthermore, this is proved by the reintroduction of the ?? on day six ?????????? ?????????? means "on preparation of sabbath". Notice that the preposition ?? is missing also, because the word ??????????means "Sabbath". Likewise, ????????????means "on Sabbath".
The same rejection of the final tav (??) occurs in Chaldee Syriac (???????? ?????? one in seven vs. ???????? Sabbath) and Ancient Syriac (?????? ???????????? vs.????????????)
The Targum of the dialect of the Jews of Kurdistan explicitly counts in the same fashion, "one day in the seven,"
(,???????? ??????????????) "two in the seven"(?????????????? s ??????????)etc. The lack of the final tav in all the usages of counting is the proverbial smoking gun. It shows that the popular spoken dialects rejected the idea of counting days of the week to the Sabbath, and that such countings were with respect to the word "week" or "seven" and not the Sabbath.

The Aramaic or Hebrew originals to the gospels, remain yet undiscovered, all were most likely destroyed by the Romans or Ecclesiastical Authorities. The Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions are unquestionably made directly from the Greek" (NA-27th, pg. 63*, Novum TestamentumGraece). The extant Syriac MSS were not made before the fifth century, and it is clear that the translators used the oral tradition of the "first day of the week" and the chronological misunderstanding to translate "first in the seven" in much the same way that Catholic missionaries translate "first day of the week" today. Any MSS reading "one of the Sabbaths" in a version of Aramaic would have been destroyed by Ecclesiastical authorities on the assumption that it was a heretical production of a small sect of Judaizers and not in line with Church doctrine. Such an artifact would lie too close to the original text for them to tolerate. On the other hand, the same could be tolerated in Latin, e.g. prima autem sabbatorum, because it was not Hebrew and was already sold to the flock as a Hebrew method of reckoning the week without significant fear that anyone could double check it. Such was not possible in Aramaic. An accurate translation in Aramaic would betray no ability to mean "first day of the week", and would have to be destroyed to be successfully repressed.

Shlama w???burkate

Claud.


Messages In This Thread
Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-14-2008, 02:23 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-14-2008, 04:23 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-15-2008, 01:29 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-15-2008, 02:04 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by ForHisRenown - 12-15-2008, 02:43 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-15-2008, 04:35 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Doug in CO - 12-15-2008, 06:05 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by ograabe - 12-15-2008, 08:40 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-15-2008, 10:04 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Doug in CO - 12-15-2008, 10:56 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-16-2008, 12:31 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-17-2008, 12:41 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-17-2008, 02:34 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-17-2008, 03:44 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-17-2008, 04:30 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-18-2008, 08:05 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-18-2008, 10:53 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-19-2008, 12:05 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Mike Kar - 12-19-2008, 12:39 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-19-2008, 01:24 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-19-2008, 05:00 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2008, 05:07 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-19-2008, 06:22 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-19-2008, 01:03 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2008, 05:05 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by yaaqubyl - 12-19-2008, 07:54 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-19-2008, 08:53 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by enarxe - 12-19-2008, 10:21 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2008, 10:53 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2008, 11:20 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-20-2008, 05:29 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-20-2008, 05:30 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-23-2008, 01:58 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 12-23-2008, 07:23 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-23-2008, 12:28 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 12-23-2008, 03:08 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-24-2008, 02:01 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-24-2008, 02:24 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-24-2008, 02:40 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-24-2008, 02:53 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-28-2008, 10:55 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-28-2008, 11:25 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Phil - 12-29-2008, 12:13 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Phil - 12-29-2008, 01:28 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 12-29-2008, 01:56 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Paul Younan - 12-29-2008, 04:27 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 12-29-2008, 04:34 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-29-2008, 09:56 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Lars Lindgren - 12-29-2008, 12:08 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 12-30-2008, 03:54 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by abudar2000 - 12-30-2008, 10:59 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Shuvah - 01-28-2009, 02:11 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 01-29-2009, 02:25 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Dawid - 01-30-2009, 09:35 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Shuvah - 01-31-2009, 02:01 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Dawid - 01-31-2009, 02:55 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 01-31-2009, 11:29 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Shuvah - 02-02-2009, 02:28 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Shuvah - 02-02-2009, 02:53 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Mike Kar - 02-02-2009, 09:14 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Dawid - 02-02-2009, 10:33 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Dawid - 02-02-2009, 10:46 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Shuvah - 02-03-2009, 01:45 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 02-03-2009, 01:51 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Shuvah - 02-03-2009, 01:58 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Dawid - 02-03-2009, 03:28 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Dawid - 02-03-2009, 08:25 PM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 02-26-2009, 01:12 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Thirdwoe - 02-26-2009, 01:45 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 02-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by claud - 02-26-2009, 09:28 AM
Re: Luke 24:1 - by Stephen Silver - 02-26-2009, 05:12 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)