Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possible Error in Peshitta 1Co. 5:8? - Leavened Bread
Dear Ronen and Chuck,

Ronen: "Regarding the meaning of "lakhma," I believe that it simply means bread--neither leavened nor unleavened; and I gave a fairly detailed linguistic argument to demonstrate this in my post from Saturday, December 5th, 2015, 02:49.

Chuck: "The Feast had yet to begin that night they ate their meal before Mshikha was arrested."

Which is completely contradicted by Mat 26:17 and Luk 22:7-8, since these both say that the disciples were preparing the Passover on the "first day of unleavened bread" (Mat 26:17) or just "day of unleavened bread... came" (Luk). They hadn't yet eaten the Passover, and it was already the 14th of Abib.

As I demonstrated from the Torah in a previous post, the phrase "first day of unleavened bread" can mean either the 14th of Abib (Exo 12:15) or the 15th (Exo 12:16)--but never the 13th. Therefore, it is completly impossible that they ate the meal on the 13th, plain and simple. (Now I go through your statements point by point in chronological order).

Chuck: "Perhaps 4 hours were not enough time?"

I'm enjoying the privilege of studying God's Word in the beautiful Peshitta. Why rush?

"... there was only one Paschal Feast to be eaten at sundown on the 14th day, and start of the 15th day."


"The religious leaders were instructed not to take Mshikha during the Feast, and they didn't."

Actually, let's see the text: "Matthew 26:5 And they said, Let it not be on the festival, lest there be a tumult among the people." (Eth) But I humbly suggest that your argument is "non sequitur"--that is to say, your conclusion cannot possibly follow from the premise, or presumed prooftext.

All we see in Mat 26:5 is the plotting of Christ's enemies, but not what actually happened. Christ's enemies plotted and failed many times before (Mat 22:18, Luk 20:23, Joh 8:59, Joh 10:31), so what makes you think that their intentions were carried out this time? Certainly, the text doesn't say so, although you append the words "they didn't" as though the text itself read that way.

Now what I also find ironic is that you're putting more trust in the accuracy of the (intentions) of Christ's worst enemies, than in Christ's own intentions: "Luke 22:15 And he said to them: I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you, before I suffer." (Mrd) So you would take the intent of Christ's worst enemies over Christ's own intent?

Now, to Luk 22:15, add Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14. These are four passages that all say Christ wanted, or prepared to eat the "Passover." Would you care to comment on these four passages that all say that it was the "Passover"?

I already addressed Joh 18:28 in a previous post where numerous commentators agree that John was referring to the "chagigah" on the 15th of Abib, but let's revisit this in even more detail. And if the following explanations weren't sufficient, though they more than are, then John's Gospel would still be left outnumbered four to one by the synoptics. But thankfully this isn't really the case, as we'll get to.

Now, even if you wanted to turn the tables around and claim that the four passages above were referring to the "chagigah" instead of John's account, then you would be putting Christ's "Last Supper" on the 15th of Abib, since that was when this "chagigah" was eaten, and you would be contradicting your own argument that the rulers didn't want to kill him "during the feast" (Mat 26:5).

Again, would you care to shed some light on the meaning of Christ desiring, and preparing to eat the "Passover" in four different passages (Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14)?

"The religious leaders wanted to make sure that Mshikha was taken off the Cross before the start of the Feast, and He was."

The text says: "John 19:31 The Jihudoyee, because it was the preparation, said, Let not these bodies remain-all-night upon the cross, because the shabath has lighted: for a great day was the day of that shabath. And they besought of Pilatos that they should break the legs of those (who had been) crucified, and take them down." (Eth)

Peshitta: "for a great day was the day of that Shabath" (רבא יומא דשׁבתא). Presumably, the Sabbath that was drawing near was the one that John calls the "great day of the Sabbath." According to some commentators, this term is simply used to denote that the feast of first-fruits (16th of Abib) happened to fall on the weekly Sabbath that year. I know that many disagree, but check these out:

John Gill @ Joh 19:31 - "it was not only a sabbath, and a sabbath in the passover week, but it was the day in which all the people appeared and presented themselves before the Lord in the temple, and the sheaf of the first fruits was offered up; all which solemnities meeting together made it a very celebrated day: it is in the original text, "it was the great day of the sabbath"; which is the language of the Talmudists, and who say [Piske Tosephot Sabbat, art. 314.] נקרא שבת הגדול "is called the great sabbath", on account of the miracle or sign of the passover; and in the Jewish Liturgy [Seder Tephillot, fol. 183. 2. &c. Ed. Basil.] there is a collect for the "great sabbath."'"

Joseph Benson @ Joh 19:31 - "... especially as that sabbath was a day of peculiar solemnity, being the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, (from whence they reckoned the weeks to pentecost,) and also the day for presenting and offering the sheaf of new corn"

Thomas Coke @ Joh 19:31 - "It was not only a sabbath, but the second day of the feast of unleavened bread, from whence they reckoned the weeks to Pentecost, and also the day for presenting and offering the sheaf of new corn; so that it was indeed a treble solemnity. The Jews style a feast, or the day of solemn assembly in any feast, a high, or great day."

Again, I'm perfectly aware that plenty of other commentators disagree with the above interpretation. But my view is supported just as well as yours. At best, we would have to call Joh 19:31 a draw. If a number of occassions could all be legitimately referred to as "great day of the Sabbath" (רבא יומא דשׁבתא), then there is no use arguing over Joh 19:31.

"The meal that Mshikha and His Talmide partook of on that night, before the Paskha Feast was to begin, was not the Paschal meal, which was to be eaten the next evening."

Citation needed. Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14 all disagree with you.

"It was the end of the 13th day of the 1st month, and start of the 14th day, when they ate the meal that night, reclining at the table. It could not have been the Passover meal they partook of. That would occur the next evening at sundown, when Mshikha's body was laying in the tomb."


"It was a High Day Sabbath that year, because the start of the Passover Feast fell on the start of the weekly Sabbath..."

Which is only one possible interpretation, as I pointed out above. The three commentators (and there are more) disagree with you. They say that it was the feast of first-fruits (16th of Abib) that coincided with the weekly sabbath that year, making it a "great Sabbath," and meaning that Yeshua died on the 15th.

But again, Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14 all say that it was the "Passover," and if we adjust John's use of "Passover" in Joh 18:28 to mean the "chagigah" on the 15th (Gill, Henry, Bynæus, Lightfoot, Reland, Olshausen, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Hofmann, Riggenbach, Ebrard, Bäumlein, Robinson, Lange, Edersheim, Roth), then all accounts are in total agreement. I also like the way Albert Barnes spells it out:

"The very day of keeping the ordinance was specified in the law of Moses, and it is not probable that the Saviour departed from the commandment. All the circumstances, also, lead us to suppose that he observed it at the usual time and manner, Mat_26:17, Mat_26:19. The only passage which has led to a contrary opinion is this in John; but here the word passover does not, of necessity, mean the paschal lamb. It probably refers to the Feast which followed the sacrifice of the lamb, and which continued seven days. Compare Num_28:16-17. The whole feast was called the Passover, and they were unwilling to defile themselves, even though the paschal lamb had been killed, because it would disqualify them for participating in the remainder of the ceremonies (Lightfoot)."

Barnes doesn't even call it the "chagigah," specifically, but he opens the door for yet another explanation that would easily, and legitimately reconcile Joh 18:28 with Luk 22:15, Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12, Mar 14:14. Consider the following from Adam Clarke on Joh 18:28:

"Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb any time between the evening of Thursday and that of Friday. He conjectures too that this permission was necessary on account of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose. When Cestius desired to know the number of the Jews, he asked the priests how he might accomplish his wish? They informed him that this might be known by the number of the lambs slain at the passover, as never less than ten partook of one lamb, though twenty might feast on it. On this mode of computation he found the lambs to be 256,500; εικοσι πεντε μυριαδας ηριθμησαν, προς δε ἑξακισχιλια και πεντακοσια. See Josephus, War, b. vi. c. 9. s. 3..."

"Mshikha was not hanging on the Cross during the Feast, but rather, the day before the Feast began. While the sacrificial lambs were being slaughtered, Mshikha, The Lamb of Alaha, who takes away the sin of the world, was being slaughtered on the Cross."

And so you would say that he ate the "Passover" on the 13th of Abib, which must now be irreconcilably refuted (besides all I've said before) by this lone factor:

Deu 16:5-6: "Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee; but at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover- offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." (JPS)

There were no priests sacrificing Passover lambs at the temple on the 13th of Abib, as would be necessary for your interpretation. And we know that Passover lambs were killed (Luk 22:7, Mar 14:12); so it is simply not tenable that Christ kept a "Passover" on the 13th. The Passover lamb would have had to been slaughtered at the temple (per Deu 16:5-6), but this wasn't done until the 14th, which puts your idea that they kept an early "Passover" out of commission.

Besides which, Luk 22:7-8 reads: "And the day of unleavened bread came, on which it was the custom to slay the petscha. And Jeshu sent Kipha and Juchanon, and said to them, Go prepare for us the petscha, that we may eat." (Eth)

Luke says that they were preparing to eat the Passover on the "day of unleavened bread" (cf. Mat 26:17). As I covered in a previous post, the "first of unleavened bread" can refer to either the 14th of Abib (cf. Exo 12:15) or the 15th of Abib (Exo 12:16)--but never the 13th of Abib, and this is where your argument ultimately fails.

Yeshua and his disciples were still preparing to eat the Passover on the "first day of unleavened bread," which could be no earlier than the 14th of Abib. Again: the first day of unleavened bread can never be the 13th of Abib, and yet Christ hadn't yet eaten the meal. It follows from this that they ate the Passover on the evening of the 14th (Mat 26:17-20), in this case called "the first of unleavened bread," and then he died the very next day (15th of Abib).

I submit to you that Yeshua and his disciples must have eaten a Torah-based Passover (with a sacrificed lamb and unleavened bread) on the 14th of Abib, and then Yeshua died the very next day, the 15th of Abib.


Messages In This Thread
RE: Possible Error in Peshitta 1Co. 5:8? - Leavened Bread - by Thomas - 12-07-2015, 07:05 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)