8. There are a total of 7 days of eating unleavened bread.

9. The first and seventh days are High Sabbaths.

10. It was during the night of Passover, Abib 14, that the Israelites came out of Egypt, the house of bondage.

11. The hebrew terms arab and byn ha-arabim are synonymous and mean the time period just after sunset and before dark which begins the scriptural day.

12. One is to eat unleavened bread from the beginning of Abib 14 until the beginning of Abib 21 for a total of seven days of eating unleavened bread.

13. After the killing of the Passover lamb, the sprinkling of blood on the door frame, and the Passover meal at the beginning of Abib 14, the Israelites were not to leave their houses until morning.

14. It was the destroyer named Yahweh who killed all the Egyptian firstborn.

15. The day of Passover is to be observed as an ordinance or statute until a future world-age lasting time.

Now, let’s see if we can solve this case with our third installment amigos.

Exodus 12:29
And it came to pass, that at midnight Yahweh smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
BHS – וַיְהִ֣י בַּחֲצִ֣י הַלַּ֗יְלָה וַֽיהוָה֮ הִכָּ֣ה כָל־בְּכֹור֮ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַיִם֒ מִבְּכֹ֤ר פַּרְעֹה֙ הַיֹּשֵׁ֣ב עַל־כִּסְאֹ֔ו עַ֚ד בְּכֹ֣ור הַשְּׁבִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית הַבֹּ֑ור וְכֹ֖ל בְּכֹ֥ור בְּהֵמָֽה׃
LXX – Ἐγενήθη δὲ μεσούσης τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ Κύριος ἐπάταξεν πᾶν πρωτότοκον ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ, ἀπὸ πρωτοτόκου Φαραὼ τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου ἕως πρωτοτόκου τῆς αἰχμαλωτίδος τῆς ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ, καὶ ἕως πρωτοτόκου παντὸς κτήνους.
After the Passover meal, which occurred at the beginning of Abib 14, during the middle of the night all the firstborn of Egypt are killed.

Exodus 12:30
AND PHARAOH ROSE UP IN THE NIGHT, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
BHS – וַיָּ֨קָם פַּרְעֹ֜ה לַ֗יְלָה ה֤וּא וְכָל־עֲבָדָיו֙ וְכָל־מִצְרַ֔יִם וַתְּהִ֛י צְעָקָ֥ה גְדֹלָ֖ה בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם כִּֽי־אֵ֣ין בַּ֔יִת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵֽין־שָׁ֖ם מֵֽת׃
LXX – καὶ ἀναστὰς Φαραὼ νυκτὸς καὶ οἱ θεράποντες αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντες οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι, καὶ ἐγενήθη κραυγὴ μεγάλη ἐν πάσῃ γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ· οὐ γὰρ ἦν οἰκία ἐν ᾗ οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτῇ τεθνηκώς.

Exodus 12:31
And HE PROCLAIMED to Moses and Aaron BY NIGHT, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both you and the children of Israel; AND GO, serve Yahweh, as you have said.
BHS – וַיִּקְרָא֩ לְמֹשֶׁ֨ה וּֽלְאַהֲרֹ֜ן לַ֗יְלָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ מִתֹּ֣וךְ עַמִּ֔י גַּם־אַתֶּ֖ם גַּם־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּלְכ֛וּ עִבְד֥וּ אֶת־יְהוָ֖ה כְּדַבֶּרְכֶֽם׃
LXX – καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Φαραὼ Μωυσῆν καὶ Ἀαρὼν νυκτὸς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἀνάστητε καὶ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ μου, καὶ ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ· βαδίζετε καὶ λατρεύσατε Κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν καθὰ λέγετε·
Pharaoh releases the Israelites from slavery and the Egyptian house of bondage during the night of Abib 14. The Israelites are free to go serve Yahweh in the wilderness. Note, Pharaoh would have sent messengers to Moses and Aaron in Goshen for they were not to leave their houses during the night.

Exodus 12:32
Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, AND BE GONE; and bless me also.
BHS – גַּם־צֹאנְכֶ֨ם גַּם־בְּקַרְכֶ֥ם קְח֛וּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּרְתֶּ֖ם וָלֵ֑כוּ וּבֵֽרַכְתֶּ֖ם גַּם־אֹתִֽי׃
LXX – καὶ τὰ πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας ὑμῶν ἀναλαβόντες πορεύεσθε, εὐλογήσατε δὲ κἀμέ.

Exodus 12:33
And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.
BHS – וַתֶּחֱזַ֤ק מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ עַל־הָעָ֔ם לְמַהֵ֖ר לְשַׁלְּחָ֣ם מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּ֥י אָמְר֖וּ כֻּלָּ֥נוּ מֵתִֽים׃
LXX – καὶ κατεβιάζοντο οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τὸν λαὸν σπουδῇ ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς γῆς· εἶπαν γὰρ ὅτι Πάντες ἡμεῖς ἀποθνήσκομεν.
After the Israelites come out of their houses during the morning of Abib 14 the Egyptians realize that they are not leaving! The Israelites do not start any travel during that day because they are keeping the High Sabbath of Passover day. Therefore the Egyptians are in a panic to get the Israelites to leave by sundown thinking that the same type of curse will cause all the Egyptians to die the next night of Abib 15.

Exodus 12:34
And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.
BHS – וַיִּשָּׂ֥א הָעָ֛ם אֶת־בְּצֵקֹ֖ו טֶ֣רֶם יֶחְמָ֑ץ מִשְׁאֲרֹתָ֛ם צְרֻרֹ֥ת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָ֖ם עַל־שִׁכְמָֽם׃
LXX – ἀνέλαβεν δὲ ὁ λαὸς τὸ σταῖς πρὸ τοῦ ζυμωθῆναι, τὰ φυράματα αὐτῶν ἐνδεδεμένα ἐν τοῖς ἱματίοις αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων.
Most of the Israelites left during the early morning of Abib 15 with their unleavened dough which was made during the night. Also, it had been a very busy night for the Israelites as they needed to be packed up and ready to go by morning. When morning arrived, the Israelites had no time to bake unleavened bread therefore they wrapped the previously prepared dough in cloth to prevent it from becoming naturally leavened. They would bake unleavened bread with this dough when they arrive at Succoth several hours later on Abib 15.

Exodus 12:35
And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:
BHS – וּבְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל עָשׂ֖וּ כִּדְבַ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַֽיִּשְׁאֲלוּ֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם כְּלֵי־כֶ֛סֶף וּכְלֵ֥י זָהָ֖ב וּשְׂמָלֹֽת׃
LXX – οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἐποίησαν καθὰ συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς, καὶ ᾔτησαν παρὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων σκεύη ἀργυρᾶ καὶ χρυσᾶ καὶ ἱματισμόν.
This is a regression to the events during the daylight period of Abib 14.

Exodus 12:36
And Yahweh gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they gave to them such things as they asked. And they spoiled the Egyptians.
BHS – וַֽיהוָ֞ה נָתַ֨ן אֶת־חֵ֥ן הָעָ֛ם בְּעֵינֵ֥י מִצְרַ֖יִם וַיַּשְׁאִל֑וּם וַֽיְנַצְּל֖וּ אֶת־מִצְרָֽיִם׃ פ
LXX – καὶ ἔδωκεν Κύριος τὴν χάριν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ ἐναντίον τῶν Αἰγυπτίων, καὶ ἔχρησαν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἐσκύλευσαν τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους.
It is the daylight period of Abib 14. The Egyptians were in a state of panic. They gave whatever the Israelites asked of them in order for them to leave as quickly as possible.

Exodus 12:37
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.
BHS – וַיִּסְע֧וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל מֵרַעְמְסֵ֖ס סֻכֹּ֑תָה כְּשֵׁשׁ־מֵאֹ֨ות אֶ֧לֶף רַגְלִ֛י הַגְּבָרִ֖ים לְבַ֥ד מִטָּֽף׃
LXX – Ἀπάραντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ Ῥαμεσσὴ εἰς Σοκχώθα εἰς ἑξακοσίας χιλιάδας πεζῶν οἱ ἄνδρες, πλὴν τῆς ἀποσκευῆς.
We have now arrived at the afternoon of Abib 15.

Exodus 12:38
And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
BHS – וְגַם־עֵ֥רֶב רַ֖ב עָלָ֣ה אִתָּ֑ם וְצֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֔ר מִקְנֶ֖ה כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃
LXX – καὶ ἐπίμικτος πολὺς συνανέβη αὐτοῖς, καὶ πρόβατα καὶ βόες καὶ κτήνη πολλὰ σφόδρα.

Exodus 12:39
And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not delay, neither had they prepared for themselves any provision.
BHS – וַיֹּאפ֨וּ אֶת־הַבָּצֵ֜ק אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֹוצִ֧יאוּ מִמִּצְרַ֛יִם עֻגֹ֥ת מַצֹּ֖ות כִּ֣י לֹ֣א חָמֵ֑ץ כִּֽי־גֹרְשׁ֣וּ מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וְלֹ֤א יָֽכְלוּ֙ לְהִתְמַהְמֵ֔הַּ וְגַם־צֵדָ֖ה לֹא־עָשׂ֥וּ לָהֶֽם׃
LXX – καὶ ἔπεψαν τὸ σταῖς ὃ ἐξήνεγκαν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐνκρυφίας ἀζύμους, οὐ γὰρ ἐζυμώθη· ἐξέβαλον γὰρ αὐτοὺς οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν ἐπιμεῖναι, οὐδὲ ἐπισιτισμὸν ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς εἰς τὴν ὁδόν.
The Israelites baked unleavened bread during the afternoon of Abib 15 using the dough that was previously prepared before they left Goshen earlier that day. They had no time to make any other food preparations until their arrival at Succoth.

Exodus 12:40
Now the living time of the sons of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
BHS – וּמֹושַׁב֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָשְׁב֖וּ בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַרְבַּ֥ע מֵאֹ֖ות שָׁנָֽה׃
LXX – ἡ δὲ κατοίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ, ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χανααν, ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα,
Note that the LXX has “the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan.” Jacob was 100 years old at the time that the covenant was last confirmed at Bethel and at the time that his last son, Benjamin, was born. Since Jacob was 130 years old when he entered Egypt and appeared before Pharaoh, there had passed 30 years from the time that he left Bethel, where the covenant was confirmed and shortly after which Benjamin was born, before his sons settled in Egypt. When Jacob arrived in Egypt and appeared before Pharaoh, the 400 years of Israelite servitude began.

Exodus 12:41
And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the very same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt.
BHS – וַיְהִ֗י מִקֵּץ֙ שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַרְבַּ֥ע מֵאֹ֖ות שָׁנָ֑ה וַיְהִ֗י בְּעֶ֙צֶם֙ הַיֹּ֣ום הַזֶּ֔ה יָֽצְא֛וּ כָּל־צִבְאֹ֥ות יְהוָ֖ה מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
LXX – καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὰ τετρακόσια τριάκοντα ἔτη ἐξῆλθεν πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις κυρίου ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου.
The living time of the sons of Israel in the land of Kanaan and Egypt would have started with the birth of Benjamin, Jacob’s last son, on the 14th of Abib, in the same 100th year of Jacob, thereby also making the statement in Exodus, 12:40, regarding the 430 years in Kanaan and Egypt, correct.

Exodus 12:42
It is a NIGHT to be much observed unto Yahweh for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is THAT NIGHT of Yahweh to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
BHS – לֵ֣יל שִׁמֻּרִ֥ים הוּא֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה לְהֹוצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם הֽוּא־הַלַּ֤יְלָה הַזֶּה֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה שִׁמֻּרִ֛ים לְכָל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃ פ
LXX – προφυλακή ἐστιν τῷ κυρίῳ ὥστε ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου· ἐκείνη ἡ νὺξ αὕτη προφυλακὴ Κυρίῳ, ὥστε πᾶσιν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εἶναι εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν.
This night to be much observed is Passover night of Abib 14 when the Israelites were freed from their bondage to Egypt.

Exodus 12:43
And Yahweh said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance (statute) of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
BHS – וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאַהֲרֹ֔ן זֹ֖את חֻקַּ֣ת הַפָּ֑סַח כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָ֖ר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל בֹּֽו׃
LXX – Εἶπεν δὲ Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν καὶ Ἀαρὼν λέγων Οὗτος ὁ νόμος τοῦ πάσχα· πᾶς ἀλλογενὴς οὐκ ἔδεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Exodus 12:44
But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
BHS – וְכָל־עֶ֥בֶד אִ֖ישׁ מִקְנַת־כָּ֑סֶף וּמַלְתָּ֣ה אֹתֹ֔ו אָ֖ז יֹ֥אכַל בֹּֽו׃
LXX – καὶ πᾶν οἰκέτην τινὸς ἢ ἀργυρώνητον περιτεμεῖς αὐτόν, καὶ τότε φάγεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Exodus 12:45
A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
BHS – תֹּושָׁ֥ב וְשָׂכִ֖יר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל־בֹּֽו׃
LXX – πάροικος ἢ μισθωτὸς οὐκ ἔδεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Exodus 12:46
In one house shall it be eaten; you shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall you break a bone thereof.
BHS – בְּבַ֤יִת אֶחָד֙ יֵאָכֵ֔ל לֹא־תֹוצִ֧יא מִן־הַבַּ֛יִת מִן־הַבָּשָׂ֖ר ח֑וּצָה וְעֶ֖צֶם לֹ֥א תִשְׁבְּרוּ־בֹֽו׃
LXX – ἐν οἰκίᾳ μιᾷ βρωθήσεται, καὶ οὐκ ἐξοίσετε ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῶν κρεῶν ἔξω, καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Exodus 12:47
All the congregation of Israel shall KEEP IT.
BHS – כָּל־עֲדַ֥ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יַעֲשׂ֥וּ אֹתֹֽו׃
LXX – πᾶσα συναγωγὴ υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ποιήσει αὐτό.
To “keep it” refers to the observance of Passover at sundown at the beginning of Abib 14.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will KEEP THE PASSOVER to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
BHS – וְכִֽי־יָג֨וּר אִתְּךָ֜ גֵּ֗ר וְעָ֣שָׂה פֶסַח֮ לַיהוָה֒ הִמֹּ֧ול לֹ֣ו כָל־זָכָ֗ר וְאָז֙ יִקְרַ֣ב לַעֲשֹׂתֹ֔ו וְהָיָ֖ה כְּאֶזְרַ֣ח הָאָ֑רֶץ וְכָל־עָרֵ֖ל לֹֽא־יֹ֥אכַל בֹּֽו׃
LXX – ἐὰν δέ τις προσέλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς προσήλυτος ποιῆσαι τὸ πάσχα Κυρίῳ, περιτεμεῖς αὐτοῦ πᾶν ἀρσενικόν· καὶ τότε προσελεύσεται ποιῆσαι αὐτό, καὶ ἔσται ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ αὐτόχθων τῆς γῆς· πᾶς ἀπερίτμητος οὐκ ἔδεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you.
BHS – תֹּורָ֣ה אַחַ֔ת יִהְיֶ֖ה לָֽאֶזְרָ֑ח וְלַגֵּ֖ר הַגָּ֥ר בְּתֹוכְכֶֽם׃
LXX – νόμος εἷς ἔσται τῷ ἐνχωρίῳ καὶ τῷ προσελθόντι προσηλύτῳ ἐν ὑμῖν.

Exodus 12:50
Thus did all the sons of Israel; as Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
BHS – וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֖וּ כָּל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֥ה וְאֶֽת־אַהֲרֹ֖ן כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ׃ ס
LXX – καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ καθὰ ἐνετείλατο Κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ καὶ Ἀαρὼν πρὸς αὐτούς, οὕτως ἐποίησαν.

Exodus 12:51
And it came to pass THIS VERY DAY, that Yahweh did bring the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.
BHS – וַיְהִ֕י בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיֹּ֣ום הַזֶּ֑ה הֹוצִ֨יא יְהוָ֜ה אֶת־בְּנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם עַל־צִבְאֹתָֽם׃ פ
LXX – καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐξήγαγεν Κύριος τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν.
“THIS VERY DAY” is the day of which Scriptures have been giving the instructions for Passover on Abib 14.

Exodus 13:1
And Yahweh spoke unto Moses, saying,
BHS – וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
LXX – Εἶπεν δὲ Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων

Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever opens the womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
BHS – קַדֶּשׁ־לִ֨י כָל־בְּכֹ֜ור פֶּ֤טֶר כָּל־רֶ֙חֶם֙ בִּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בָּאָדָ֖ם וּבַבְּהֵמָ֑ה לִ֖י הֽוּא׃
LXX – Ἁγίασόν μοι πᾶν πρωτότοκον πρωτογενὲς διανοῖγον πᾶσαν μήτραν ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους· ἐμοί ἐστιν.

Exodus 13:3
And Moses said unto the people, REMEMBER THIS DAY, in which you came out from Egypt, OUT OF THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE; for by strength of hand Yahweh BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM THIS PLACE: there shall NO LEAVENED BREAD BE EATEN.
BHS – וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָעָ֗ם זָכֹ֞ור אֶת־הַיֹּ֤ום הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצָאתֶ֤ם מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הֹוצִ֧יא יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יֵאָכֵ֖ל חָמֵֽץ׃
LXX – Εἶπεν δὲ Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν λαόν Μνημονεύετε τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἐξήλθατε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ἐξ οἴκου δουλίας· ἐν γὰρ χειρὶ κραταιᾷ ἐξήγαγεν ὑμᾶς Κύριος ἐντεῦθεν· καὶ οὐ βρωθήσεται ζύμη.
Scriptures have given no indication of a change of days. “THIS DAY” is still Passover day of Abib 14 when the Israelites went out from the house of bondage and being slaves in the land of Egypt. “NO LEAVENED BREAD” is to be eaten on this day. 

Exodus 13:4
THIS DAY you came out in the month Abib.
BHS – הַיֹּ֖ום אַתֶּ֣ם יֹצְאִ֑ים בְּחֹ֖דֶשׁ הָאָבִֽיב׃
LXX – ἐν γὰρ τῇ σήμερον ὑμεῖς ἐκπορεύεσθε ἐν μηνὶ τῶν νέων.
“THIS DAY” of Abib 14.

Exodus 13:5
And it shall be when Yahweh shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall keep THIS SERVICE in this month.
BHS – וְהָיָ֣ה כִֽי־יְבִֽיאֲךָ֣ יְהוָ֡ה אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽ֠כְּנַעֲנִי וְהַחִתִּ֨י וְהָאֱמֹרִ֜י וְהַחִוִּ֣י וְהַיְבוּסִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֤ע לַאֲבֹתֶ֙יךָ֙ לָ֣תֶת לָ֔ךְ אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ וְעָבַדְתָּ֛ אֶת־הָעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בַּחֹ֥דֶשׁ הַזֶּֽה׃
LXX – καὶ ἔσται ἡνίκα ἐὰν εἰσαγάγῃ σε Κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς τὴν γῆν τῶν Χαναναίων καὶ Χετταίων καὶ Εὑαίων καὶ Γεργεσαίων καὶ Ἀμορραίων καὶ Φερεζαίων καὶ Ἰεβουσαίων, ἣν ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν σου δοῦναί σοι, γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι, καὶ ποιήσεις τὴν λατρίαν ταύτην ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τούτῳ.
“THIS SERVICE” is the observance of Passover on Abib 14.

Exodus 13:6
SEVEN DAYS you shall eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a khag (festival) to Yahweh.
BHS – שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים תֹּאכַ֣ל מַצֹּ֑ת וּבַיֹּום֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י חַ֖ג לַיהוָֽה׃
LXX – ἓξ ἡμέρας ἔδεσθε ἄζυμα, τῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἑορτὴ Κυρίου.
One begins to eat unleavened bread on Abib 14 and continues through Abib 20 for a total of seven days. The seventh day is also a khag or festival day.

Exodus 13:7
Unleavened bread shall be eaten SEVEN DAYS; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you in all your quarters.
BHS – מַצֹּות֙ יֵֽאָכֵ֔ל אֵ֖ת שִׁבְעַ֣ת הַיָּמִ֑ים וְלֹֽא־יֵרָאֶ֨ה לְךָ֜ חָמֵ֗ץ וְלֹֽא־יֵרָאֶ֥ה לְךָ֛ שְׂאֹ֖ר בְּכָל־גְּבֻלֶֽךָ׃
LXX – ἄζυμα ἔδεσθε τὰς ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας, οὐκ ὀφθήσεταί σοι ζυμωτὸν οὐδὲ ἔσται σοι ζύμη ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ὁρίοις σου.
See comment Exodus 13:6.

Exodus 13:8
And you shall show your son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which Yahweh did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
BHS – וְהִגַּדְתָּ֣ לְבִנְךָ֔ בַּיֹּ֥ום הַה֖וּא לֵאמֹ֑ר בַּעֲב֣וּר זֶ֗ה עָשָׂ֤ה יְהוָה֙ לִ֔י בְּצֵאתִ֖י מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃
LXX – καὶ ἀναγγελεῖς τῷ υἱῷ σου ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ λέγων Διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν Κύριος ὁ θεός μοι, ὡς ἐξεπορευόμην ἐξ Αἰγύπτου.
The Israelites came out of the bondage of Egypt on Passover day of Abib 14.

Exodus 13:9
And it shall be for a sign unto you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that Yahweh’s law may be in your mouth: for with a strong hand has Yahweh brought you out of Egypt.
BHS – וְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְאֹ֜ות עַל־יָדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרֹון֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּהְיֶ֛ה תֹּורַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הֹוצִֽאֲךָ֥ יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃
LXX – καὶ ἔσται σοι σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός σου καὶ μνημόσυνον πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου, ὅπως ἂν γένηται ὁ νόμος Κυρίου ἐν τῷ στόματί σου· ἐν γὰρ χειρὶ κραταιᾷ ἐξήγαγέν σε Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου.
See comment Exodus 13:8.

Exodus 13:10
You shall therefore keep this ordinance (statute) in its appointed time from year to year.
BHS – וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־הַחֻקָּ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את לְמֹועֲדָ֑הּ מִיָּמִ֖ים יָמִֽימָה׃ ס
LXX – καὶ φυλάξεσθε τὸν νόμον τοῦτον ἀφ᾿ ἡμερῶν εἰς ἡμέρας.
The ordinance or statute of the Passover on Abib 14.

Exodus 13:11
And it shall be when Yahweh shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto you and to your fathers, and shall give it to you,
BHS – וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־יְבִֽאֲךָ֤ יְהוָה֙ אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר נִשְׁבַּ֥ע לְךָ֖ וְלַֽאֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ וּנְתָנָ֖הּ לָֽךְ׃
LXX – Καὶ ἔσται ὡς ἂν εἰσαγάγῃ σε Κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς τὴν γῆν τῶν Χαναναίων, ὃν τρόπον ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν σου, καὶ δώσει σοι αὐτήν,

Exodus 13:12
That you shall set apart unto Yahweh all that opens the womb, and every firstling that comes of a beast which you have; the males shall be Yahweh’s.
BHS – וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ֥ כָל־פֶּֽטֶר־רֶ֖חֶם לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וְכָל־פֶּ֣טֶר שֶׁ֣גֶר בְּהֵמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה לְךָ֛ הַזְּכָרִ֖ים לַיהוָֽה׃
LXX – καὶ ἀφελεῖς πᾶν διανοῖγον μήτραν, τὰ ἀρσενικά, τῷ κυρίῳ· πᾶν διανοῖγον μήτραν ἐκ τῶν βουκολίων ἢ ἐν τοῖς κτήνεσίν σου ὅσα ἐὰν γένηταί σοι, τὰ ἀρσενικά ἁγιάσεις τῷ κυρίῳ.

Exodus 13:13
And every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among your children shalt you redeem.
BHS – וְכָל־פֶּ֤טֶר חֲמֹר֙ תִּפְדֶּ֣ה בְשֶׂ֔ה וְאִם־לֹ֥א תִפְדֶּ֖ה וַעֲרַפְתֹּ֑ו וְכֹ֨ל בְּכֹ֥ור אָדָ֛ם בְּבָנֶ֖יךָ תִּפְדֶּֽה׃
LXX – πᾶν διανοῖγον μήτραν ὄνου ἀλλάξεις προβάτῳ· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀλλάξῃς, λυτρώσῃ αὐτό· πᾶν πρωτότοκον ἀνθρώπου τῶν υἱῶν σου λυτρώσῃ.

Exodus 13:14
And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, What is this? that you shall say unto him, By strength of hand Yahweh BROUGHT US OUT FROM EGYPT, FROM THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE:
BHS – וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־יִשְׁאָלְךָ֥ בִנְךָ֛ מָחָ֖ר לֵאמֹ֣ר מַה־זֹּ֑את וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֔יו בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֗ד הֹוצִיאָ֧נוּ יְהוָ֛ה מִמִּצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֥ית עֲבָדִֽים׃
LXX – ἐὰν δὲ ἐρωτήσῃ σε ὁ υἱός σου μετὰ ταῦτα λέγων Τί τοῦτο; καὶ ἐρεῖς αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς Κύριος ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ἐξ οἴκου δουλίας·
When your son asks the meaning of the Passover, the reply to be given is that it was on this day of Abib 14 that, with power, Yahweh brought the Israelites out from Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Exodus 13:15
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh STUBBORNLY REFUSED TO LET US GO, that Yahweh slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to Yahweh all that opens the womb, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
BHS – וַיְהִ֗י כִּֽי־הִקְשָׁ֣ה פַרְעֹה֮ לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ֒ וַיַּהֲרֹ֨ג יְהֹוָ֤ה כָּל־בְּכֹור֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם מִבְּכֹ֥ר אָדָ֖ם וְעַד־בְּכֹ֣ור בְּהֵמָ֑ה עַל־כֵּן֩ אֲנִ֨י זֹבֵ֜חַ לַֽיהוָ֗ה כָּל־פֶּ֤טֶר רֶ֙חֶם֙ הַזְּכָרִ֔ים וְכָל־בְּכֹ֥ור בָּנַ֖י אֶפְדֶּֽה׃
LXX – ἡνίκα δὲ ἐσκλήρυνεν Φαραὼ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἡμᾶς, ἀπέκτεινεν πᾶν πρωτότοκον ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἀπὸ πρωτοτόκων ἀνθρώπων ἕως πρωτοτόκων κτηνῶν· διὰ τοῦτο ἐγὼ θύω πᾶν πρωτότοκον τῷ κυρίῳ, πᾶν διανοῖγον μήτραν, τὰ ἀρσενικά, καὶ πᾶν πρωτότοκον τῶν υἱῶν μου λυτρώσομαι.
Up to this point Pharaoh still has not released the Israelites from their bondage to Egypt. The day that Yahweh slew all the firstborn of Egypt was the night of Passover on Abib 14.

Exodus 13:16
And it shall be for a token upon your hand, and for frontlets between your eyes: for by strength of hand Yahweh brought us forth out of Egypt.
BHS – וְהָיָ֤ה לְאֹות֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֹוטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הֹוצִיאָ֥נוּ יְהוָ֖ה מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃ ס
LXX – καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός σου, καὶ ἀσάλευτον πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου· ἐν γὰρ χειρὶ κραταιᾷ ἐξήγαγέν σε Κύριος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου.
It  was during the night of Passover on Abib 14 that, with great power, Yahweh brought the Israelites out from Egypt, from the house of bondage.

So there you have it amigos.

It is the hope of the Ranger that for many, as they analyze the evidence devoid of any preconceived conclusions, there would be a clear and concise understanding of Yahweh’s instructions regarding Passover as given to Moses and Aaron.

The bottom line is that, according to the book of Exodus, the following conclusions can firmly be made regarding the events of Passover:

• The Passover lamb was chosen on Abib 10.

• Abib 14 is a khag (festival) day.

• Abib 14 is a High Sabbath day.

• The Passover lamb was sacrificed and roasted just after sundown on Abib 14 which begins the day.

• The roasted lamb was eaten with unleavened bread during the early night of Abib 14.

• On Abib 14, in the middle of the night, Yahweh killed all the firstborn of Egypt.

• During the night of Abib 14, Yahweh caused Pharaoh to release the Israelites from the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.

• In the morning of Abib 14 the Israelites came out of their houses but did not proceed to leave.

• The Egyptians gave many gifts of gold and silver to urge the Israelites to leave quickly because they thought the same plague of death would kill them all the very next night of Abib 15.

• The Israelites observed the High Sabbath of Abib 14 and did not proceed to pack or travel.

• The Israelites were able to leave when the High Sabbath concluded after sundown beginning the day of Abib 15.

• After sundown of Abib 15, the Israelites would begin to prepare for travel.

• During the night of Abib 15, fresh bread dough would be made for the next meal.

• With time running out for travel to Succoth and to arrive before Abib 16 (a weekly Sabbath), the Israelites have to leave during the early morning hours of Abib 15.

• The Israelites wrapped the unbaked dough in cloth so as to not cause the dough to become naturally leavened as they leave for Succoth.

• Yahweh had commanded the Israelites to eat unleavened bread for seven days.

• When the Israelites come to Succoth several hours later, the last ones arriving during the afternoon of Abib 15, they baked and ate unleavened bread from the dough that was prepared before they left.

• Abib 15 is the second day of eating unleavened bread.

• The seven days of Unleavened Bread are Abib 14-20.

This particular Passover investigation is considered to be officially over and and can be filed under “case closed.”

The Ranger is going to let you chew on this stuff for awhile before moving on to the next case dealing with another aspect of Passover.

So, be on the lookout for more installments to our Passover topic. I am sure things will be getting a lot more interesting.

Who was that masked man anyway?

1. Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron on Abib 1 of the New Year.

2. The Passover lamb was to be taken on Abib 10.

3. Lamb was to be kept until the beginning of Abib 14.

4. Lamb was to be killed just after sundown at the beginning of Abib 14 and its blood smeared on the doorframe. It is immediately cooked, and eaten.

5. All remains of lamb were to be burned by early morning prior to sunrise of Abib 14.

6. Yahweh would pass through Egypt during the night of Abib 14 killing all the firstborn except Israelite houses smeared with the blood of the lamb.

7. Abib 14 is a Festival Day.

It’s time to turn up the heat and continue with the interrogation. We’re gonna need all the evidence that we can extract to solve this Passover Case amigos.

Exodus 12:15
SEVEN DAYS you shall eat unleavened bread; ON THE FIRST DAY YOU CAUSE LEAVEN TO CEASE OUT OF YOUR HOUSES, for if any one eats what is leavened, from the FIRST DAY until the SEVENTH DAY, that person shall be cut off from Israel.
BHS – שִׁבְעַ֤ת יָמִים֙ מַצֹּ֣ות תֹּאכֵ֔לוּ אַ֚ךְ בַּיֹּ֣ום הָרִאשֹׁ֔ון תַּשְׁבִּ֥יתוּ שְּׂאֹ֖ר מִבָּתֵּיכֶ֑ם כִּ֣י כָּל־אֹכֵ֣ל חָמֵ֗ץ וְנִכְרְתָ֞ה הַנֶּ֤פֶשׁ הַהִוא֙ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִיֹּ֥ום הָרִאשֹׁ֖ן עַד־יֹ֥ום הַשְּׁבִעִֽי׃
LXX – ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἄζυμα ἔδεσθε, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης ἀφανιεῖτε ζύμην ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν ὑμῶν· πᾶς ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ζύμην, ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς ἑβδόμης.
Important to notice, there is no indication of a change of day from Abib 14. Total number of days of eating unleavened bread is seven days. When did one begin to eat unleavened bread? The answer of course is at the beginning of Abib 14 with the Passover meal. The logic would follow that the FIRST DAY is the same day when one began to eat unleavened bread. Importantly, no leaven whatsoever is to be eaten during the FIRST DAY. Eating unleavened bread continues until the SEVENTH DAY. In this instance the Hebrew word ad is inclusive because it is defined by context. Let’s see, one through seven is a total of seven days. Right? Notice, no mention is made of eight days.

Exodus 12:16
And in the FIRST DAY there shall be an HOLY CONVOCATION, and in the SEVENTH DAY there shall be an HOLY CONVOCATION to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
BHS – וּבַיֹּ֤ום הָרִאשֹׁון֙ מִקְרָא־קֹ֔דֶשׁ וּבַיֹּום֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִקְרָא־קֹ֖דֶשׁ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם כָּל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה בָהֶ֔ם אַ֚ךְ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵאָכֵ֣ל לְכָל־נֶ֔פֶשׁ ה֥וּא לְבַדֹּ֖ו יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם׃
LXX – καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη κληθήσεται ἁγία, καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ἑβδόμη κλητὴ ἁγία ἔσται ὑμῖν· πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε ἐν αὐταῖς, πλὴν ὅσα ποιηθήσεται πάσῃ ψυχῇ, τοῦτο μόνον ποιηθήσεται ὑμῖν.
Has anyone noticed any evidence for a change of day? The Ranger voices a negative; therefore, the forensics indicate that we are still discussing the same day of Abib 14. The FIRST DAY and SEVENTH DAY are the same days as in Exodus 12:16. The same FIRST DAY and SEVENTH DAY are HOLY CONVOCATIONS making these High Sabbaths! Reference the links to the Hebrew and Greek words indicating as such. No work to be done on this day which adheres to the Sabbath day regulations.

Exodus 12:17
And you shall KEEP THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD; for in THIS VERY SAME DAY have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall you KEEP THIS DAY in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
BHS – וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֮ אֶת־הַמַּצֹּות֒ כִּ֗י בְּעֶ֙צֶם֙ הַיֹּ֣ום הַזֶּ֔ה הֹוצֵ֥אתִי אֶת־צִבְאֹותֵיכֶ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֞ם אֶת־הַיֹּ֥ום הַזֶּ֛ה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶ֖ם חֻקַּ֥ת עֹולָֽם׃
LXX – καὶ φυλάξατε τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην· ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἐξάξω τὴν δύναμιν ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, καὶ ποιήσετε τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην εἰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν νόμιμον αἰώνιον·
This is where it can get tricky amigos. Notice that the words FEAST OF is not in the original text. These words have been added by modern English translators. The verse literally reads: KEEP THE UNLEAVENED BREAD. So far, Scriptures have not deviated from the identification of Abib 14 as being the first day of eating unleavened bread. The events being discussed are still connected with the Passover sacrifice and eating of unleavened bread on Abib 14.

THIS VERY SAME DAY (the day of eating unleavened bread) Yahweh brought the hosts of Israel out of the land of Egypt. Many have assumed that this day has to be Abib 15 since the Israelites began their march from Goshen to Succoth on Abib 15. A closer examination is warranted but first we will address what follows in this verse.

The last part of the verse instructs the Israelites to KEEP THIS DAY in your generations by an ordinance  (statute) forever. If we skip to Exodus 12:24 it is stated, “And you shall observe this for an ordinance for you and for your sons forever.” When the previous verse of Exodus 12:23 is consulted it is absolutely clear that the day referred to in Exodus 12:24 is Abib 14. Scriptural reasoning dictates that THIS DAY is the same day as in Exodus 12:17 to be kept as an ordinance forever.

Now, back to the issue concerning the day that Yahweh brought the hosts of Israel out of the land of Egypt. Think about it for a moment. This actually did not occur until the end of Passover week, 6 days later, at the crossing of the Suph Sea! The facts indicate that it was on that day that the Israelites, literally, were no longer in the land of Egypt and had entered the wilderness.

To solve the mystery, one will have to utilize scriptural forensics. Remember that the Israelites were to eat the Passover meal quickly while dressed for travel at the beginning of Abib 14. The problem for them was the fact that, because they were slaves, their travel was severely restricted by the Egyptian government.

In Exodus 12:22 the Israelites were also instructed to not leave their houses until the morning. But now we have another potential problem when we look at Exodus 12:42: “It is a NIGHT TO BE MUCH OBSERVED to Yahweh FOR BRINGING THEM OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT: THIS IS THAT NIGHT of Yahweh TO BE OBSERVED of all the children of Israel in their generations.” Another witness to consult is the testimony of Deuteronomy 16:1: “Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover to Yahweh your eloahi; for in the month of Abib YAHWEH YOUR ELOAHI BROUGHT YOU OUT OF EGYPT BY NIGHT.”

How could Yahweh bring the Israelites out of Egypt during the night of Abib 14 if they were instructed to remain in their houses during the very same night? It would seem by default that the night of Abib 14 would be eliminated as a possibility of the Israelites being brought out of Egypt. The forensics also would eliminate the daylight portion of Abib 14 and, for that matter, of any other day.

When the book of Exodus is interrogated further, more evidence surfaces, especially from Exodus 12:43-51. Verse 43 reads: “And Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, ‘This is the ordinance of the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it.’” Verses 44 through 50 continue with the regulations of Passover. Then in verse 51 is given the crucial statement: “And ON THAT VERY DAY Yahweh brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.”

What the evidence has produced so far is that Scriptures clearly demonstrate that Yahweh brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt during the night of Passover day, Abib 14.

Keep in mind that the Israelites were to eat the Passover meal quickly with staff in hand ready to travel during that same night. Why would the Israelites have their staff in hand during the Passover meal just after sundown but at the same time being instructed to not leave their homes until morning, well after they had finished eating. Also, after the Passover meal was eaten could not the Israelites put their staffs down? The forensics demand a motive for the short period of time of holding their staffs in hand while eating.

At the earliest, the Israelites would not be able to start any travel from their homes in Goshen to Succoth until Abib 15. According to the facts, the Israelites would have been concerned with the issue of keeping the High Sabbath of Abib 14. No packing for the trip or traveling on this day amigos! The forensics say that something seems to be wrong with the picture, so to speak. Also, after the daytime of Abib 14 arrived, the Israelites were probably wondering what was with the “staff in hand” bit during the Passover meal. No one physically went anywhere the night of Abib 14.

At the same time, because of the Israelite’s having been dressed for a journey during the Passover meal, it would seem that there was an expectation of a change of circumstances to allow them to freely travel during the night. Yet, Yahweh’s instructions specifically prevent any Israelite from leaving their home during the night!

So how do we find the answer to this seemingly contradictory and problematic situation? Fortunately Scriptures reveals the solution which in turn eliminates any perceived problems.

The testimony of Exodus 6:6 gives: “Say therefore to the people of Israel, ‘I am Yahweh, and I WILL BRING YOU OUT FROM UNDER THE BURDENS OF THE EGYPTIANS, and I WILL DELIVER YOU FROM THEIR BONDAGE, and I WILL REDEEM YOU with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment.’”

In addition we have the witness from Exodus 13:1-4: “Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.’ And Moses said to the people, ‘REMEMBER THIS DAY, IN WHICH YOU CAME OUT FROM EGYPT, OUT OF THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE, FOR BY STRENGTH OF HAND YAHWEH BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM THIS PLACE; NO LEAVENED BREAD SHALL BE EATEN. THIS DAY YOU ARE TO GO FORTH, in the month of Abib.’” Exodus 12:43-51 clearly indicates that “THIS DAY” is Passover Day, Abib 14.

The question now becomes: At what particular time were the Israelites free from their bondage to Egypt?

Exodus 12:30-32 provides the answer: “And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where one was not dead. AND HE CALLED TO MOSES AND AARON BY NIGHT, and said, ‘RISE UP, GO FORTH FROM AMONG MY PEOPLE, both you and the people of Israel; AND GO, serve Yahweh, as you have said. Take your flocks and your herds, as you have said, AND BE GONE; and bless me also!’”

It was on Abib 14 after midnight and “BY NIGHT” that the Israelites were delivered from their bondage and were no longer slaves to Egypt! This is in full accord with all the statements in Scriptures declaring that Yahweh brought the Israelites out of the house of bondage and the land of Egypt “BY NIGHT” on “THIS DAY.”

The Israelites were also free to leave and journey to the wilderness as had been requested by Moses and Aaron. But there was another problem for the Egyptians. The Israelites were not leaving during the daylight period of Abib 14. According to Exodus 12:33, it seems they were stalling for time! We will address this issue when we interrogate this verse later during our investigation.

Exodus 12:18
In the first month, ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY of the month BE-ARAB (at evening), YOU SHALL EAT UNLEAVENED BREAD, UNTIL THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY of the month BE-ARAB (at evening).
BHS – בָּרִאשֹׁ֡ן בְּאַרְבָּעָה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר יֹ֤ום לַחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ בָּעֶ֔רֶב תֹּאכְל֖וּ מַצֹּ֑ת עַ֠ד יֹ֣ום הָאֶחָ֧ד וְעֶשְׂרִ֛ים לַחֹ֖דֶשׁ בָּעָֽרֶב׃
LXX – ἐναρχομένου τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου ἀφ᾿ ἑσπέρας ἔδεσθε ἄζυμα ἕως ἡμέρας μιᾶς καὶ εἰκάδος τοῦ μηνὸς ἕως ἑσπέρας.

It is ON Abib 14 that one begins to eat unleavened bread. The time of day is ARAB (EVENING). One is to continue eating unleavened bread AD (UNTIL) Abib 21 at ARAB (EVENING). What day does one start eating unleavened bread? Did Scriptures make a mistake by stating Abib 14? No way amigos! Many people have gotten confused over the Hebrew term arab (evening), construing it to mean the afternoon or end of the day before sunset.

The logic goes that what the verse is really trying to say is that unleavened bread is to be eaten from the end of Abib 14 to the end of Abib 21. In other words Abib 15-21. No doubt this would be confusing as this would be in direct contradiction to the plain instruction to begin ON Abib 14. To clear the matter up all we would need is some type of evidence or testimony from Scriptures to define the meaning of arab.

Well, it seems to be our fortunate day amigos. We, in fact, do have such a witness with Joshua 5:10: “While the people of Israel were encamped in Gilgal THEY KEPT THE PASSOVER ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH AT ARAB (EVENING) in the plains of Jericho.” Accordingly, the time of arab has to be defined as being at the beginning of the day. As already proven, it was “ON” Abib 14, after sunset which begins the day, that the Passover meal was eaten! What this also means is the the Hebrew terms arab (evening) and byn ha-arabim (between the evenings) are synonomous and both represent the period of time which begins the day after sunset and before dark.

Bottom line is that the evidence indicates that there are seven days of eating unleavened bread. Our interrogation of Exodus reveals those days to be Abib 14-20.

Exodus 12:19
For SEVEN DAYS NO LEAVEN SHALL BE FOUND IN YOUR HOUSES; for if any one eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land.
BHS – שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים שְׂאֹ֕ר לֹ֥א יִמָּצֵ֖א בְּבָתֵּיכֶ֑ם כִּ֣י כָּל־אֹכֵ֣ל מַחְמֶ֗צֶת וְנִכְרְתָ֞ה הַנֶּ֤פֶשׁ הַהִוא֙ מֵעֲדַ֣ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בַּגֵּ֖ר וּבְאֶזְרַ֥ח הָאָֽרֶץ׃
LXX – ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ζύμη οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ὑμῶν· πᾶς ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ζυμωτόν, ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐκ συναγωγῆς Ἰσραήλ, ἔν τε τοῖς γειώραις καὶ αὐτόχθοσιν τῆς γῆς·
By now you should have a good idea when the first of the seven days begins amigos.

Exodus 12:20
You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall you eat unleavened bread.
BHS – כָּל־מַחְמֶ֖צֶת לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֑לוּ בְּכֹל֙ מֹושְׁבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם תֹּאכְל֖וּ מַצֹּֽות׃ פ
LXX – πᾶν ζυμωτὸν οὐκ ἔδεσθε, ἐν παντὶ δὲ κατοικητηρίῳ ὑμῶν ἔδεσθε ἄζυμα.

Exodus 12:21
Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
BHS – וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה לְכָל־זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶ֖ם וְשַׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח׃
LXX – Εκάλεσεν δὲ Μωυσῆς πᾶσαν γερουσίαν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ἀπελθόντες λάβετε ὑμῖν ἑαυτοῖς πρόβατον κατὰ συγγενίαν ὑμῶν, καὶ θύσατε τὸ πάσχα.

Exodus 12:22
And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house UNTIL MORNING.
BHS – וּלְקַחְתֶּ֞ם אֲגֻדַּ֣ת אֵזֹ֗וב וּטְבַלְתֶּם֮ בַּדָּ֣ם אֲשֶׁר־בַּסַּף֒ וְהִגַּעְתֶּ֤ם אֶל־הַמַּשְׁקֹוף֙ וְאֶל־שְׁתֵּ֣י הַמְּזוּזֹ֔ת מִן־הַדָּ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּסָּ֑ף וְאַתֶּ֗ם לֹ֥א תֵצְא֛וּ אִ֥ישׁ מִפֶּֽתַח־בֵּיתֹ֖ו עַד־בֹּֽקֶר׃
LXX – λήμψεσθε δὲ δέσμην ὑσσώπου, καὶ βάψαντες ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ παρὰ τὴν θύραν καθίξετε τῆς φλιᾶς καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σταθμῶν, ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος ὅ ἐστιν παρὰ τὴν θύραν· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος τὴν θύραν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωί.
The Israelites are not physically going anywhere during the night even though they are dressed for the occasion.

Exodus 12:23
For Yahweh will pass through to slay the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, Yahweh will pass over the door, and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you.
BHS – וְעָבַ֣ר יְהוָה֮ לִנְגֹּ֣ף אֶת־מִצְרַיִם֒ וְרָאָ֤ה אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־הַמַּשְׁקֹ֔וף וְעַ֖ל שְׁתֵּ֣י הַמְּזוּזֹ֑ת וּפָסַ֤ח יְהוָה֙ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח וְלֹ֤א יִתֵּן֙ הַמַּשְׁחִ֔ית לָבֹ֥א אֶל־בָּתֵּיכֶ֖ם לִנְגֹּֽף׃
LXX – καὶ παρελεύσεται Κύριος πατάξαι τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους, καὶ ὄψεται τὸ αἷμα ἐπὶ τῆς φλιᾶς καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σταθμῶν· καὶ παρελεύσεται Κύριος τὴν θύραν, καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσει τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὰς οἰκίας ὑμῶν πατάξαι.
Whoa, we need to slow down just a bit. According to Exodus 12:12, it was Yahweh who would be slaying the Egyptians. Here it is said that it is the destroyer! Could there be another Yahweh or is this some kind of mistake? Hardly amigos. Everything is just fine. It’s just that the Ranger will have to address this issue down the road as this involves a whole different investigation.

Exodus 12:24
And you shall OBSERVE THIS for an ordinance (statute) for you and for your sons for ever.
BHS – וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחָק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עֹולָֽם׃
LXX – καὶ φυλάξεσθε τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο νόμιμον σεαυτῷ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς σου ἕως αἰῶνος.
I think you got a pretty good idea what “THIS” is by now. (Hint: Abib 14)

Exodus 12:25
And it shall come to pass, when you come to the land which Yahweh will give you, according as he has promised, that you shall keep THIS SERVICE.
BHS – וְהָיָ֞ה כִּֽי־תָבֹ֣אוּ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן יְהוָ֛ה לָכֶ֖ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֵּ֑ר וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הָעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּֽאת׃
LXX – ἐὰν δὲ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ἂν δῷ Κύριος ὑμῖν καθότι ἐλάλησεν, φυλάξεσθε τὴν λατρίαν ταύτην·
See below Exodus 12:27 for “THIS SERVICE.”

Exodus 12:26
And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you, What do you mean by THIS SERVICE?
BHS – וְהָיָ֕ה כִּֽי־יֹאמְר֥וּ אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם בְּנֵיכֶ֑ם מָ֛ה הָעֲבֹדָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את לָכֶֽם׃
LXX – καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν λέγωσιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν Τίς ἡ λατρία αὕτη;
See below Exodus 12:27 for “THIS SERVICE.”

Exodus 12:27
That you shall say, IT IS THE SACRIFICE OF YAHWEH’S PASSOVER, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
BHS – וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֡ם זֶֽבַח־פֶּ֨סַח ה֜וּא לַֽיהוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּ֠סַח עַל־בָּתֵּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם בְּנָגְפֹּ֥ו אֶת־מִצְרַ֖יִם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּ֣ינוּ הִצִּ֑יל וַיִּקֹּ֥ד הָעָ֖ם וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ׃
LXX – καὶ ἐρεῖτε αὐτοῖς Θυσία τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο Κυρίῳ, ὡς ἐσκέπασεν τοὺς οἴκους τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, ἡνίκα ἐπάταξεν τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους, τοὺς δὲ οἴκους ἡμῶν ἐρρύσατο. καὶ κύψας ὁ λαὸς προσεκύνησεν.
The answer to Exodus 12:25-26 is given. Again, it is demonstrated that it was Yahweh who killed the Egyptians and delivered the Israelites from the house of bondage in the land of Egypt during the night of Abib 14. As mentioned previously, we will discuss this issue in more depth down the road.

Exodus 12:28
And the sons of Israel went away, and did as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
BHS – וַיֵּלְכ֥וּ וַיַּֽעֲשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֧ה יְהוָ֛ה אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֥ה וְאַהֲרֹ֖ן כֵּ֥ן עָשֽׂוּ׃ ס
LXX – καὶ ἀπελθόντες ἐποίησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ καθὰ ἐνετείλατο Κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ, οὕτως ἐποίησαν.

Break time amigos. We’re not done with this investigation by a long shot. Looks like this case is ready to be cracked wide open with the next post titled: 32. Passover – Exodus Interrogated III. So be on the lookout for our third round of interrogation.

Who was that masked man anyway?

There are two main popular understandings:

• According to the Hasidic Jewish view (System B) the Passover lamb was killed during the afternoon of Abib 14 and the Passover supper took place after sundown on Abib 15.

Abib 14 is a preparation day and not a High Sabbath. Abib 15-21 is the 7-day Festival of Unleavened Bread. Abib 15 and 21 are High Sabbath days. There are 8 days of eating unleavened bread.

• Among the Yahwehist assemblies of today, most hold to the Modern Hybrid view (System G) whereby, at the Exodus, the Passover lamb was killed at the start of Abib 14 after sundown and the Passover supper eaten that night.

Like the Hasidic Jews holding to System B, they consider Abib 14 to be a preparation day and not a High Sabbath. Abib 15-21 is the 7-day Festival of Unleavened Bread. Abib 15 and 21 are High Sabbath days. There are 8 days of eating unleavened bread.

For the seeker of truth, we are only left with the following possibilities.

1. One system is right.
2. Both systems are wrong.

If you have a strange suspicion that the second answer is more correct, then the Ranger suggests that you read on.

The Ranger firmly believes that when the original instructions for the Passover are read with an unbiased mind the solution for the true practice of the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread can be attained.

Not only should the reader have an unbiased mind toward any predetermined conclusions but he or she will have to apply the same type of investigative techniques as a detective would in order to solve a crime.

The truth of the matter is that most people are not trained in such investigative techniques. Nevertheless, we can proceed with our investigation because we have the assistance of the Yahu Ranger who is pretty good at cracking a lot of unsolved puzzles.

As we proceed, the Ranger will present facts from the book of Exodus thereby allowing the reader to utilize biblical forensics while assembling the pieces of evidence to unravel the days of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Here is how it will work. The relevant verses will be given in three ways—English, Hebrew Masoretic Text (BHS), and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). We will utilize all three when necessary to help us during our investigation.

There will be emphasis given with all caps along with hot links to the associated definitions contained in the Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Other notations will be explained as we go along.

After each relevant verse, the Ranger will explain the forensics employed to elicit the true facts. As you will notice, some verses are self explanatory and will need no comment. When necessary we will employ other scriptures to define certain terms that need further clarification.

One other thing. Erase any preconceived thoughts about Passover, and proceed as if you are hearing the instructions from Yahweh for the first time as Moses and Aaron did during the Exodus. It’s gonna be tough, but I know you can do it.

Looks like this is going to be interesting so we best begin our interrogation of the book of Exodus amigos.

Exodus 12:1
And Yahweh spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
BHS – וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֔ן בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם לֵאמֹֽר׃
LXX – Εἶπεν δὲ Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν καὶ Ἀαρὼν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτου λέγων

Exodus 12:2
This month [is] to you the beginning of months: it [is] the first month of the year to you.
BHS – הַחֹ֧דֶשׁ הַזֶּ֛ה לָכֶ֖ם רֹ֣אשׁ חֳדָשִׁ֑ים רִאשֹׁ֥ון הוּא֙ לָכֶ֔ם לְחָדְשֵׁ֖י הַשָּׁנָֽה׃
LXX – Ο μὴν οὗτος ὑμῖν ἀρχὴ μηνῶν, πρῶτός ἐστιν ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς μησὶν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ.
The facts indicate that Yahweh is speaking to Moses and Aaron on Abib 1 of the New Year.

Exodus 12:3
Speak you to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ON the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
BHS – דַּבְּר֗וּ אֶֽל־כָּל־עֲדַ֤ת יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר בֶּעָשֹׂ֖ר לַחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַזֶּ֑ה וְיִקְח֣וּ לָהֶ֗ם אִ֛ישׁ שֶׂ֥ה לְבֵית־אָבֹ֖ת שֶׂ֥ה לַבָּֽיִת׃
LXX – λάλησον πρὸς πᾶσαν συναγωγὴν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ λέγων Τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς τούτου λαβέτωσαν ἕκαστος πρόβατον κατ᾿ οἴκους πατριῶν, ἕκαστος πρόβατον κατ᾿ οἰκίαν.
The word “ON” is being emphasized to indicate that the Hebrew is quite specific as to when the lamb is being taken. On the tenth day of the month. The Hebrew be is an “inseparable preposition.” See hot link.

Exodus 12:4
And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of persons; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
BHS – וְאִם־יִמְעַ֣ט הַבַּיִת֮ מִהְיֹ֣ת מִשֶּׂה֒ וְלָקַ֣ח ה֗וּא וּשְׁכֵנֹ֛ו הַקָּרֹ֥ב אֶל־בֵּיתֹ֖ו בְּמִכְסַ֣ת נְפָשֹׁ֑ת אִ֚ישׁ לְפִ֣י אָכְלֹ֔ו תָּכֹ֖סּוּ עַל־הַשֶּֽׂה׃
LXX – ἐὰν δὲ ὀλιγοστοὶ ὦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ὥστε μὴ εἶναι ἱκανοὺς εἰς πρόβατον, συλλήμψεται μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν γείτονα τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ· κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ψυχῶν ἕκαστος τὸ ἀρκοῦν αὐτῷ συναριθμήσεται εἰς πρόβατον.

Exodus 12:5
KJV – Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: you shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
BHS – שֶׂ֥ה תָמִ֛ים זָכָ֥ר בֶּן־שָׁנָ֖ה יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם מִן־הַכְּבָשִׂ֥ים וּמִן־הָעִזִּ֖ים תִּקָּֽחוּ׃
LXX – πρόβατον τέλειον ἄρσεν ἐνιαύσιον ἔσται ὑμῖν· ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρνῶν καὶ τῶν ἐρίφων λήμψεσθε.

Exodus 12:6
And you shall keep it up UNTIL the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it BYN HA-ARABIM (BETWEEN THE EVENINGS).
BHS – וְהָיָ֤ה לָכֶם֙ לְמִשְׁמֶ֔רֶת עַ֣ד אַרְבָּעָ֥ה עָשָׂ֛ר יֹ֖ום לַחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַזֶּ֑ה וְשָׁחֲט֣וּ אֹתֹ֗ו כֹּ֛ל קְהַ֥ל עֲדַֽת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבָּֽיִם׃
LXX – καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν διατετηρημένον ἕως τῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης τοῦ μηνὸς τούτου, καὶ σφάξουσιν αὐτὸ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος συναγωγῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ πρὸς ἑσπέραν.
The lamb shall be kept AD (UNTIL) Abib 14 (see definition of the Hebrew and Greek words per the hotlinks). The Hebrew word AD can be inclusive or exclusive depending on context. The exclusive meaning would have the lamb sacrificed at the beginning of Abib 14 at sundown. System B makes AD to mean inclusive, therefore the lamb could be kept alive well after sunset of Abib 14. The lamb is to be killed BETWEEN THE EVENINGS. The Hebrew phrase BYN HA-ARABIM means either “just after sunset” (System G) or “the late afternoon” (System B). Refer to the hot links for the Hebrew and Greek words and their definitions. It will become evident what meaning is correct and therefore, at what time the Passover lamb was killed as we proceed.

Exodus 12:7
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
BHS – וְלָֽקְחוּ֙ מִן־הַדָּ֔ם וְנָֽתְנ֛וּ עַל־שְׁתֵּ֥י הַמְּזוּזֹ֖ת וְעַל־הַמַּשְׁקֹ֑וף עַ֚ל הַבָּ֣תִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־יֹאכְל֥וּ אֹתֹ֖ו בָּהֶֽם׃
LXX – καὶ λήμψονται ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ θήσουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν δύο σταθμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν φλιὰν ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις ἐν οἷς ἐὰν φάγωσιν αὐτὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς.

Exodus 12:8
And they shall eat the flesh IN THIS NIGHT, roast with fire, and UNLEAVENED BREAD; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
BHS – וְאָכְל֥וּ אֶת־הַבָּשָׂ֖ר בַּלַּ֣יְלָה הַזֶּ֑ה צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ וּמַצֹּ֔ות עַל־מְרֹרִ֖ים יֹאכְלֻֽהוּ׃
LXX – καὶ φάγονται τὰ κρέα τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ ὀπτὰ πυρί, καὶ ἄζυμα ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἔδονται.
We now have conclusive proof of the meaning of byn ha-arabim as being the period of time just after sunset and before dark at the beginning of the day. The flesh is to be eaten IN THIS NIGHT. THIS NIGHT has to occur on the same day as when the lamb was killed byn ha-arabim. Scriptures have already established that this day was Abib 14. If one were to kill the lamb during the afternoon of Abib 14 then the night would occur on Abib 15 in direct conflict with the instructions from Scriptures. The flesh was to be eaten IN THIS NIGHT of Abib 14. Importantly, one begins to eat UNLEAVENED BREAD with “it” (the Passover lamb) at the start of Abib 14!

Exodus 12:9
Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts.
BHS – אַל־תֹּאכְל֤וּ מִמֶּ֙נּוּ֙ נָ֔א וּבָשֵׁ֥ל מְבֻשָּׁ֖ל בַּמָּ֑יִם כִּ֣י אִם־צְלִי־אֵ֔שׁ רֹאשֹׁ֥ו עַל־כְּרָעָ֖יו וְעַל־קִרְבֹּֽו׃
LXX – οὐκ ἔδεσθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ὠμὸν οὐδὲ ἡψημένον ἐν

Exodus 12:10
And you shall let none of it remain UNTIL MORNING, anything that remains UNTIL MORNING you shall burn.
BHS – וְלֹא־תֹותִ֥ירוּ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּ֑קֶר וְהַנֹּתָ֥ר מִמֶּ֛נּוּ עַד־בֹּ֖קֶר בָּאֵ֥שׁ תִּשְׂרֹֽפוּ׃
LXX – οὐκ ἀπολείψεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωί, καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψεται ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· τὰ δὲ καταλιπόμενα ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωὶ ἐν πυρὶ κατακαύσετε.
More proof that byn ha-arabim is the beginning of the day just after sunset. After eating the flesh “THIS  NIGHT” of Abib 14, whatever remained ad baqar (until morning) was to be burned. The Hebrew word baqar means early morning before sunrise (see link). Also see the Greek term proi (see link).

Exodus 12:11

In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is Yahweh’s passover.
BHS – וְכָכָה֮ תֹּאכְל֣וּ אֹתֹו֒ מָתְנֵיכֶ֣ם חֲגֻרִ֔ים נַֽעֲלֵיכֶם֙ בְּרַגְלֵיכֶ֔ם וּמַקֶּלְכֶ֖ם בְּיֶדְכֶ֑ם וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם אֹתֹו֙ בְּחִפָּזֹ֔ון פֶּ֥סַח ה֖וּא לַיהוָֽה׃
LXX – οὕτως δὲ φάγεσθε αὐτό· αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι, καὶ τὰ ὑποδήματα ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, καὶ αἱ βακτηρίαι ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἔδεσθε αὐτὸ μετὰ σπουδῆς· πάσχα ἐστὶν Κυρίῳ.
The instructions are to eat the Passover meal in haste, being prepared to travel. The Israelites knew they were not permitted to leave their location because of their being slaves to the government of Egypt. Therefore there would be an expectation that sometime shortly after the Passover meal there would be a change of status for the Israelites, allowing them freedom to travel from their location in Goshen.

Exodus 12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt THIS NIGHT, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the eloahi of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh.
BHS – וְעָבַרְתִּ֣י בְאֶֽרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם֮ בַּלַּ֣יְלָה הַזֶּה֒ וְהִכֵּיתִ֤י כָל־בְּכֹור֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם מֵאָדָ֖ם וְעַד־בְּהֵמָ֑ה וּבְכָל־אֱלֹהֵ֥י מִצְרַ֛יִם אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה שְׁפָטִ֖ים אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֽה׃
LXX – καὶ ἐλεύσομαι ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ, καὶ πατάξω πᾶν πρωτότοκον ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους, καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς θεοῖς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ποιήσω τὴν ἐκδίκησιν· ἐγὼ Κύριος.
THIS NIGHT all the firstborn of Egypt will be killed by Yahweh. THIS NIGHT has to occur on same day as when the Passover meal was eaten, Abib 14. The Hebrew and Greek words agree regarding THIS NIGHT (see links).

Exodus 12:13
And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
BHS – וְהָיָה֩ הַדָּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם לְאֹ֗ת עַ֤ל הַבָּתִּים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתֶּ֣ם שָׁ֔ם וְרָאִ֙יתִי֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֔ם וּפָסַחְתִּ֖י עֲלֵכֶ֑ם וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה בָכֶ֥ם נֶ֙גֶף֙ לְמַשְׁחִ֔ית בְּהַכֹּתִ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
LXX – καὶ ἔσται τὸ αἷμα ὑμῖν ἐν σημείῳ ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκιῶν ἐν αἷς ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ἐκεῖ· καὶ ὄψομαι τὸ αἷμα, καὶ σκεπάσω ὑμᾶς, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν πληγὴ τοῦ ἐκτριβῆναι ὅταν παίω ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ.
Yahweh will not afflict the houses smeared with blood. Yahweh will also be the one smiting and destroying the land of Egypt.

Exodus 12:14
THIS DAY shall be for you a memorial day, and YOU SHALL KEEP IT AS A KHAG (FESTIVAL) to Yahweh; throughout your generations you shall observe it an ordinance for a world-age lasting time.
BHS – וְהָיָה֩ הַיֹּ֨ום הַזֶּ֤ה לָכֶם֙ לְזִכָּרֹ֔ון וְחַגֹּתֶ֥ם אֹתֹ֖ו חַ֣ג לַֽיהוָ֑ה לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם חֻקַּ֥ת עֹולָ֖ם תְּחָגֻּֽהוּ׃
LXX – καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμῖν αὕτη μνημόσυνον, καὶ ἑορτάσετε αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν Κυρίῳ εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν· νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἑορτάσετε αὐτήν.
Notice that most English translators have added the word “as” to the verse which is not in the original texts. THIS DAY, Abib 14, is not only a memorial day but is also a KHAG (FESTIVAL DAY). See links to Hebrew and Greek words. The Festival of Passover is an ordinance or statute to be kept and observed for a world-age lasting time.

Time to slow down and take a break amigos. The Ranger wants you to chew on this stuff for awhile before we head out again on the Trail of Truth for the second installment of our Exodus investigation titled: 31. Passover – Exodus Interrogated II.

We’re just getting warmed up for the heavy interrogation.

Who was that masked man anyway?

What has been lacking from any previous discussions, especially among the various Yahwehist assemblies of today, is the history of the earliest Christians and their Passover practice during the first few centuries C.E.

One of the reasons for this oversight is the fact that there are many who are not even aware that such a history exists!

To counter the ignorance of historical evidence, this Series has brought the true Passover practice of the Quartodecimans to light along with the importance that it be included as a consideration in the ongoing quest for Yahweh’s truth of the matter.

The history of the Quartodecimans has also proven to be valuable as it has helped us to discover the original and true practice of Passover as handed down by Yahushua the messiah and his apostles.

What follows is a summary of the evidence presented for inclusion into the Passover debate.

During our investigation we have found seven basic Jewish and Christian constructs for Passover (System A, System B, System C, System D, System E, System F, and System G) along with four constructs for Pentecost.

The very fact that there have been so many different ways of understanding what Scriptures have commanded with regard to these festivals and sacred days demonstrates the complexity of the issues.

We have also learned that, based upon the qualification found in Joshua, 5:10-12, only two of the four Shabuath, or Pentecost, systems are viable: the Aristocratic and Hasidic.

Regarding Pentecost, presently the Orthodox Jews continue the Hasidic method and the mainstream Christians continue the Aristocratic form.

To say the least, based on what we now know and have confirmed per the historical evidence, the issues surrounding Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread are more difficult.

The two most practiced of the Passover theories are System B, the Jewish reckoning, and System E, the Roman Catholic reckoning which is followed by almost all mainstream Christian groups today.

There are very few advocates left for hybrid System C, chiefly because the neo-Samaritans and Karaites are in a state of near extinction. At the same time, System C is in reality only a slight variation of System B and is an obvious attempt to combine the Aristocratic and Hasidic views.

Similarly, the old Syrian hybrid, System F, has few if any Christian advocates remaining. It is by-and-large only a variant of System E and, like its Jewish counterpart System C, it is an obvious attempt to mend the breach between System A (advocated by the Quartodecimans) and the Hasidic-based Roman assembly System E.

The only hybrid system having any real following in our present time is System G, which combines the Aristocratic view that the 14th is the date of the true Passover supper and the Hasidic view for the seven days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib.

Our Passover Series has likewise brought to light the most ancient and important of all the Passover systems—System A, the Aristocratic view.

System A, concealed in the pages of history, is yet profound in its far-reaching implications. The evidence proves that it is the oldest system known and was used by the earliest elements of both Judaism and Christianity.

It was advocated by the royal Zadokite high priests of Yahweh. They governed the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem when the first was built under King Solomon and, again, after it was rebuilt in the late sixth century B.C.E.

System A was subsequently continued by the conservative branch of the Zadokites, who formed the Sadducean and Samaritan religious parties.

In the second century B.C.E. the family of Zadok lost the high priestship at Jerusalem to the Hasmonaeans, but, due to the Sadducees, who were close allies of the Hasmonaeans, the System A practice continued. It was finally suppressed in Jerusalem by the Pharisees during the early part of the first century C.E.

System A was also practiced by the earliest of the Christian assemblies, the Quartodecimans.

That the first Christian assemblies would continue the Aristocratic systems for both Passover and Pentecost is not only revealing but points to a heretofore unexplored consideration.

Is it possible that System A is the original scriptural practice?

Most modern scholars have only noticed System A as a footnote in history. For the most part, they have failed to investigate its true structure and doctrine.

Accepting the long-standing victories of the Hasidic System B and System E as a fait accompli, they have passed over any in-depth study of System A. At the time it seemed unnecessary.

This neglect is largely based upon the pre-inclination of interested Jewish and Christian scholars to accept the long-standing practices of their own respective groups as original, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Yet, it cannot be ignored that System A has all along been the real focal point of opposition for the ancient populist Hasidic systems, such as System B and System E. This historical detail alone should have raised a red flag.

Nevertheless, System A answers questions that are otherwise an enigma for the present Christian Passover (System E).

For example, Yahushua was under the Torah of Moses at the time that he kept the Passover supper on the 14th of Abib. He also commanded his disciples to keep the Passover with him on that date. Yet, under System E the 14th is supposedly the wrong date for the legal Passover.

The problem created by Yahushua’s actions is that if the 14th had been incorrect, then Yahushua, the author of the Torah, would have broken (i.e., sinned against), and caused others to sin against, the very Torah by which he was to receive the Abrahamic inheritance as the seed of Abraham. He would have lost his right to the eternal inheritance.

For System E, Yahushua’s actions form an unsolvable paradox. No excuse that the “Last Supper” was a pre-enacted parable can explain his willful act of breaking the Torah by keeping Passover on the wrong date. No matter how one tries to explain it, Yahushua is specifically said to have been under the Torah (Gal. 4:4).

Further, he had no power as a man under the Torah to change its conditions. Indeed, once the contract had been made with Abraham, no one, not even Yahweh himself, could change it (Gal. 3:15-17). When one breaks but one point in the Torah of Moses he has broken the entire agreement (James 2:10). The result of such a rebellious act would have rendered Yahushua unable to pass on to others the eternal inheritance via grace.

Yet if System A is correct, Yahushua was keeping the true Passover, as the Quartodecimans—and even the quasi-Quartodecimans, like System D—had argued from the beginning days of Christianity.

Today, for those followers of Yahweh and their respective assemblies who adhere to the modern System G, they also should have noticed a red flag if and when they had consulted the historical facts.

Unfortunately, for the most part, the red flag either has not been noticed or has been actively suppressed and errors have continued to prosper among the many Yahwehist assemblies of today.

Now that the construct of System G has been unmasked, one who is authentically seeking Yahweh’s truth should reconsider the scriptural and historical evidence as it pertains to the most ancient and true practice of Passover and Unleavened Bread: Quartodeciman System A.

Needless to say, this reconsideration along with its ramifications will prove to be rather painful for many. Yet, if reality is to be the criteria for discovering and accepting Yahweh’s truth, then so be it.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. Matthew 10:34-36

For those willing to look at the evidence, the reality of the matter reveals that by combining the elements of the false Hasidic Passover (System B) with the elements of the true Aristocratic practice (System A), what has resulted is yet another hybrid and false construct of Passover/Unleavened Bread (System G).

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 1 Corinthians 5:6

It must also be recognize that the material presented in this Passover Series is by no means complete. We have just scratched the surface, so to speak.

There are many additional relevant issues to be addressed that will reinforce the ultimate and true conclusion regarding the observance of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

For instance, a vital issue for helping to determine the true contruct for the observance of Passover and Unleavened Bread is the comprehension of what part of the day constitutes ערב (arab) and בין הערבים (byn ha-arabim).

These Hebrew terms are commonly translated as “evening” and “between the evenings.” The two main interpretations given are the “afternoon” ending the day or “evening” just after sundown which begins the day.

Another relevant issue is the accurate historical chronology of Scriptures along with its associated festivals and sacred days and how it can help unlock the mystery of the true practice of Passover.

These issues and others will be addressed in future posts to the Passover Series.

What we have accomplished so far is to provide the rich history of the earliest Christian assemblies and their struggle to maintain the true practice of Passover and Unleavened Bread as adhered to by Yahushua the messiah and his apostles.

Being blinded by a distortion of the facts, many have viewed the Quartodeciman construct  (System A) as being no different than the Jewish Hasidic System B, thereby giving affirmation to the flawed Jewish system.

This Passover Series has proven that this viewpoint is totally without merit and in reality System A of the Quartodecimans stands in direct opposition to the Jewish Hasidic System B.

It is desired that when all of the evidence is fully considered there will be a path available to be taken for a restoration of the true Passover practice of Quartodeciman System A among the many followers of Yahweh and their respective assemblies of today.

Also, this Passover Series has been created with the intention of having provided a much-needed voice for the long-forgotten Quartodecimans.

The Quartodecimans deserve much admiration for their unwavering adherance to System A as they persevered in resisting the Jewish and Roman factions, whereby they can now be recognized for their being faithful keepers of Yahweh’s true Passover observance.

Nevertheless, armed with the evidence at hand, today’s present circumstance demands that, along with the other systems, the validity of the Quartodeciman System A must be thoroughly tested.

Only then can Yahweh’s truth be realized.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21

Lastly, for those defenders of Yahwehs truth regarding his festivals and sacred days:

Long live the Quartodecimans! . . . and may Yahweh be with you.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

Authority from Constantine
One of the results of this conference was the declaration by Constantine that the Hasidic view for the seven days of Unleavened Bread, as instituted by Pope Victor, was the correct system under the Torah.

Proof of this detail is demonstrated in a letter sent by Pope John IV (consecrated in December of 640 C.E.) to the Scots for the sake of persuading them to amend their System D position.

As part of this letter the pope is found “plainly asserting therein that the sovereign’s Passover ought to be sought for from the 15th of the moon up to the 21st, AS WAS APPROVED IN THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA.”¹

Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby similarly states:

Neither does this tradition of the good news (New Testament) and of the apostles break the Torah but rather fulfill it, for in the Torah it is commanded that the Passover should be solemnized from ad vesperam (at twilight = be-arab, interpreted as late afternoon) of the 14th day of the change of the moon of the first month until the 21st day of the same moon ad vesperam: to the following of which observation all the successors of blessed John in Asia after his death and all the assembly throughout the world were converted. And it was by the Nicaean Council not newly decreed but confirmed, as the ecclesiastical history witnesses, that this is the true Passover. This only is to be celebrated by believing men.²

With the force of the Christian emperor of Rome behind the decision, the western assemblies moved to force all other Christian assemblies to unify under just one common system for celebrating Passover.

Hybrid Syrian System F
Another form of Passover among the ancient assemblies was System F, which was practiced for a time in Syria. The Syrian Passover celebration of the third and fourth century C.E. was the direct heir of the Asiatic tradition of the Quartodecimans.³

At the same time, during this period the eastern regions came evermore under the increasing pressure from the western assemblies, especially after the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), to convert to System E. This heavy western influence eventually resulted in the adoption of System E throughout the East, but not right away.

Jerome, in a letter to Pope Damasus written in about 377 C.E., mentions the troubles found among the Christian assemblies of the East (Syria) during this period.⁴

He speaks of the East (Syria) as being “shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples.” He continues by observing that this problem “is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the sovereign.”⁵

During this time of upheaval in Syria, and as a transitional phase, some of the Syrian Christians created a hybrid form of the Passover celebration that incorporated aspects of both Systems A and E.

On the one hand, the Syrian Christians were strongly allied with the Quartodecimans on the issue of which day should represent Passover. The historian A. Hamman writes of this transition period:

Syria, close to the usage of the Jewish-Christian community, continued to celebrate the Pasch, like the Jews, on the fourteenth Nisan, the anniversary of the night when Jesus was delivered on whatever day of the week it might occur.⁶

The Didascalia Apostolorum, composed in the first decades of the third century C.E., reflects the Ante-Nicaean portion of this transitional phase for those of Syria following the Quartodeciman System A premise.

Wherever, then, the 14th of the Passover falls, so keep it; for neither the month nor the day squares with the same season every year, but is variable. When therefore that people (the Jews) keep the Passover (i.e. the 15th), do you fast; and be careful to perform your vigil within their (days of) unleavened bread. But on the first day of the week make good cheer at all times.⁷

Aphraates (writing c.344 C.E.) demonstrates the continued Quarto­deci­man proclivity of the Syrians after the Council of Nicaea when he writes:

For at the dawn of the 14th day he (Yahushua) ate the Passover with his disciples ACCORDING TO THE TORAH OF ISRAEL, and on this day of the Parasceve (Preparation), the 14th day, he was judged until the sixth hour and was killed on a (torture-) stake for three hours. . . . Hence the one who has difficulties about these days will understand that at the dawn of the 14th (day) our sovereign celebrated the Passover and ate and drank with his disciples, but from the time when the cock crowed (about 3 A.M.) he ate and drank no more, because they took him captive and began to judge him.⁸

Again he writes:

Our saviour ate the Passover with his disciples in the sacred night of the 14th, and he performed the sign of the Passover (i.e., the Eucharist mystery) in truth for his disciples. . . . And he was taken in the night of the 14th, and his trial lasted until the sixth hour (noon), and at the time of the sixth hour they sentenced him and lifted him up on the (torture-)stake.⁹

Ephraem the Syrian (mid-fourth century C.E.) claims the messiah ate the legal Passover. He tells his Jewish adversaries:

In your time our sovereign ate the little Passover and became himself the great Passover. Passover was mingled with Passover, festival joined to festival; a temporary Passover, and another that abides; type and fulfillment.¹⁰

In this same vein, the Syrian writer Cyrillonas (end of the fourth century C.E.) equates the night that the messiah prepared and ate the Passover in the upper room on the 14th of Abib with the night of the Israelite Passover in Egypt:

Moses went down and prepared a Passover for the earthly ones in the depths, that is, in Egypt, the grave of the Hebrews. Our sovereign, however, went up to the bright and airy height (of the upper room) and there prepared his Passover, in order to lift us up into his kingdom. The lamb was sacrificed in Egypt, and our sovereign in the upper room; the lamb in the depths and the first-born on the height. Our sovereign led his group and reclined in the dining room. He went up and was the first to recline, and his disciples (reclined) after him. There they lay with him at the table and watched him, how he ate and was changed. The Lamb ate the lamb, the Passover consumed the Passover.¹¹

Meanwhile, some of the Syrian Christians were influenced by the Roman model for the celebration of the Sovereign’s day (= the day of the resurrection), which was more fully developed in the latter half of the second century C.E. under Pope Victor.

While still keeping the Passover on the 14th, they began to observe the following Friday and Saturday as a commemoration of the death and burial (time in the grave) of the messiah and the first day of the week as a commemoration of Yahushua’s resurrection.

That they observed the first day of the week, for example, is already attested to in the Didascalia Apostolorum.¹² Their observance of Friday and Saturday is reflected in their days of fasting during the time of Passover. The Didascalia Apostolorum, for instance, states:

But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, and taste nothing. . . . Especially incumbent on you therefore is the fast of the Friday and of the Sabbath.¹³

Raniero Cantalamessa comments of this period:

The observance of the week of Unleavened Bread, beginning with the Jewish Pascha on the 14th Nisan, on whatever weekday this happened to fall, together with the beginning of the paschal fast, is also prescribed in the Didascalia . . . . Thus, and with the title “Day of the Pascha of Passion” for the fourteenth, the Syrian Church honored the Quartodeciman tradition. But, by having the solemnity of the Lord’s death always on the following Friday and Saturday, it was able to keep the Pascha with the other Churches and still preserve its content as a feast which emphasized the death of Christ more than the resurrection. In this arrangement, the Syrian Church of the early fourth century agreed with the Audians.¹⁴

A major alteration came after the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.). In order to accommodate Rome, yet in an effort to maintain their original Quartodeciman premise of observing the 14th as the day of Passover, many of the Syrian Christians adopted the Hasidic System B for the seven days of Unleavened Bread (though, like Rome, they disregarded the 15th and 21st days of Abib as always being high Sabbaths).

Nevertheless, they continued to observe the Passover on the 14th day, thereby increasing the celebration of the festival to eight days. In doing so, they developed a Quartodeciman hybrid we call System F.

The newer arrangement (System F) appears for the first time in the works of Aphraates (writing in c.344 C.E.). In his work, the 14th is still lauded as the day of the Passover and the sovereign’s suffering.¹⁵

Yet now, to this celebration is attached the Hasidic construct for the seven days of unleavened bread. Aphraates writes:

After the Passover, Israel eats unleavened bread for seven days, to the 21st of the month; we too observe the unleavened bread—as a festival of our saviour.¹⁶

Aphraates further argues that we should observe the whole week “in his (the messiah’s) suffering and in his Unleavened Bread, because after the Passover come the seven days of unleavened bread, to the 21st (day).”¹⁷

With the acceptance of System F, the Syrians eventually accepted the Roman Catholic construct (System E) in its entirety. Indeed, by the end of the eighth century C.E., the whole Christian world, including the East, was established in that camp.

Modern Hybrid System G
Finally, many present-day followers of Yahweh and their respective assemblies have formulated a Passover construct that is similar to the old Syrian hybrid System F. This practice we have labeled System G.¹⁸

It is not a system known to have been argued by any of the early Jewish or Christian assemblies but, because of its similarity to System F, the claim by its advocates that it was the correct and earliest practice, and due to its popularity, we shall address it.

As with the old Syrian system, the Passover supper is observed on the night of the 14th. The 14th is itself considered a memorial day.

Meanwhile, as with the neo-Aristocratic System C and the Christian System F, the advocates of this view imitate the Hasidic method for counting the seven days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib.

In most variations of this system, the 14th is a day to eat Unleavened Bread.

Neverthe­less, the 14th is neither kept as a high Sabbath nor is counted as one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Rather, the honor of a high Sabbath is given only to the 15th and the 21st of Abib. The 15th is also kept as a supper and is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Summary of “Passover – Evolution to Today I & II”
When System D failed to have a major impact on the conservative Quartodeciman groups, tactics in the West were changed and System E was adopted, being roughly the present practice of the Roman Catholics and Protestants.

This innovation followed the Hasidic construct for observing the seven days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. Emphasis is placed on the day of the messiah’s resurrection, being the first day of the week falling within the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

The advocates of System E do not allow that the 14th of the first moon is the day of the legal Passover supper mentioned in the Torah of Moses.

Instead, the evidence that the messiah and his disciples kept the Passover sacrifice and supper on the night of the 14th, therefore before Yahushua’s death, is interpreted as a pre-Passover enacted parable.

The “Last Supper,” accordingly, was merely a foretype of the Christian Passover that was to be kept on the first day of the week that fell from the 15th to 21st days of the first moon, being the celebration of the messiah’s resurrection.

System F, meanwhile, was a Syrian development that sought to breach the differences between System E and the opposition forces from System A.

Nevertheless, it actually served as a transitional phase in Syria and other parts of the East, leading them from System A and System D to System E.

Once the East had come to the understanding that the seven-day period for Unleavened Bread actually extended from the 15th until the end of the 21st, it opened the door to the full acceptance of the Hasidic premise for the System E construct. When this transition period was over, the East had adopted System E.

The present-day incarnation, so-to-speak, of System F is System G. It is not a system known to have been argued by any of the early Jewish or Christian assemblies.

Meanwhile, as with the neo-Aristocratic System C and the Christian System F, the advocates of this view imitate the Hasidic method for counting the 7 days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib.

Like its antecedent (System F), System G also observes the 14th as Passover. It differs in that it does not observe the first day of the week following the 14th as the Passover of the resurrection, though it does count that day as the first of the 50-day count to Pentecost.

Rather, the adherents of System G keep the 15th as the Feast of Unleavened Bread and observe both the 15th and the 21st as high Sabbaths.

It should be noted that System G considers the Passover meal at the beginning of Abib 14 to be only a memorial supper since it would not occur on a high Sabbath day.

At the same time, System G requires unleavened bread to be eaten with the memorial Passover supper at the beginning of Abib 14. Importantly, unleavened bread is to be continually eaten during the following 7 days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, Abib 15-21.

Under System G, there would be required a total number of 8 days of eating unleavened bread, Abib 14-21.

It looks like it’s time to wrap up this post and head on to the grand finale and summation of what has been presented by the Passover Series so far.

So be on the lookout for our next installment 29. Passover – What Now?

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Bede, Hist., 2:19.

2 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

3 EEC, p. 15.

4 Jerome, Epist., 15, cf., 16.

5 Jerome, Epist., 15.

6 TPM, p. 11.

7 Didas. Apost., 21, 5:20:10.

8 Aphraates, Dem., 12:12.

9 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6.

10 Ephraem, Hymns, 3:2.

11 Cyrillonas, 5, lines 101-103.

12 Didas. Apost., 21, 5:20:10, 5:20:10. “But on the first day of the week make good cheer at all times; he is guilty of sin, whosoever afflicts his self on the first (day) of the week. And hence it is not lawful, apart from the Passover, for any one to fast during those three hours of the night between the Sabbath and the first (day) of the week, because that night belongs to the first (day) of the week.”

13 Didas. Apost., 21, 5:18, 5:19:6.

14 EEC, p. 187, n. n.

15 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6–8, 12–13.

16 Aphraates, Dem., 12:8.

17 Aphraates, Dem., 12:12.

18 Some notable Yahwehist assemblies that utilize the System G construct are the Assemblies of Yahweh, Yahweh’s Assembly in Messiah, Yahweh’s Restoration Ministries, Assembly of Yahweh 7th Day, and Yahweh’s Assembly in Yahshua.

Just after the establishment of the System E construct, the Syrian hybrid System F was developed which was an attempt to merge the Quartodeciman System A with the Roman System E.

Eventually a more recent innovation of Passover and Unleavened Bread was created which is being followed by many present-day followers of Yahweh and their respective assemblies, the Modern Hybrid System G.

We shall begin our discussion by examining the evidence for the Roman assembly System E construct. The evidence will demonstrate the change by the western assemblies to the Hasidic method for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

To justify this change, the System E advocates were also obliged to apply a new interpretation to the “Last Supper,” explaining why the messiah and his disciples observed the 14th of Abib as the Passover supper if the 15th was deemed the proper time under the Torah of Moses.

In the region of Syria, meanwhile, theologians, who had supported System A and System D and were influenced by the Council of Nicaea to adopt System E, developed a hybrid solution in order to overcome the strong Quartodeciman leanings of that region.

They adopted System F. The Syrian hybrid System F kept the 14th as the Passover (the “Last Supper”) but then utilized the Hasidic System B for the seven days of Unleavened Bread (i.e., from the 15th until the end of the 21st).

In this fashion, they were able to observe, along with the West, the Friday and Saturday fast and to celebrate the first day of the week within the seven days of Unleavened Bread as the Passover of the resurrection.

In effect, System F actually served as a transitional phase. As time progressed, the East, for the most part, dropped System F and fully adopted System E.

Finally, we shall address System G, a late and contemporary invention that is also built upon the Hasidic construct for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Like her sister systems, System G observes the seven days of Unleavened Bread from the 15th until the end of the 21st of Abib and, like System F, keeps Passover on the 14th of Abib.

System E
To counter the Quartodecimans, the western assemblies, under the leadership of Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, and Victor, bishop of Rome, abandoned System D, which observed the 14th through 20th days of the first moon for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

They adopted in its place System E, which utilized the Hasidic construct for these seven days (i.e., counting from the 15th until the end of the 21st day).

The advocates of System E advanced their formula by making the claim that the Pharisees had been correct all along in observing the 15th as the legal Passover and as the first day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Indeed, the Jewish Talmud records that “on the arab of the Passover” Yahushua was hanged, i.e., on the afternoon before the Passover supper.¹

Mimicking this view, The Good News According to Peter, a Roman Christian work composed no earlier than about 180 C.E., states that Yahushua was delivered to the people “on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast,”² this despite the plain statements from the New Testament that the messiah both ate his “Last Supper” and died on the first day of Unleavened Bread.³

Armed with this Pharisaic view, the advocates of System E denounced any celebration of the 14th as a day of Passover. Instead, they advanced the doctrine that, at the messiah’s “Last Supper,” he never actually kept the legal Passover of the written Torah.

Rather, they claimed that he merely kept the 14th as a typology for a new Christian Passover which took the place of the old Jewish Passover.

Though Good Friday (which they calculated as the day of the week when the messiah suffered death) and the following Saturday were also observed in remembrance, these days were treated as a time of fasting.

The celebration of the new Christian Passover as a feast, on the other hand, was kept only on the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection, called “the Sovereign’s day” (the “Lord’s day” in popular English culture), when that day fell during the seven days of Unleavened Bread (i.e., from the 15th through the 21st days of the first moon).

The “Last Supper” – Not the Legal Passover?
One of the key elements in the System E scenario is the view that the “Last Supper” of the messiah was not the dinner of the legal Passover, this despite three Synoptic texts explicitly mentioning the preparations for it as the Passover⁴ and the reference in Luke, 22:15-18 to “eating the Passover (lamb)” at this meal.⁵

They do agree that the “Last Supper” took place on the 14th of Abib, within the night prior to the afternoon of the Jewish sacrifice of the Passover lamb⁶ and in the 24-hour day before the Jewish leaders kept their Passover supper.⁷

The System E view is clearly set forth by three important and early supporters of that interpretation: Hippolytus, Peter of Alexandria, and Chrysostom.

Hippolytus
Hippolytus (died 235 C.E.) was a strong advocate of the System E (Roman assembly) interpretation. Due to his beliefs, he found it important in his writings to address the Quartodeciman argument that the “Passover should be kept on the 14th day of the first moon, according to the commandment of the Torah, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur.”

Hippolytus retorts that these Quartodecimans “only regard what has been written in the Torah, that he will be accursed who does not so keep (the Torah) as it is enjoined.”⁸ He then condemns the Quartodecimans as coming under the written Torah, arguing:

They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment was made for the Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover. And this (sacrifice) has spread unto the nations, and is discerned by trust, and not now observed in the letter (of the law). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: “For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole Torah.” In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the assembly by the apostles.⁹

The first detail noticed, as already demonstrated earlier, is that the western assemblies had lost touch with the difference between the dogmasin of the Mosaic Torah and the earlier statutes followed by Abraham.

The fact that the Mosaic dogmasin, such as fleshly circumcision, had been set aside has nothing to do with whether or not the festival and sacred days of Yahweh are to be kept.

To this doctrine, the proponents of System E added the legal interpretation of the Passover advocated by the Hasidic Jews.

Hippolytus, for example, claims that the Quartodecimans have “fallen into error by not perceiving that at the time when the messiah suffered HE DID NOT EAT THE PASSOVER OF THE TORAH.”¹⁰

In another place, he similarly states, “for he who said of old, ‘I will not any more eat the Passover,’ probably partook of a supper before the Passover. BUT THE PASSOVER HE DID NOT EAT, but he suffered; for it was not the time for him to eat (it).”¹¹

Peter of Alexandria
The case for the Hasidic view and against the Aristocratic view is also made by Peter of Alexandria (300-311 C.E.). Though he accepts Abib 14 as the day of the Passover,¹² he does so along the lines of the Pharisees. That is, he considers the Passover of the 14th as only including the sacrifice, while the 15th was the feast meal.¹³

Therefore, as is the case with the Pharisees, Peter of Alexandria makes the festival of Passover, as found in the Torah of Moses, a celebration lasting eight days.¹⁴

For example, Peter agrees that the 14th was the day upon which the Passover was sacrificed and the messiah died.¹⁵ Nevertheless, Peter only accepts the Pharisaic view that, under the written Torah, the high Sabbath was the 15th, the first day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread, and the correct time of the Passover supper.

Like Hippolytus, Peter of Alexandria states that the messiah, while in the flesh, “with the people, in the years before his public ministry and during his public ministry, did celebrate the legal and shadowy Passover, eating the typical lamb,” for he came not to destroy the Torah, or the prophets, but to fulfill them.¹⁶ Peter of Alexandria then adds:

But after his public ministry, he (Yahushua) did not eat of the lamb, but himself suffered as the true Lamb in the Passover festival, as John, the divine and evangelist, teaches us in the good news written by him.¹⁷

Peter of Alexandria then makes reference to the events of John, 18:28 that, while Yahushua was in the πραιτώριον (praitorion, hall of judgment), the Jews would not enter, “lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.”

He adds, “On that day, therefore, on which the Jews were about to eat the Passover πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros esperan; at twilight), our sovereign and saviour Yahushua the messiah was crucified.”¹⁸

The point of this argument is that the messiah ate his “Last Supper” on the 14th, the day of his execution. Yet, after the Jewish leaders had delivered Yahushua to Pilate, they were still waiting to celebrate their Passover meal (i.e., with the arrival of the 15th).

The Quartodecimans actually agreed with this understanding of the events surrounding the “Last Supper.”

The difference between the two positions was the insistence by the advocates of System E that the Jewish leaders (who utilized the Hasidic calculations for the week of Passover) were correctly observing the legal Passover of the written Torah.

The Quartodecimans claimed the Jewish leaders of that time were mistaken.

Peter of Alexandria, therefore, finds it fitting to defend the position of the Pharisees against the Quarto­decimans. He writes:

For the deity does not say that they (the Jewish leaders) did always err in their heart as regards the precept of the Torah concerning the Passover, as you (the Quarto­decimans) have written, but on account of all their other disobedience, and on account of their evil and unseemly deeds, when, indeed, he perceived them turning to idolatry and to porneia (sexual misconduct).¹⁹

Accepting the fact that the Jewish religious leaders had not yet eaten their Passover on the 14th, Peter continues:

On that day, therefore, on which the Jews were about to eat the Passover πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros esperan; at twilight), our sovereign and saviour Yahushua the messiah was killed on a (torture-)stake, being made the victim to those who were about to partake by trust of the mystery concerning him, according to what is written by the blessed Paul: “For even the messiah our Passover is sacrificed for us”; and not as some (the Quartodecimans) who, carried along by ignorance, confidently affirm that after he had eaten the Passover, he was betrayed.²⁰

Peter sums up the matter, stating:

At the time, therefore, in which our sovereign suffered for us, according to the flesh, HE DID NOT EAT OF THE LEGAL PASSOVER; but, as I have said, he himself, as the true Lamb, was sacrificed for us in the festival of the typical Passover, on the day of the preparation, the 14th of the first lunar month. The typical Passover, therefore, then ceased, the true Passover being present.²¹

Chrysostom
Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople (born 347 C.E., died Sept. 14, 407 C.E.), was appointed bishop of Constantinople in 398 C.E.²²

As with the other advocates of System E, he makes the 14th, the day that the messiah ate his “Last Supper” and suffered death, “the first day of unleavened bread.”

He then clarifies his view by calling it “the day BEFORE the festival; for they (the Jews) are accustomed always to reckon the day from ἑσπέρας (esperas; twilight).”²³

In this way, Chrysostom counts eight days of Unleavened Bread yet makes the first day of Unleavened Bread come before the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread.

Chrysostom also shows that many of the Christian Quintodecimans (15th day observers) had trouble explaining away the evidence that the “Last Supper” was the legal Passover. He was forced to face the following question:

But how, if they (the disciples of Yahushua) were eating the Passover, could they eat it contrary to the Torah? For they should not have eaten it, sitting down to their food. What then can be said? That after eating it (on the 14th), they then sat down to the banquet (on the 15th)?²⁴

His response, in agreement with other advocates of System E, was to allow that the “Last Supper” on the night of the 14th was indeed a Passover meal but not the legal one kept by the Jews. Rather, it was the ordainment of a new “sacrament, at the time of Passover.”²⁵

As Eutychius (late sixth century C.E.) comments, “Therefore, before he suffered he did eat the Passover—the mystical Passover, of course.”²⁶

This new Passover, Chrysostom reports, was kept by the messiah and his disciples the day before the new Christian schedule “to deliver to you the new rites, and to give a Passover” by which the messiah could make us spiritual.²⁷

According to this view, the new sacrament was not appointed previously to the day of the messiah’s “Last Supper,” but was given at that time because the written Torah was to cease.

Chrysostom adds, “And thus the very chief of the festivals (Passover) he (Yahushua) brings to an end, removing them to another most awful table.”²⁸ Thus began a new table from which we are to eat a new Passover with new rituals and meanings.

The advocates of System E proposed that this new Passover was kept for the first time on the 14th of the first moon with the messiah’s “Last Supper.”

Because the messiah’s “Last Supper” was observed on the 14th, it was also reasoned that it could not be the legal Passover of the Torah of Moses, which was observed by the Jewish state on the 15th.

The interpretation was then advanced that, since the messiah’s Passover was held on the 14th, it was a typology for Christians, meant to be expressed in the future only on the joyful celebration of the day of the resurrection (the Sovereign’s day), which fell on the first day of the week during the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

It was therefore advanced that the “Last Supper” actually allowed Christians to keep the Passover annually on the first day of the week during any one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread (i.e., from the 15th through the 21st day of the first moon).

The dispute was bitter and the schism was inevitable. The Quarto­deci­mans agreed with the Roman assembly that the old Passover of the Torah, which required each household to sacrifice a lamb, had indeed come to an end with the death of the messiah, the true lamb.²⁹

They also agreed that the unleavened bread and wine consumed at the Passover meal revealed a higher meaning as symbols of the messiah. Yet, they ardently disagreed with the System E premise that the Passover supper kept by the messiah just prior to his death, falling as it did on the 14th of Abib, was not the legal Passover.

Neither would they admit to the idea that the messiah observed the Passover only this once on the 14th, and that this one-time celebration set an example which gave Christians permission to change the official reckoning for the date of the Passover supper and mystery of the cup and bread.

The Seven Days
For System E the seven days of Unleavened Bread followed the Hasidic practice (System B), extending from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. Nevertheless, the first moon of the year was still determined by the 14th day of the moon falling either on or after the spring equinox.³⁰

Wilfrid, at the Synod of Whitby (664 C.E.), for example, notes that “it came to pass that the dominica (Sovereign’s day) Passover was kept only between the 15th day of the change of the moon to the 21st and no day else.”³¹

The System E argument is also fully expressed in a letter from the abbot Ceolfrid to Naitan, king of the Picts of Scotland, trying to convince the latter to keep the Passover established by the Roman Church. He gives three rules for the observance of Passover:

There are then three rules given in sacred Scripture by which the time of solemnizing Passover is appointed for us, which by no authority at all of many may be changed; of which rules two are established by the deity in the Torah of Moses, and the third was joined in the good news (New Testament) by the means of the sovereign’s suffering and resurrection. For the Torah commanded that in the first month of the year, and in the third week of the same month, that is from the 15th day to the 21st, the Passover should be kept: it was added by the institution of the apostles out of the good news (New Testament) that in the selfsame third week we should tarry for the Sovereign’s day (Sunday) and in it keep the beginning of the time of Passover.³²

In reference to the commands of Exodus, 12:1-3, Ceolfrid also takes the Hasidic interpretation:

By the words which it is most plainly seen, that in the observation of the Passover the 14th day is mentioned, yet it is not so mentioned that on that very 14th day it is commanded the Passover (lamb) should be kept, but that, when at length vespera (twilight) of the 14th day approaches, that is, when the 15th moon, which making the beginning of the third week, comes forth into the face of the heaven (i.e. very late afternoon of the 14th), the lamb is bidden to be killed: and it is plain that it is the selfsame night of the 15th day of the moon in which the Egyptians were smitten and Israel redeemed from the long slavery. “Seven days,” he says, “shall you eat unleavened bread.” With which words likewise all the third week of the said first month it is decreed should be solemn. But that we should not think the same 7 days to be counted from the 14th to the 20th, he added straight­way: ”The first day there shall be no leaven in your houses. Whosoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh, that life shall be cut off from Israel,” and so forth, till he says: “For in this selfsame day will I bring your army out of the land of Egypt.”³³

Abbot Ceolfrid goes on to deny that the 14th was one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread by identifying the night that Israel was brought out of Egypt with the 15th, being the day after the Passover (sacrifice), according to the Hasidic interpretation of Numbers, 33:3.

He (Moses) then calls the first day of unleavened bread the one in which he was to bring their army out of Egypt. But it is manifest that they were not brought out on the 14th day, in the vespera whereof the lamb was slain, and which is properly called the Passover or Phase; but in the 15th day they were brought out of Egypt, as it is evidently written in the book of Numbers.³⁴

Ceolfrid thereby makes the seven days last “from the beginning of the third week, that is, from the 15th day of the first moon to the 21st day of the same month fully complete.”³⁵ His argument continues:

Further, the 14th day is noted down separately outside this number under the name of the Passover, as that which follows in Exodus does evidently declare; where, after it was said: “For in this selfsame day will I bring your armies out of the land of Egypt”; it was added straightway: “And you shall observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, you shall eat unleavened bread to the 21st day of the month ad vesperam (at twilight).³⁶ Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your homes.” For who cannot see, that from the 14th to the 21st be not only 7 days but rather 8, if the 14th be itself also reckoned in? But if we will count from the vespera of the 14th day until the ad vesperam of the 21st—as the verity of sacred Scripture diligently search out does declare—we shall well perceive that the 14th day continues its vesperam to the beginning of the Passover festival in such a manner that the whole sacred solemnity contains only 7 nights with as many days.³⁷

Time to wrap up Part I and take a break amigos. In the next post we will provide evidence for the full approval and appointment of System E by Emperor Constantine leading up to the present, but flawed, practice of System G held to by the many followers of Yahweh today.

So be on the lookout for 28. Passover – Evolution to Today II coming soon.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 B. Sanh., 43a, “And it is tradition: בערב הפסח (On the arab of the Passover) they hung Yeshua (Yahushua the Nazarene). And the crier went forth before him 40 days, (saying), ‘(Yeshua) goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic and deceived and led astray Israel.’” The terms “Arab” and “the Passover” are used here in the Pharisaical sense, i.e., to refer to the “afternoon” of the day of the Passover sacrifice (Abib 14).

2 GN Peter, 3.

3 Matt., 26:17; Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7.

4 Mark, 14:12-17; Matt., 26:17-20; Luke, 22:7-14.

5 JTS, 9, pp. 305-307; EWJ, p. 16–19, p. 16, n. 2, p. 19, n. 2; CSJBO, pp. 119f.

6 Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7.

7 John, 18:28.

8 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 6:11.

9 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 6:11. Hippolytus misses the intent of Saul’s comment. Saul also commands men to keep the Passover festival (1 Cor., 5:7-8). Circumcision was a dogmasin (public decree) and was never a pre-Torah olam (age-lasting) statute. As shown in FSDY, chaps. 4-8, the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread differs from circumcision in that it is an olam statute attached to the Covenants of Promise and does not find its origin as a dogmasin of the Torah of Moses.

10 Hippolytus, frag. 1.

11 Hippolytus, frag. 2.

12 Peter Alex., frag. 5:1.

13 Peter Alex., frag. 5:1-7.

14 Cf., Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1.

15 Peter Alex., frag. 5:1, 2, 7.

16 Peter Alex., frag. 5:7.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Peter Alex., frag. 5:4.

20 Peter Alex., frag. 5:7.

21 Ibid.

22 JE, 4, p. 75.

23 Chrysostom, Hom., 81:1.

24 Chrysostom, Hom., 81:3.

25 Chrysostom, Hom., 82:1.

26 Eutychius, 2.

27 Chrysostom, Hom., 82:1.

28 Ibid.

29 For example, this theme is expressed throughout the work on the Passover by Melito of Sardis. Also see Ps.-Hippolytus, 1–3; Pas. Proclam., Exsult., 4.

30 E.g., Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:14–17; Ps.-Chrysostom, 7:4, 35; Bede, Hist., 5:21.

31 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

32 Bede, Hist., 5:21.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 The term ad vesperam (at twilight) is here a translation of the Hebrew term בערב (be-arab), but is interpreted in the Pharisaic fashion as late afternoon.

37 Bede, Hist., 5:21.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus (c.140-202 C.E.), presbyter and bishop of the diocese of Lyons, Gaul (France),¹ was a vital player in the formulation of this new Roman assembly view.

Though early in his life he lived in Asia among the Quartodecimans and personally knew Polycarp, in his adult life he helped direct the western assemblies toward their new path.²

Irenaeus was a strong and close ally of both Eleutherus (177-192 C.E.) and Victor, bishops of Rome.³

He is noted for his participation in the conferences that created Victor’s decrees to celebrate Passover according to the System E scenario.⁴

Irenaeus also wrote a book titled On Phasekh, which also discussed Pentecost.⁵

It is clear that the System E construct for Passover, if it was not actually invented jointly by Irenaeus and Victor, was brought to the forefront and advocated by them.

This detail is indicated by the following statement made by Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby in 664 C.E.:

The Passover which we follow we have seen to be kept by all at Rome where the blessed apostles Peter and Paul lived, taught, suffered and were buried: this manner we have noted to be practiced of all in Italy, and in Gaul, countries which we have passed through in pursuit of knowledge or desire to pray: This manner we have found to be performed in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece and all the world, wherever the assembly HAS BEEN SPREAD, throughout different nations and tongues, after one order of time and that without variableness.⁶

Notice that the original regions of this new view were Italy and Gaul, where Victor and Irenaeus were head bishops.

The practice is then assumed to have spread throughout other countries, with the implication that it came from Italy and Gaul, where it was originally observed.

Further, Eusebius (an advocate of System E) notes that Irenaeus represents “the orthodoxy of the Assembly.”⁷

And Εἰρηναῖος (Eirenaios; Irenaeus), who deserved his name, εἰρηνοποιός (eirenopoios; peace maker), gave exhortations of this kind for the peace of the Assembly and served as its ambassador, for in letters he discussed the various views on the issue which had been raised (i.e. Passover), not only with Victor but also with many other rulers of the assemblies.⁸

That Irenaeus was a major contributor is further demonstrated by his influence over Victor in the events that followed the series of conferences we have mentioned above.

The bishop of Rome had already demonstrated his authority in the West by his ability to bring together the other western assemblies into doctrinal agreement with Roman leadership.

This influence, in turn, gave him a great sense of power. As a result, Victor moved to eliminate his opposition.

Based upon the agreements he had reached with the other western assemblies, Victor issued a decree that all Christians must keep the Passover according to the Roman assembly system.

Yet, the Quartodecimans remained undaunted. In a formal letter to Victor from Polycrates, leader of the assemblies of Asia, they utterly refused.⁹

Upon their rebuff, Victor immediately tried to cut off the dioceses of all Asia and the adjacent regions from the common unity. He “indited letters announcing that all the Christians there were absolutely excommunicated.”¹⁰

At this point Irenaeus stepped in.

But by no means were all pleased by this, so they issued counter-requests to him to consider the cause of peace and unity and love toward his neighbors. Their words are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them too Irenaeus, writing in the name of the Christians in Gaul, whose leader he (Irenaeus) was, though HE HAD RECOMMENDED that the mystery of the sovereign’s resurrection be observed only on the Sovereign’s day, yet nevertheless exhorted Victor suitably and at length not to excommunicate whole assemblies of the deity FOR FOLLOWING A TRADITION OF ANCIENT CUSTOM.¹¹

Due to the request of Irenaeus and the others, Victor recanted.¹² The special mention of Irenaeus, who “had recommended” the new view, demonstrates that he had important influence over Victor.

Victor saw his chastise­ment as instruction from one who had been important in the development of the System E construct.

Indeed, the works of Irenaeus prove him to be, as Johannes Quasten calls him, “the founder of Christian theology” as it is known today.¹³

The View of Irenaeus
Further evidence that Irenaeus was one of the original builders of the System E construct comes from the remnants of his works, composed between 180–189 C.E.¹⁴

It is in these letters that we first piece together the ideas forming the System E Passover.

At first Irenaeus, mimicking the Quartodecimans, states that the messiah “ate the Passover, and suffered on the next day,”¹⁵ that is, he died during the next daylight period. Yet, he also adds elsewhere:

Of the day of his suffering, too, he (Moses) was not ignorant; but foretold him, after a figurative manner, by the name given to the Passover; and at the very festival, which had been proclaimed such a long time previously by Moses, did our sovereign suffer, thus fulfilling the Passover. And he did not describe the day only, but the place also, and the time of day at which the sufferings ceased, and the sign of the setting of the sun, saying: You may not sacrifice the Passover within any other of your cities which the sovereign deity gives you; but in the place which the sovereign your deity shall choose that his name be called on there, you shall sacrifice the Passover at vespere (even), toward the setting of the sun.¹⁶

The writings of Irenaeus reflect the earliest Christian interpretation which held to the prescript that Moses had commanded the Passover lamb to be killed prior to the setting of the sun (i.e., at the end of the 14th day), being also the same time that the messiah died.

Therefore, he interprets the day of the messiah’s death along Hasidic lines, while fully acknowledging that the messiah ate the Passover the night before (at the beginning of the 14th day).

How the advocates of System E dealt with the dilemma of two Passover suppers (one eaten by the messiah on the 14th and one by the Jewish leaders on the 15th) shall be discussed as we proceed.

Clement of Alexandria
An important convert to System E was Clement of Alexandria (writing c.193–212 C.E.). When the bishops of Alexandria came over to the System E side, it tipped the scale strongly in favor of Rome.

Eusebius classes Clement with Irenaeus as one of the two great men who “represent the orthodoxy of the assembly.”¹⁸

In his own work on the Passover, Clement sets down Irenaeus’ account of the Passover debate, thereby showing that Irenaeus had important influence upon Clement.¹⁹ Bringing the Alexandrian Christians over to the Roman side would prove to be an important political victory.

Clement was the product of an Alexandrian school taught by a man named Pantaenus.

It was in the year that Commodus received the sovereignty (180 C.E.) that “a man very famous for his learning named Pantaenus had charge of the life of the faithful in Alexandria, for from ancient custom a school of sacred learning existed among them.”¹⁹

Eusebius tells us of this man:

Pantaenus, after many achievements, was at the head of the school in Alexandria until his death, and orally and in writing expounded the treasures of the divine doctrine.²⁰

Eusebius also informs us that, “tradition says that at that time Pantaenus was especially eminent, and that he had been influenced by the philosophic system of those called Stoics.”²¹

This Greek Stoic philosophy was also strong among the large Pharisaic community of Jews living in Alexandria, for the Pharisees were “a sect having points of resemblance to that which the Greeks call the Stoic school.”²² In this regard, Pantaenus and the Jews held common ground.

Clement of Alexandria was a student of Pantaenus.²³ Indeed, Clement “was famous in Alexandria for his study of the sacred Scriptures with Pantaenus.”²⁴ He even succeeded Pantaenus as head of the school at Alexandria.²⁵

Clement’s activity in Alexandria is dated by his work entitled Stromateis. This book uses the death of Emperor Commodus (December of 192 C.E.) as a terminus, showing that Clement was writing early in the reign of Severus (193-211 C.E.).²⁶

At the outbreak of persecution under Severus in 202 C.E., Clement left Alexandria, never to return. He had served more than 20 years as a presbyter of the assembly in Alexandria.²⁷

In the many works attributed to Clement of Alexandria, two are relevant for our discussion. One is titled To the Judaizers. It was dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (211 C.E.).²⁸

Though this book is now lost, its very title reflects his anti-Jewish sentiment. Clement also wrote an important book discussing the Passover.

Eusebius informs us:

And in his (Clement’s) book On the Passover he professes that he was compelled by his companions to commit to writing traditions that he had heard from the elders of olden time, for the benefit of those that should come after; and he mentions in it Melito and Irenaeus and some others, whose accounts also of the matter he has set down.²⁹

In another place he similarly states:

Clement of Alexandria quotes this treatise in his own On the Passover, which he says that he compiled in consequence of the writing of Melito.³⁰

This evidence proves that Clement of Alexandria composed his own work with regard to the Passover based upon his studies of arguments given by Irenaeus and Melito. Clement favored the views of Irenaeus and opposed the Quartodeciman views of Melito.

He demonstrates his pro-System E bias when he writes:

Accordingly, in the years gone by, Yahushua went to eat the Passover sacrificed by the Jews, keeping the festival. . . . Suitably, therefore, to the 14th day, on which he also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the Passover at ἑσπέρας (esperas; twilight). With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the good news (New Testament) harmonizes. The resurrection also attests to it. He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the Weeks of Harvest, on which the Torah prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf.³¹

By claiming that the messiah always ate the Passover sacrificed by the Jews, and then tying it to the fact that on the morning of the 14th the Jewish leaders had not yet partaken of the Passover, Clement of Alexandria reflects the view that the messiah did not partake of the legal Passover supper for his “Last Supper.”

The coupling of the omer wave offering on the first day of the week with the resurrection of the messiah, of course, reflects his intent on celebrating the Passover of the resurrection.

What is interesting about Clement of Alexandria’s work on the Passover is that he also demonstrates the transition period from System D to System E.

This detail is reflected in his thoughts about John 13:1-12. In a fragment from this work, where he uses an Egyptian (midnight to midnight) reckoning for a day,³² we read:

But when he (the messiah) had preached he who was the Passover, the lamb of the deity, led as a sheep to the slaughter, presently taught his disciples the mystery of the type on the 13th day, on which also they inquired, Where will you that we prepare for you to eat the Passover (Matt., 26:17). It was on this day (the Egyptian 13th = the evening before midnight) then, that both the consecration of the unleavened bread and the preparation for the festival took place. Whence John naturally describes the disciples as already previously prepared to have their feet washed by the sovereign. And on the following day (the Egyptian 14th) our saviour suffered, he who was the Passover, propitiously sacrificed by the Jews.³³

The interpretation of John, 13:1-12, which mentions a meal that took place on the day “before the Festival of the Passover” and during which the messiah washed the feet of his disciples,³⁴ is for the first time found associated with the “Last Supper.”³⁵

This shows Clement of Alexandria’s belief that the Passover supper of the messiah was held on the day before the legal Passover of the Jews.

As Cyril Richardson states, Clement of Alexandria makes the “Last Supper” “a pre-Passover enacted parable.”³⁶

No doubt the Egyptian work attributed to the Gospel of the Hebrews, as indirectly quoted by Jerome (c.348-420 C.E.), comes from the time of Pantaenus and Clement.

It reads, “The eight days of the Passover, on which the messiah the son of the deity rose.”³⁷ This statement reflects the transition from the earlier Quartodeciman view of a seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread to the Pharisaic eight days.

Origen
The System E interpretation is also reflected in the works of Origen (c.185–254 C.E.), the pupil of Clement of Alexandria.³⁸ Origen was young as a student, for he was a teacher himself by the age of 20.³⁹

He was trained by Clement at the very time of Victor’s decree. Origen was originally from Alexandria but later left Egypt (234 C.E.) and was ordained in Caesarea in Palestine, where he began writing (between 234–251 C.E.).⁴⁰

Origen accepted the Pharisaic interpretation for the week of Passover. In his work On Phasekh, he recounts the commands given in Exodus, 12:3-5, where the Israelites are told to take the lamb on the 10th day of the moon and keep it until the 14th for sacrificing.

Origen then explains this statement by saying, “but he does not sacrifice or eat him before five days have gone by.”⁴¹

The fifth day after the tenth is the 15th, thereby placing the Passover supper on the 15th. He even connects the time for killing the lamb, “προς εσπεραν (pros esperan, at twilight),” with the “last hour” of the day, on the 14th.⁴² Origen also interprets that it is on the 15th that the moon reaches its “fullest plenitude.”⁴³

Origen once more connects the eating of the Passover with the 15th by concluding from this typology, “And for our part, unless the perfect, true light rises over us and we see how it perfectly illumines our guiding intellect, we will not be able to sacrifice and eat the true lamb.”⁴⁴

Like Clement of Alexandria, Origen places the incidents of the supper and feet washing found in John, 13:1-12, with the events during the day of the “Last Supper,”⁴⁵ thereby connecting the Passover meal eaten by the messiah with the day before the Passover.⁴⁶

Summary of Roman Corruption I & II
The evidence demonstrates that an important movement toward the Christian Hasidic system got under way around 165 C.E. and blossomed in the days of Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, and Victor, bishop of Rome, and their important proclamation of 196 C.E.

The result was System E, which follows the Hasidic System of observing the seven days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first month of the scriptural calendar.

Its advocates did not allow that the 14th day of that month was the legal Passover supper. Instead, they interpreted the data so that the messiah and his disciples kept the Passover sacrifice and supper on the night of the 14th as a pre-Passover enacted parable.

The “Last Supper,” therefore, was merely a foretype of the future Passover that was to be kept only on the first day of the week when it fell on any of the days extending from the 15th to 21st of Abib.

This wraps up the discussion of the Roman influence which ultimately proved to be the dominant force among many of the Christian assemblies.

In our next post, we will investigate the mechanics of the Christian Hasidic construct as represented by the Roman assembly System E along with another form, the Syrian hybrid System F.

Finally, within this discussion, we will address a popular construct that has evolved from these two systems that is being practiced by many present-day followers of Yahweh and their respective assemblies, System G.

So, be on the lookout for 27. Passover – Evolution to Today I coming your way soon!

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Eusebius, H.E., 5:4:1, 5:23:4, 5:24:11; Jerome, Lives, 35.

2 For more details regarding the life of Irenaeus, and his education in Rome before he migrated to Gaul, see FSDY, App. G, pp. 453ff.

3 Eusebius, H.E., 5:4:1, 5:23:4, 5:24:9-18; Jerome, Lives, 35.

4 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:1-4, 5:24:11.

5 Irenaeus, frag. 7; Ps.-Justin, 115.

6 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

7 Eusebius, H.E., 3:23:2.

8 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:18.

9 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:1-8.

10 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9; Socrates Schol., 5:22.

11 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9-11.

12 Ibid.

13 Patrol., 1, p. 294.

14 E.g., EEC, p. 145, #28, “Written between 180 and 185.” Sections were probably composed in the first years of Victor, when he was co-bishop with Eleutherus (189–193 C.E.).

15 Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:22:3.

16 Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 4:10:1.

17 Eusebius, H.E., 3:23:2.

18 Clement, Pas., frag. 25.

19 Eusebius, H.E., 5:10.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Jos., Life, 1:2.

23 Eusebius, H.E., 5:11, 6:13.

24 Eusebius, H.E., 5:11.

25 Eusebius, H.E., 6:6.

26 Eusebius, H.E., 6:6.

27 Butterworth, Clement, p. xii.

28 Eusebius, H.E., 6:13:3, cf., 6:8:7, 6:11, the year Antoninus Caracalla succeeded Severus (i.e., 211 C.E.), at the time when Alexander became bishop of Jerusalem.

29 Eusebius, H.E., 6:13:9.

30 Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:4.

31 Clement, Pas., frag. 28.

32 The Egyptians and Romans reckoned a midnight-to-midnight day (Pliny, 2:79).

33 Clement, Pas., frag. 28.

34 John, 13:1-2.

35 That the supper and feet washing of John, 13:1-12, actually occurred on the night of the 13th of Abib can be ascertained when the chronology of the messiah’s last several days before his death is correctly layed out.

36 JTS (NS), 24, p. 77.

37 EEC, p. 38.

38 Eusebius, H.E., 6:6.

39 Daly, Origen, p. 2.

40 Daly, Origen, p. 3.

41 Origen, Pas., 18.

42 Origen, Pas., 25, cf., 16, 17, 20.

43 Origen, Pas., 20.

44 Origen, Pas., 21.

45 Origen, Com. John, 32.

46 As stated in John, 13:1-2.

Nevertheless, there was strong resistance by the Roman assembly.

The Quartodeciman (System A) and Quasi-Quartodeciman (System D) practice was made more difficult to overcome by the fact that they were both based upon the same apostolic authority (the apostle John).¹

It soon became obvious that if the Roman assembly was to gain political dominance in the West, as well as over many of the eastern assemblies, a new strategy was required.

In response, during the last decade of the second century C.E., the western leaders and theologians developed a new approach: the Roman assembly Passover and, after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., canonized as the Roman Catholic Passover (System E).

Countering the Quartodecimans
In an effort to counter the Quartodeciman threat, which many in the West considered a form of Judaizing, those under Roman leadership modified System D, which observed the 14th through 20th days of the first moon for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Under their new system (System E), as with System D, they retained the Sovereign’s day—the first day of the week during the seven days of Unleavened Bread—as the time to celebrate the mystery of the Eucharist.

Yet, major changes came in three areas.

• First, they advanced the Roman assembly view that the period which began with the Friday preceding the Sover­eign’s day until Saturday night was the time to fast.²

• Second, the advocates of System E made a decision to adopt the Hasidic construct for the seven days of Unleavened Bread (i.e., counting from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of Abib). However, they discarded the Hasidic interpretation to always observe the 15th and 21st of Abib as high Sabbaths.

• Third, they adopted the Hasidic interpreta­tion that the 15th of Abib was the correct day for the legal Passover supper found in the written Torah. The ramifications of these changes were far-reaching.

In the present post, we shall open our examination of those Christian systems that adopted the Hasidic view of the seven days of Unleavened Bread with a discussion of (1) the time frame and (2) the originators of the System E construct.

Then in the following post, we shall document the mechanics of System E and examine other Hasidic-based Christian systems that followed.

Time of the Change
The time of change, when the western assemblies moved from System D to System E, occurred in the second half of the first century C.E.

As we have already noted, the earliest advocates of the western view (System D) calculated the seven days of Unleavened Bread from the 14th day until the end of the 20th day of the first moon, a view that was itself Quartodeciman-based.

Yet, unlike the Quartodecimans, they observed a Sunday-only celebration of the Passover Eucharist.

As Raniero Cantalamessa observed:

Naturally the choice of the anniversary of the passion rather than the anniversary of the resurrection as the date of the feast meant emphasizing one of the events more than the other.³

The heart of the attempt to persuade other western and the eastern assemblies to leave the Quartodeciman system rested entirely upon very strong anti-Jewish rhetoric and the claim that the day of the resurrection was a much happier occasion to celebrate the mystery of the Eucharist.

To solidify this view, the Roman bishops converted the Friday and Saturday preceding Passover Sunday into fast days. Yet, these arguments were simply not strong enough to bring the Quartodecimans into the western camp.

In the latter half of the second century C.E., the East still remained strongly Quartodeciman. In the eyes of the leaders of the Roman assembly, it became a time for change.

The leadership of the Roman assembly realized that they could only gain political dominance over all of these other assemblies if the greater Assembly⁴ was unified in its doctrines. Therefore, it was necessary for them to find a stronger basis for dismissing the 14th as the day of the Passover.

The result of this activity was the development of a newer construct for keeping the sovereign’s Passover of the resurrection—System E, which argued that the Passover could only be kept from the 15th to the 21st days of the first month.

To further dismiss the Quartodeciman practice for celebrating Passover on the 14th, the accusation was made that those observing the 14th were committing an act of Judaizing.

The leader of this new movement is uncovered in the following way.

Columbanus of Luxovium, who advocated System D, bitterly testified in a letter to Pope Gregory, dated to the year 598 C.E., that the culprit behind this innovation to dismiss the 14th as a day to observe Passover and charge it as being an act of Judaizing was Pope Victor of Rome (192-202 C.E.).

Columbanus of Luxovium writes (and we quote him at some length to gain the flavor of the dispute):

. . . after so many authors whom I have read, I am not satisfied with that one sentence of those bishops who say only, “We ought not to keep Passover with the Jews” (i.e., on the 14th). FOR THIS IS WHAT BISHOP VICTOR FORMERLY SAID; but none of the Easterns accepted his figment. But this, the benumbing backbone of Dagon; this, the dotage of error drinks in. Of what worth, I ask, is this sentence, so frivolous and so rude, and resting as it does, on no testimonies from sacred Scripture: “We ought not to keep the Passover with the Jews”? What has it to do with the question? Are the reprobate Jews to be supposed to keep the Passover now, seeing that they are without a temple, outside Jerusalem, and the messiah, who was formerly prefigured, having been crucified by them? Can it be rightly supposed that the 14th day of the moon for the Passover was of their own (i.e., a Jewish) appointment? Or, is it not rather to be acknowledged that it is from the deity, who alone knew clearly with what mysterious meaning the 14th day of the moon was chosen for the passage (out of Egypt).⁵

Under the guiding hand of theoreticians Victor of Rome and Irenaeus of Gaul, and with the agreement of others like Clement of Alexandria, the western assemblies did an about-face and accepted what had previously been shunned—i.e., the Hasidic premise that the seven days of Unleavened Bread extended from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon.

The System E concept was developed as a result of the controversy which followed the visit of the Quartodeciman Polycarp of Smyrna, leader of the eastern assemblies, with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome and leader over several of the western assemblies.

It was with this dispute that we hear for the first time of a difference between the observance of the 14th as the historical Passover and the western observance of Passover Sunday (System D) being practiced at Rome.

It was no earlier than 158 C.E.,⁶ and probably shortly thereafter, that these two bishops tried to resolve their differences over the Passover issue.

Little was accomplished. They only agreed to disagree. Polycarp, already a very old man and unwilling to cause a schism in the Assembly,⁷ quietly returned home and peace continued between the two sides.⁸

At the same time, members of the Roman assembly saw Polycarp’s unwillingness to censure or excommunicate Anicetus as a sign of weakness.

Polycarp’s inability to convince Anicetus, allowing Anicetus to retain his own view, and then departing Rome on friendly terms actually represented proof in the minds of many members of the western assemblies that the western view was at least equal in authority to the older Quartodeciman view.⁹

Polycarp’s inability to convince the leadership of Rome, therefore, became the first major step on the road to political dominance for the leadership of the Roman assembly.

Perceiving that they were now unfettered and justified in their approach, the Roman assembly began a major campaign to expand their power.

During the latter half of the second century C.E., using a series of conferences, epistles, and meetings, they rapidly increased their dominance over many of the other western assemblies, extending their influence even over the Roman province around Jerusalem.¹⁰

Meanwhile, shortly before the death of Polycarp (about the spring of 170 C.E.),¹¹ the western doctrine of Passover was making its way into Asia. As a result, the Asian assemblies revived the Passover debate at Laodicea (in the spring of 167 C.E.).¹²

Some were, for the first time, pleading an interpretation of the story of the messiah’s suffering that reflected a strong Hasidic influence.

The Quartodeciman Apollinarius of Hierapolis, for example, mentions the fact that at that time some, “on account of ignorance,” had stirred up a dispute, arguing that Yahushua had eaten the Passover lamb with his disciples on the 14th but did not suffer death until the 15th, “on the great day of Unleavened Bread.”¹³

The context of this debate is reflected in Apollinarius of Hierapolis’ response, “the 14th is the true Passover of the sovereign.”¹⁴

This disagreement reveals the beginning of an effort by those who were trying to introduce the Hasidic construct, which makes the 15th the first day of Unleavened Bread and a high Sabbath, into the Christian Passover debate.

At that time, Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote his two books titled On the Passover.¹⁵ In this work Melito defended the view of the Asiatic assemblies.¹⁶

Shortly thereafter, in approximately 170 C.E.,¹⁷ Apollinarius, who was from the city of Hierapolis (located near Laodicea in Asia Minor), also wrote in defense of the Quartodeciman view.

The Quartodecimans were now striking back hard. Indeed, their premise was extremely difficult to argue against. As one Quartodeciman pointed out in his debate with Hippolytus:

The messiah kept the Passover on that day (the 14th) and he suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it (the Passover supper) in the same manner as the sovereign did.¹⁸

As a result of the Quartodeciman counter-attack, those holding to the early western view (System D) sought for a stronger argument.

Under the leadership of Victor, bishop of Rome (192–202 C.E.), a major effort was made by the Roman assembly to gain doctrinal supremacy in reference to the Passover.

Many meetings and conferences with other bishops were held on this point, and all unanimously formulated in their letters the doctrine of the assembly for those in every country that the mystery of the sovereign’s resurrection from the dead should be celebrated on no day save the Sovereign’s day (Sunday), and that on that day alone they should celebrate the end of the Passover fast.¹⁹

The results were proclaimed in 196 C.E.²⁰ Victor, who held the leadership in the West, subsequently published a work titled On the Passover Controversy.²¹

At that moment, the Roman assembly system of fasting for the two days before Passover Sunday had attained supremacy among the western assemblies.

At the same time, the agreement to observe the Friday and Saturday fast before Passover Sunday was also an acceptance of a very different way of celebrating the suffering and resurrection of Yahushua.

Instead of annually celebrating the Passover on the 14th and the following Sunday as the Sovereign’s day, this new system always celebrated the same three-day sequence: Good Friday represented the day of the messiah’s death, Saturday his time in the grave, and Sunday was the day of his resurrection.

The annual observance of the day of the messiah’s death and his time spent buried in the grave was no longer based upon the exact day of the month, regardless of which day of the week they fell upon.

This was the Quartodeciman system and it was controlled by the 14th of Abib.

Instead, the new annual observance was based upon the exact day of the week, regardless of which day of the month it fell upon.

Under this formulation, since the messiah was raised on the Sunday following Passover (the 14th), the messiah’s death should annually be observed on the previous Friday and his resurrection on its proper Sunday.

Under this Roman system, the days of Passover were controlled by the anniversary of the Sunday resurrection.

Conversion to the Hasidic System
The most important change instituted by the new Roman system of Passover was the introduction of the Hasidic system for the seven days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., from the 15th to the 21st day of the first moon.

The 14th was retained only for the purpose of determining when the first month of the year should be fixed (i.e., the vernal equinox must fall before the 14th day of the first moon).

Therefore, the first Christians to fully adopt the Hasidic view of eight days of Passover were those following the approach of the Roman assembly (System E).²²

In a broken passage, the Liber Pontificalis reports this change under Victor:

After sacerdotes (a priestly gathering) had been questioned concerning the cycle of Passover [var. text reads, “He also summoned a council and an inquiry was made of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, concerning Passover and the first day of the week and the moon”],²³ he (Victor) issued a decree that the Lord’s day of Passover . . . a discussion with priests and bishops and after holding a council to which Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, had been invited, (they determined that) the sacred Passover should be kept on the Lord’s day from the 14th to the 21st day of the first lunar month.²⁴

The leaders who created System E were Victor of Rome, Irenaeus of Gaul, and several others. All “expressed one and the same opinion and judgment, and gave the same vote.”²⁵

Due to the many conferences held on the matter, several bishops of the important Christian center at Alexandria, Egypt, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, quickly agreed.

Included in this decision with Victor was Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem.

These assemblies were governed by non-Judahite Roman-style Christians, the Jews and Christians of Jewish descent having been banned from even coming near the old city.²⁶

The political shift in the days of Victor was now fully evident.

This time, instead of the leader of Asia coming to correct the Roman bishop for his separation from the orthodoxy, the Roman leader of the western assemblies notified those in the East that they were to change to the new Roman assembly orthodoxy or face excommunication.²⁷

This episode reflects the changing position of the Roman assembly leadership toward intolerance.

When Polycarp of Smyrna, leader of the eastern assemblies, visited with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, in about 158 C.E. and argued that the Roman assembly should change its position in the name of unity, Anicetus utterly refused.

Both sides agreed to disagree and toleration of each other’s view of Passover was encouraged. With Victor and the events of 196 C.E., on the other hand, the Roman assembly saw its chance to suppress the older Quartodeciman view.

Instead of toleration they moved toward an act of excommunication. This new attitude of the Roman leadership would eventually win the day.

When Emperor Constantine, in support of the Roman assembly, held the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., the suppression of all other Christian Passover systems became the official Roman Catholic policy.

Time to wrap up Part I of our discussion and take a break. In our next post we will address the main protagonists of the Roman System E, namely Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

So, be on the lookout for 26. Passover – Roman Corruption II.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 See 23. Passover – Which 7 Days?, subhead, Common Apostolic Source.

2 The observance of this fast was at the heart of the differences between Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus and leader of the Asian assemblies, and Victor, bishop of Rome, in 196 C.E. (Irenaeus, frag. 3; Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:11–16).

3 EEC, p. 9.

4 The Greek term ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklesia), Latin ecclesia, shall be translated throughout as “Assembly,” if the reference is to the world body, and as “assembly” if the reference is to a local congregation (see GEL, 1968, p. 509; SEC, Gk. #1577). The Hebrew term behind the Greek and Latin is קהל (qahal), קהלה (qahalah), “an assemblage:—assembly, congregation” (SEC, Heb. #6951, 6952; HEL, p. 228; cf., CS, 1, p. 433). The English term “Church,” which is often used to translate the Greek and Latin words, is misleading in that it gives a connotation of a building for public worship as well as for the congregation.

5 Gregory, Epist., 127.

6 Anicetus did not obtain the bishopric of Rome until early in 158 C.E.

7 Polycarp died after living as a Christian for 86 years (Polycarp, 9; Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:3f, 4:15:20). He was converted as a young boy (Pionius, Poly., 3) and, based on various other factors (see FSDY, App. F and App. G), he was at least 99 years old at his death.

8 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:14–17; Irenaeus, frag. 3; Socrates Schol., 5:22.

9 This attitude is clearly expressed by later writers such as Irenaeus, frag. 3; Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:14-18; and Socrates Schol., 5:22.

10 Roman assembly influence over the bishops of Palestine is clearly expressed by the willingness of Theophilus, bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, to join with Victor in the Passover controversy.

11 For the date of Polycarp’s death see FSDY, App. F and App. G.

12 Melito, frag. 4, writes, “Under Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris bore witness, there was a great dispute at Laodicea about the Passover, which had coincided according to season in those days.” The most likely date, as discussed by Stuart G. Hall (Hall, Melito, pp. xxi-xxii), is the year 166/167 C.E. (May reckoning). Since this event coincided with the season in those days, we would understand that the debate took place in the spring of 167 C.E. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:3; cf., EEC, p. 141, 26. n. b; JTS (NS), 24, p. 76; JTS, 25, p. 254; BCal, p. 160.

13 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f; cf., EEC, p. 141, #26, n. b.

14 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f.

15 Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:1-3, which dates the work, “In the time of Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris was martyred” (i.e., c.164-167 C.E.; see Lake, Euseb., i., p. 387, n. 7).

16 That Melito supported the Quartodeciman view see Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:5.

17 JTS (NS), 24, p. 76.

18 Hippolytus, frag. 1.

19 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:2. With regard to the importance of the fast see above n. 2.

20 Jerome (Euseb., year 2212) associates this debate with the fourth year of Emperor Severus (196/197 C.E., May reckoning).

21 Jerome, Lives, 34.

22 See discussions in this and the next post.

23 BTP, p. 18.

24 Lib. Pont., 15. Cf. BPLP, p. 6.

25 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:3f.

26 Eusebius, H.E., 5:22:1-5:23:4, 5:25:1, which shows that Narcissus and Theophilus were in communication with the assembly in Alexandria, Egypt and established agreement between them on how to observe the Passover. For Hadrian’s ban against ethnic Judaeans in or near Jerusalem see Eusebius, H.E., 4:6; cf., Dio, 69:12–14; Orosius, 7:13.

27 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:9.

The most important source for their view is found in the records of Anatolius of Alexandria.

To his words we can add the statements provided by the Audians and several bishops representing assemblies located in different parts of Europe.

Anatolius of Alexandria
Like the Quartodecimans, those who kept System D observed the 14th until the end of the 20th for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

The most famous advocate of this system was Anatolius of Alexandria (c.230-283 C.E.).¹

Anatolius was originally from Alexandria but later became bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor (c.270 C.E.).² He flourished under the emperors Probus and Carus (276-283 C.E.).³

His well-known work on the Passover not only defends the System D method but notes that this view was premised upon the practice of the ancient Jewish priests, like Aristobulus of Paneas of the third century B.C.E. (System A).⁴

He further argues that this was also the method held by the Quartodeciman bishops of Asia, who in turn had received the rule “from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John, who learned it on the sovereign’s breast, and drank in instructions spiritual without doubt.”⁵

In presenting this view, as A. Yarbro Collins notes, Anatolius “defended the position of the Quartodecimans.”⁶ At the same time, Anatolius always kept the first day of the week during the seven days of Unleavened Bread as Passover.⁷

Anatolius even admitted that System D was a more recent innovation. He reminds his readers that originally those Christians who advocated the proper system always kept the Passover supper on the 14th.⁸

The 14th-20th, Not 15th-21st
In his discussion, Anatolius writes that “the day of Passover is fixed from the 14th day of the moon.”⁹ Then, after quoting both Exodus, 12:18-19 and 12:15,¹⁰ as proof, he challenges some of the more recent innovations.

He specifically mentions certain views derived from the assemblies of Gaul (from which region Irenaeus, an important participant in the creation of System E, had earlier been bishop).¹¹

He also criticizes the methods used by Roman Christians like Hippolytus, all advocates of different forms of System E, who began the seven days of Unleavened Bread with the 15th of Abib.¹²

Some, in part, permitted the Passover celebration prior to the spring equinox and others “erred in the matter of the 21st day of the moon,” in that they allowed that the Passover of the resurrection could be celebrated on that date.¹³

Anatolius, though he believed that System D was the proper observance for Christians of his day, clearly did not argue against the accuracy of the seven-day count for Unleavened Bread as promoted by the Quartodecimans of Asia, whom he points out had “kept the day of Passover on the 14th day of the first moon, according to the good news (New Testament).”¹⁴

By referencing the New Testament, Anatolius can only mean that the early Quartodecimans observed the festival in accordance with the way Yahushua and his disciples observed Passover on the night of his betrayal and deliverance into the hands of the Jewish leaders.¹⁵

On the other hand, he chastised those in the West who kept the festival from the 15th to the 21st day of the first moon, not only with regard to their allowing that Passover could be celebrated as late as the 21st day of the first moon but in the manner in which they calculated the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

As we shall show later on, those holding to the innovation of System E, beginning in the latter part of the second century C.E., held that the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread should be counted by the Jewish Hasidic method.¹⁶

The Passover of the resurrection, accordingly, was always placed by them on the first day of the week which fell on one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread, a period calculated from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon.

Anatolius responds:

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. Unless perchance the 14th day is not reckoned by them among the days of unleavened bread with the celebration of the festival; which, however, is contrary to the word of the good news (New Testament) which says: “And on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Yahushua” (Mark, 14:12). And there is no doubt as to its being the 14th day on which the dis­ciples asked the sovereign, in accordance with the custom established for them of old, “Where do you desire that we prepare for you to eat the Passover” (Mark, 14:12).¹⁷

In his calculation, Anatolius refers to the 14th as both the first day of Unleavened Bread and as the day on which the messiah ate the Passover. His point of reference, therefore, is a scripturally-based method.

He goes on to oppose the view that the seven days of Unleavened Bread were to be counted from the 15th to the 21st.

Instead, he reports, if the 14th day of the first moon fell after the equinox, “and proves to be both dominica (the Sovereign’s day—i.e., first day of the week) and the moon’s 14th, Passover is to be celebrated on the 14th.”¹⁸

At the same time, the last possible day for the celebration of the Sovereign’s day during Passover week “cannot pass beyond the close of their festival, that is to say, the moon’s 20th.”¹⁹

In another place he states that “we should keep the solemn festival of Passover on the Sovereign’s day, and after the equinox, and yet not beyond the limit of the moon’s 20th day.”²⁰

In support of the System A understanding of the Torah that the 14th and 20th of Abib were high Sabbaths, he adds, “For the sovereign ascribes no less praise to the 20th day than to the 14th.”²¹

A Further Misunderstanding
Anatolius not only accuses the advocates of the Roman System E with ignorance of the truth and with not understanding the meaning behind those scriptural passages which state that the seven days of Unleavened Bread continue from ad vesperum (at twilight) of the 14th day of the first moon “usque (until)” (the beginning of) the 21st day of the first moon ad vesperum (at twilight),²² but he criticizes the calculators from Gaul and other regions with a further misunderstanding.

Anatolius points to their confusion about how one determines the beginning of a scriptural day for observing the festival:

But they who are deceived with this error maintain this adjectionem (additional one), because they do not know that the 13th and 14th, the 14th and 15th, the 15th and 16th, the 16th and 17th, the 17th and 18th, the 18th and 19th, the 19th and 20th, the 20th and 21st days of the moon are, as may be most surely proved, each found within a single day. For every day in the reckoning of the moon does not end ad vesperum (at twilight)²³ as the same day in respect of number, as it is at its beginning in the morning. For the day which in the morning, that is up to the six and one-half hour, is numbered the 13th of the moon is found ad vesperum (at twilight) to be the 14th.²⁴

What Anatolius meant when he argued that two days, such as the 13th and 14th, contain a “single day” is brought into focus by Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby.²⁵

Wilfrid points out that the context of Anatolius was his attempt to explain the problem “after the manner of the Egyptians.”²⁶ Both the Egyptians and the Romans (i.e., those at Alexandria and at Rome) officially determined their day “from midnight to midnight.”²⁷

Meanwhile, the Egyptians and many other common people in the Roman world, including those of Gaul, also observed dawn as the beginning of their day.²⁸

Anatolius challenged both systems for beginning a day and makes it a point to explain that one does not calculate scriptural days “by the beginnings of the (Egyptian) day, but by those (days) of the moon (i.e., the scriptural reckoning).”²⁹

To understand Anatolius, we must realize that the Christians of Gaul, Rome, and Egypt who practiced System E were at that time calculating the days of the moon by the Roman system, which spoke of luna tertia, quarta, quinta, etc. (the third, fourth, fifth, and so forth, day AFTER the new moon).³⁰

This system was used by the pagans and was based upon the fact that the Roman civil day began at midnight. Since the new moon both rose and set after sunset and prior to midnight, they calculated the days of the moon as the first, second, and so forth, day AFTER the day (midnight reckoning) of the appearance of the new moon.

Therefore, since the new moon appeared after sunset and the civil day did not end until midnight nor the common day until dawn, for the purposes of counting to Passover, the first day of the new moon was actually the “day after” the Roman day on which the new moon had made its appearance.

As a result, the days of the moon, as reckoned by the Egyptians, Romans, and people of Gaul, were not the same as the days of the moon as reckoned by Scriptures.

The Quartodecimans of Asia Minor, by the way, were not troubled with this problem, since the Greeks and their Asian colonies, like the Hebrews and others of the Near East, began their day at sunset.³¹

For this reason, Anatolius had to explain to the Egyptian Christians and others that the 14th day of the moon should be “calculated not by the beginnings of the day (i.e., by a midnight or sunrise reckoning), but by those of the moon (i.e., sunset-to-sunset reckoning).”³²

The first day of the moon in Scriptures begins with the rising of the new moon just after sunset. It does not begin a few hours later at midnight or with the next morning following the appearance of the new moon.

Therefore, to correctly calculate Passover, one must determine the days by the scriptural “reckoning of the moon” (i.e., counting the days from sunset to sunset) against the reckoning of the days of the Egyptians and Romans or many of the common people (i.e., counting the days from midnight to midnight or from sunrise to sunrise).

Those following the midnight reckoning of the Romans or the sunrise reckoning of the common people did not take this factor into consideration.

Unaware of the correct scriptural sunset-to-sunset reckoning, “they do not know that the 13th and 14th”— i.e., the last hours of the 13th Egyptian day (between sunset and midnight or sunset and dawn) and the following period between that same midnight or dawn and the next sunset of their 14th day—combine to form “a single (scriptural) day,”³³ that day being the 14th of Abib (sunset-to-sunset reckoning).³⁴

The same is true for each of the following days, the “14th and 15th, the 15th and 16th, the 16th and 17th, the 17th and 18th, the 18th and 19th, the 19th and 20th, the 20th and 21st days of the moon.”³⁵

Counting from Sunset to Sunset
Anatolius calculates the seven days of Unleavened Bread by the scriptural sunset-to-sunset reckoning. He writes:

For the (Egyptian) day which in the morning, that is up to the six and one-half hour, is numbered the 13th of the moon is found ad vesperum (at twilight) to be the 14th (scriptural day).³⁶

Put another way, when the “morning” of the Egyptian and Roman day (which follows midnight by six and one-half hours) is the 13th day of the moon, the following ad vesperum (at twilight), i.e., at sunset,³⁷ becomes the 14th day under the scriptural system. Anatolius continues:

Wherefore, also, (according to the scriptural method) the Passover is enjoined to be extended up until the 21st day ad vesperum (at twilight); which day, without doubt, in the morning, this is, up to that term of hours which we have mentioned (i.e., the six and one-half hour), was reckoned the 20th (in the Egyptian system).³⁸

This evidence proves that Anatolius, as articulated in System A, believed that the correct scriptural system makes the day of the moon begin ad vesperum (at twilight), which, as we have already demonstrated earlier, commences at sunset.

Accordingly, the seventh and final day of Unleavened Bread comes on the day when the morning is counted as the 20th of the moon under the Egyptian system, ending at sunset, when the 21st (scriptural) day arrives.

In turn, Anatolius reasoned that the seven days of Unleavened Bread extended from the beginning of the 14th scriptural day, i.e., at sunset, ad vesperum (at twilight), on the 13th Egyptian day, UNTIL (as far as the beginning of) the 21st scriptural day.

The 21st scriptural day begins at sunset, ad vesperum (at twilight), on the 20th Egyptian day.

Therefore, with the arrival of sunset on the 20th Egyptian day, the 20th scriptural day ends and the 21st scriptural day begins. He explains the System D count for the seven days of Unleavened Bread by writing:

Calculate, then, from the end of the 13th³⁹ (scriptural) day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th (scriptural day), on to the end of the 20th (scriptural day), at which the 21st (scriptural day) also begins, and you will have only seven days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of the sovereign, it has been determined before that the most true festival of Passover ought to be celebrated.⁴⁰

Final Points
What makes the record from Anatolius so important is that he admits that the Quartodeciman practice was the original system of the early Jewish priests, such as Aristobulus of Paneas (System A), and of the early disciples of the messiah.

His argument is also premised on the fact that System D was the practice of the western Christian assemblies after abandoning System A, while System E was an even more recent innovation.

Three premises provided by Anatolius were subsequently adopted by the Alexandrian assembly and then, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., by the Roman Church: how the Church would calculate the beginning of the days of the moon (i.e., from sunset to sunset), that the 14th of Abib should always follow the vernal equinox, and the use of the 19-year cycle (though slightly modified) designed by Anatolius for determining the dates of Passover.⁴¹

Nevertheless, the Alexandrian and Roman Catholics held fast to their belief that the seven days of Unleavened Bread, by which the festival of Passover should be determined, was to be celebrated on the first day of the week falling within the period from the 15th to the 21st day of the first moon.

They utterly rejected the seven days of System D. System D was branded a heresy and condemned as a Quartodeciman practice.

The Audians
The Audians represented an early fourth century C.E. adherence to a form of the System D format which, along with the Quartodeciman view, was actively being suppressed by the Roman emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

The advocates of System E condemned the Audians because they kept “the Passover during the period when the Jews are keeping their (days of) Unleavened Bread, and give as their reason the fact that this was the usage of the assembly.”⁴²

In other words, the Audians allowed for the 14th as a day of Unleavened Bread and as the Passover, for they did not observe the same seven days as the Pharisees.

In their defense, the Audians made reference to the second century C.E. Quartodeciman version of the Diataxis,⁴³ where it is claimed that the apostles decreed that one was to “celebrate the festival (of Passover) whenever your brethren from the circumcision do. Keep it together with them.”⁴⁴

Their brethren, of course, were Christian Judaeans (not those of the Jewish faith), a clear reference to the early Quartodecimans and their keeping of the 14th.

Because of the Quartodeciman-like views followed by the advocates of System D, the Audians were at first believed by modern-day historians to be Quartodecimans.⁴⁵

Raniero Cantalamessa rectifies this problem when he writes:

Contrary to B. Lohse, Passafest, 16-18, the followers of Audius were not Quartodecimans, for they always celebrated the Pascha on Sunday. But this had to be the first Sunday after the Pesach of their Jewish contemporaries—whose manner of computing the date was rejected at Nicaea. . . . This rejection was the basis of their grievance against Constantine.⁴⁶

The advocates of System E accused the Audians of Judaizing and ridiculed their view as antithetical to unity. The effort of the Roman Catholic assembly was to eliminate the differing opinions of the various assemblies and the Aud­i­ans were standing in the way.

For example, Epiphanius, writing about 375-378 C.E., chastised the Audians by noting that their view was at one time appropriate when there were Christian Judaeans acting as bishops in Jerusalem (i.e., until 133 C.E.), for “it was necessary at that time that the whole world follow them and celebrate with them, so that there should be a single confession, with all singing in unison, as it were, and celebrating one festival.”⁴⁷

Yet after these Christian bishops of Judaean ancestry disappeared in the days of Emperor Hadrian, and the Jewish population was replaced by non-Jewish Roman citizens (begin­ning in 135 C.E.), there developed too much disunity.⁴⁸

Epiphanius continues:

Wherefore came their concern to bring the mind of men together into the unity of the Assembly. It having been impossible for such a long time to celebrate (with them), with the deity’s approbation, under Constantine (a correction) was made for the sake of concord. It was for the sake of concord that the apostles made that decree, as they attest when they say, “Even if they err, do not be concerned.” The answer (to the Audians) becomes clear from the very things said there. For they (the apostles) tell (us) to hold the vigil during the (days of) unleavened bread, but, given the Assembly’s way of computing (the dates), this cannot always be done.⁴⁹

It is interesting that even Epiphanius considers the observation of the 14th the original Christian position, thereby making the Roman Catholic System E (which regards the 15th as the legal day of the Passover supper) a later Christian innovation.

In response, the Audians laid two charges against the Roman assembly and Emperor Constantine:

From the time of Constantine, because of special consideration for the emperor, you have abandoned the observance of the fathers concerning the festival of the Passover, and you have changed the day to one decreed by the emperor.⁵⁰

What the Audians were claiming was that, prior to Constantine’s decrees given at the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), the 14th was permitted as the first day of Unleavened Bread and was used by different assemblies in their calculation of the day of Passover.

This mutual respect had remained in the assemblies since the time of the great debate between Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Asia (c.158 C.E.).

These leaders had agreed to disagree as to which day the Passover Eucharist was to be celebrated and the Roman assembly agreed to live in peace with those who kept the 14th.

The Roman Church was now whitewashing its original position, which held its right to differ because of the tolerance of the “fathers.” This view allowed Rome to deviate from the conservative Quartodecimans.⁵¹

With the support of Constantine, the Roman assembly had changed to a stand of intolerance in the name of unity. What Constantine and his allies at Rome accomplished was to dismiss the 14th as part of the seven days of Unleavened Bread and the Passover festival and to introduce the 15th as its only beginning date for Christians.⁵²

Other Records
Further proof of the System D arrangement, which reflected the Quarto­deciman view for the seven days of Unleavened Bread, was also retained in records from assemblies who continued until the eighth century C.E. but were stationed in outlying areas of the Roman empire.

For instance, in 598 C.E. Columbanus, representing the monastery founded by him at Luxovium in Burgundy, wrote to Pope Gregory the Great about “the seven days sanctioned by the sovereign’s command in the Torah, during which only it is enjoined that the sovereign’s Passover could lawfully be eaten.”

He adds that these seven days “are to be numbered from the 14th day of the moon to the 20th” and that they should not be exceeded.⁵³

The famous Saxon historian Bede (673-735 C.E.)—himself a Roman Catholic who opposed System D and followed System E—also makes reference to the Quartodeciman-based view of System D used in Britain.

Referencing the events around the year 601 C.E., Bede writes:

For they (the Britons) kept not the Passover on the Sovereign’s day in its due time, but from the 14th to the 20th of the moon.⁵⁴

And of the Scots he writes:

They celebrated not the solemnity of Passover in due time, but—as we have showed before—thought that they must observe the day of our sovereign’s resurrection from the 14th of the moon to the 20th.⁵⁵

Speaking of the Scots (northern Ireland) in the period of 623-634 C.E., Bede reports of the Scottish bishop named Aidan:

For he (Aidan) was wont to keep the Sovereign’s day Passover from the 14th day after the change of the moon to the 20th according to the custom of his nation, whereof we have diverse times made mention. For the north province of the Scots (northern Ireland) and all the nation of the Picts (Scotland) did at that time still solemnize the sovereign’s Passover celebration, thinking that in this observation they had followed the advertisement written by the holy and praiseworthy father Anatolius.⁵⁶

Pope John of Rome (consecrated December 25, 640 C.E.) sent a letter to the Scots of Ireland, which in part states:

We find therein that certain of your province, contrary to the sound orthodoxy, endeavor to renew interest in renewing out of an old heresy,⁵⁷ rejecting through the mist of darkness our Passover in which Christ was sacrificed, and striving to celebrate the same with the Hebrews on the 14th moon.⁵⁸

In 664 C.E. Coleman, bishop of the Scots of Ireland—making reference back to both the apostle John and Anatolius of Alexandria (who relied on the apostle John)—claims “that Passover ought to be celebrated from the 14th unto the 20th day of the moon.”⁵⁹

Interestingly, Wilfrid (an advocate of System E) tried to discredit Coleman’s position by admitting that John did in fact keep the 14th, but did not observe the first day of the week as the Passover (as required under System D):

For John (the apostle) observed the time of Passover according to the decrees of the Mosaic law and had no regard to the first day after the (weekly) Sabbath; and this you do not follow, who keep Passover only on the first day after the (weekly) Sabbath.⁶⁰

Wilfrid’s attempt was to separate those following System D from the apostle John and the early Quartodecimans (System A).

Yet, by doing so, he actually reaffirmed that the only difference between these two camps, with regard to counting the seven days of Unleavened Bread, was to point out that the early Christians always kept the 14th as the Passover.

Since John observed the week of Passover according to the Mosaic law, it is also clear that he kept both the first and last day of the week of Unleavened Bread as a high Sabbath.

This fact is yet another indication that the Quartodecimans did likewise and that they based their view upon the Aristocratic interpretation for the week of Unleavened Bread.

Similarly, abbot Ceolfrid (an advocate of System E), in about 710 C.E., wrote to King Naitan of the Picts of Scotland about the people in that district holding on to the System D view, stating:

For they which think that the Sovereign’s Passover day must be kept from the 14th of the first moon to the 20th anticipate the time commanded in the Torah.⁶¹

Holding to the Hasidic view that the 21st was a high Sabbath, Ceolfrid later adds:

And whereas they refuse to keep the sovereign’s Passover on the 21st day of the moon, it is surely plain that they exclude utterly from their solemnity that the day which the Torah oftentimes commendeth to be had in memory above all other with a greater festival.⁶²

Those of System D refused the 21st because they believed that the seventh day spoken of in the Torah was the 20th.

Though they themselves did not observe the first and last day of Unleavened Bread as a high Sabbath, unless the Passover of the resurrection happened to fall on one of these days, this detail does indicate that the Quartodecimans, upon whom the System D construct was built, did observe these days.

Summary of “Passover – Anatolius Speaks!”
The evidence proves that the original view of the seven days of Unleavened Bread used by the early Christian assemblies was the Quartodeciman (Aristo­cratic) System A practice.

In this system the seven days of Unleavened Bread continued from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon. The first day, the 14th, was the Passover supper and a high Sabbath.

System D, developed by the orthodox Christians of the West during the early second century C.E., was built upon the same premise as System A, i.e., that the seven days of Unleavened Bread extended from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon.

It differed in that its advocates preferred to celebrate the joyful event of the messiah’s resurrection and not the sad occasion of his death.

Therefore, those following System D moved the celebration of the Passover supper up to the first day of the week that fell within the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Yet, the key to System D is that it was born from the Quartodeciman construct for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Eventually, both the Quartodeciman System A and quasi-Quartodeciman System D practices were eventually suppressed by the Hasidic-based System E, developed and advocated by the Roman assembly toward the end of the second century C.E.

We can wrap up this particular discussion knowing that more than enough evidence has been provided to demonstrate the true practice of Passover and Unleavened Bread by the early Christian assemblies who also claimed apostolic authority for doing so.

We will next tackle the subject of Roman influence on Passover and Unleavend Bread. So be on the lookout for 25. Passover – Roman Corruption.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 He is also commonly called Anatolius of Laodicea.

2 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:6-12; Jerome, Lives, 73.

3 Jerome, Lives, 73.

4 Anatolius, 3. Socrates Schol., 5:22, (writing about 439 C.E.) points out that even in his day the practices of the “modern Jews,” that is, the Jews of his day, were at odds with those of the “ancient Jews,” including the first century C.E. Pharisees like Josephus.

5 Anatolius, 10.

6 OTP, 2, p. 837, n. a.

7 Anatolius, 1, 7, 11, 12, 15.

8 Anatolius, 10.

9 Anatolius, 6.

10 Anatolius, 8; cf., Lev., 23:6.

11 See our discussion in 25. Passover – Roman Corruption.

12 Anatolius, 1, 8.

13 Anatolius, 8, 9.

14 Anatolius, 10.

15 Matt., 26:17-27:61; Mark, 14:12-15:47; Luke 22:7-23:54; 1 Cor., 5:6-8, 11:17-27.

16 We will address in our forthcoming posts.

17 Anatolius, 8.

18 Anatolius, 16.

19 Ibid.

20 Anatolius, 11.

21 Ibid.

22 Anatolius, 7, 9, 11, 16; cf., his use of ad vesperum in translating Exod., 12:15, 18-19 (Anatolius, 8). That Anatolius counts the seven days of Unleavened Bread by this method is confirmed when he writes that these seven days continue “from the end of the 13th day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th, on to the end of the 20th, at which the 21st day also begins” (Anatolius, 8).

23 Macrobius, Saturn., 3:14f, “vespera follows” sunset. See 13. Passover – Hasidic Practice II, n. 9.

24 Anatolius, 8.

25 Wilfrid tries to confuse the issue by interpreting the words of Anatolius in such a way as to include the 21st, stating, Anatolius “also assigned the 20th day to the sovereign’s Passover in such a way that he held it for the 21st when the sun had set.” Of course, this was not the intent of Anatolius. Anatolius was trying to show that those keeping the Egyptian method for determining a day erred in that they should not be observing Passover beyond sunset of the Egyptian 20th day, because in that case it had become the 21st scriptural day.

26 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

27 Pliny, 2:79.

28 Pliny, 2:79; PCAE, p. 10; HBC, p. 8.

29 Anatolius, 15.

30 Columella, 2:10; HLD, p. 1085.

31 Pliny, 2:79; CGS, p. 589.

32 Anatolius, 15.

33 Anatolius, 8.

34 See Chart A.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 See 13. Passover – Hasidic Practice II, n. 9.

38 Anatolius, 8.

39 The early Latin text reads xii but clearly, as all translators agree, is a scribe’s error for xiii.

40 Anatolius, 8.

41 HCC, pp. 298-332; NCE, 5, p. 8. For the acceptance of Anatolius by the Roman Catholics also see the comments in Bede, 3:25. As a result of the acceptance of several important parts of Anatolius’ conclusions, the Roman theologian, Jerome, applauds him, writing, “We can get an idea of the greatness of his genius from the volume which he wrote On Passover and his ten books On the Institutes of Arithmetic” (Jerome, Lives, 73). Eusebius, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, also praises Anatolius and even records a long quote from a portion of his book on the Passover.

42 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:2.

43 CJO, pp. 108f.

44 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:2.

45 DPDQ, pp. 16-18; ACC, 2, p. 1150.

46 EEC, pp. 169f.

47 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:4.

48 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:5; cf., Eusebius, H.E., 5:12:1f.

49 Epiphanius, Pan,, 70:10:5.

50 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:3.

51 E.g., see Socrates Schol., 5:22; Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:16f.

52 We will address in our forthcoming posts.

53 Gregory, Epist., 127.

54 Bede, Hist., 2:2. If the 14th of the moon after the spring equinox fell on Sunday the Britons would keep Passover on that day; the Roman Catholics would defer it to the following Sunday.

55 Bede, Hist., 2:4.

56 Bede, Hist., 3:3.

57 The Latin reads, “novam ex veteri haeresim renovare conantes.”

58 Bede, Hist., 2:19.

59 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

60 Ibid.

61 Bede, Hist., 5:21.

62 Ibid.

For the Quartodeciman practice (System A), being the original view of the early Christian assemblies, and its quasi-Quartodeciman offshoot System D (the early western view), these seven days began with the 14th and extended until the end of the 20th day of the first lunar month.

We begin to uncover this important detail by demonstrating three facts:

• The Quartodecimans observed the 14th of Abib as a high Sabbath (great festival day) and as the first of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

• The quasi-Quartodecimans kept the same seven days of Unleavened Bread as observed by the early Quartodecimans.

• Both the early Quartodecimans of System A and the quasi-Quartodecimans of System D deferred to the apostle John as their ultimate authority for establishing which days were to be observed for the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

The Quartodeciman High Sabbath
The first indication that the Quartodecimans kept the 14th until the end of the 20th as the seven days of Unleavened Bread comes from the fact that they observed the 14th as a sacred convocation (high Sabbath).¹

During the seven days of Unleavened Bread, Scriptures command the following:

On the first day shall be a sacred convocation, and on the seventh day shall be a sacred convocation for you; not any work shall be done on them, only what must be eaten by each person, that alone shall be done by you.²

For the Quartodecimans, the 14th was the first high Sabbath and the first and great day of Unleavened Bread.

To demonstrate, Apollinarius of Hiera­polis argued that he observed the 14th:

The 14th is the true Passover of the sovereign, the great sacrifice: the son of the deity in the place of the lamb . . . who was buried on the day of the Passover with the stone placed over the tomb.³

Meanwhile, Melito, who likewise kept the 14th as the Passover,⁴ speaks of this high Sabbath status when he accuses the Jewish leaders, stating, “you killed your sovereign ἐν τη μεγάλη ἑορτη (en te megale heorte; on the great festival [day]).”⁵

Similarly, Heracleon, in a discussion about the 14th as the date of the messiah’s death, states:⁶

This (14th) is the great festival; for it was the figure of the saviour’s suffering, when the sheep was not only slain, but by being eaten, brought repose.⁷

The reference to the “great festival” day is to a khag and high Sabbath.⁸

These statements have been misunderstood by some historians who unfortunately have failed to recognize any system other than the Hasidic practice of the 15th as the Passover high Sabbath.

Joachim Jeremias, O. Perler, and Wolf­gang Huber, for example, take the passages from Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis to indicate that there were Quartodecimans who were confused about the sequence of events.⁹

They reason that these men, though admittedly well-versed Quartodeciman writers, ignored the clear statements found in the Synoptic texts that the messiah died on the same day that he ate his “Last Supper.”

As a result, these scholars believe that some of the Quartodecimans have mistakenly dated the murder of the messiah to the 15th of Nisan rather than to the 14th and that the 15th was the Quartodeciman great festival day (high Sabbath) of Unleavened Bread.

The context for the above statements from Apollinarius of Hierapolis and Melito of Sardis proves just the opposite!

To begin with, both kept the 14th and ardently defended the Quartodeciman view held by the Asiatics.¹⁰ The Asiatics believed that the messiah died on the same day that he ate the Passover, i.e., the 14th, and not on the 15th (Hebrew reckoning).

Meanwhile, in a reference to the great controversy that raged in Laodicea during the spring of 167 C.E.,¹¹ Apollinarius of Hierapolis, rather than supporting, actually chastises those who held to the notion that the 15th was both the great festival day (high Sabbath) of Unleavened Bread and the day on which the messiah was murdered.

He describes them as ignorant people who had stirred up disputes about these things and were in need of instruction.

He then comments about those advocating this view:

They (the advocates) say, then, that the sovereign ate the lamb with his disciples on the 14th and suffered on the great day of unleavened bread (i.e., the 15th), and they explain Matthew’s words (Matt., 26:17) according to their interpretation. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the Torah and the good news (New Testament) seems to disagree.¹²

Apollinarius of Hierapolis instead argues that it was on the 14th that the messiah ate the Passover.

He also claims that the 14th was the true date of the “Passover of the sovereign (Yahweh), the great sacrifice,” thereby connecting the messiah’s death with the 12th chapter of Exodus, describing the Passover sacrifice of the lamb and Passover supper during the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt.¹³

For Apollinarius, the New Testament “seems to disagree” with the advocates of this view because the day that the messiah ate his Passover meal is defined in Matthew and other Synoptic texts as “the first day of unleavened bread,”¹⁴ and therefore a high Sabbath, being the first day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

He adds that it was on this same day (the Passover of the 14th) that the messiah was buried.¹⁵

As another example, a Quartodeciman told Hippolytus (c.200-236 C.E.):

The messiah kept the Passover on that day (the 14th) and¹⁶ he suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it (the Passover supper) in the same manner as the sovereign did.¹⁷

As already noted, this statement “implies that the speaker reckoned the day as from sunset to sunset, and not as from midnight to midnight, since only so would the ‘Last Supper’and the ‘Passion’ fall on the same day.”¹⁸

Interesting confirmation of this construct comes in the ancient Syriac text of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, which reflects the eastern view.

In its version of the book of Mark, the messiah’s death on the 14th of Abib is said to have taken place “on the Sabbath.”¹⁹ The only Sabbath possible for the day of the messiah’s death, since he was only buried for three days and was raised immediately after a weekly Sabbath day,²⁰ is a high Sabbath!

The noted scholar Stuart G. Hall recognized the contradiction created when one tries to identify the 15th with the great festival day (high Sabbath) of Unleavened Bread adhered to by these Quartodecimans.

He footnoted the relevant verse about this high Sabbath in his translation of Melito with the following comment:

But the influence of John and Evagelium Petri on Melito would make him likely to follow their dating on 14 Nisan, and the festivities described in the lines following appear to refer to the Passover meal itself.²¹

Once we realize that the Quartodecimans kept the seven days of Unleavened Bread from the 14th until the end of the 20th of Abib, as we shall more fully demonstrate in our next post, it becomes obvious that the first of these seven days, per the instructions from Scriptures, was a high Sabbath.²²

Therefore, the Quarto­deciman great festival day of Unleavened Bread, referred to as the day of the messiah’s death, was the 14th.

Scriptures command that the last day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread is also a high Sabbath.²³ There is no direct record discussing the Quarto­deciman obligation to keep this high Sabbath.

Yet, the fact that they observed the other high Sabbaths, kept the first day of the seven days as a high Sabbath, and their insistence on following the commands to observe the entire seven days, would strongly indicate that principle.²⁴

The Early Western View
Early in the second century C.E., a variation of the Quartodeciman view was created among some of the assemblies in the West (System D). It was fully accepted in Alexandria and Rome.

The Christians supporting this construct, not surprisingly, retained the Aristocratic view that the seven days of Unleavened Bread extended from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon.

Yet, for reasons we shall deal with in a later post, they differed from their Quartodeciman brothers in that they observed the first day of the week within these seven days, the day of the messiah’s resurrection, as the Eucharist, Passover supper, and high Sabbath (great festival day).

Important for our research is the fact that not only did the Quartodecimans disavow the Pharisaic practice of Passover and seven days of Unleavened Bread but so did the early western advocates of System D.²⁵

What has been continuously overlooked is the fact that both of these groups (the Quartodeci­mans of System A and the quasi-Quartodecimans of System D) observed the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th of the first moon.

The source for this seven-day view was the common fountain of the teachings of the apostles and the New Testament.

System D differed from the conservative Quartodecimans (System A) in that its advocates observed only the first day of the week, the day of the messiah’s resurrection, as the Passover festival.

On this date and day of the week there occurred annually the omer wave offering; and it was from this date that one would begin to count the 50 days to Pentecost, a high Sabbath (great festival day) honored by the early Christians.²⁶

It is also upon this date that the Christians commemorated the resurrection of the messiah.²⁷ Those following System D ignored the Aristocratic practice of observing the 14th and 20th days of Abib as high Sabbaths.

Yet the western method for calculating the day of the Passover of the resurrection still required the use of the seven days of Unleavened Bread as practiced by the original assemblies following Yahushua.

The “resurrection day” would always be placed in conjunction with the seven days of Unleavened Bread. Therefore, whenever the first day of the week fell during that seven-day period of Unleavened Bread it became the Passover of the resurrection for these western assemblies.

The Seven Days
That both the Quartodecimans (System A) and the western advocates of the quasi-Quartodeciman practice (System D) adhered to the same days for the seven days of Unleavened Bread is demonstrated in the records dealing with the visit of Polycarp of Smyrna (the leading Quartodeciman of his day) with Anicetus (bishop of Rome) either in 158 C.E. or shortly thereafter.²⁸

Irenaeus relates how Polycarp “came to Rome and conversed with Anicetus about some difficulty as to the day of the Passover.”²⁹ He does not say “difficulties” in the plural, but as to a singular difficulty.

Eusebius mentions that there was only one major issue that divided Anicetus (representing Rome) and Polycarp (representing the Asian assemblies)—the issue regarding which day one was to celebrate the Passover Eucharist, which was interpreted by those in the West as not only the thanksgiving but the mystery of the cup and bread.³⁰

It was either to be observed always on the 14th or always on the first day of the week during the seven days of Unleavened Bread.³¹ He adds, “though they disagreed a little about some other things as well,” there was nothing that prevented them from making peace.³²

There is not even a suggestion in these records that the bishops disagreed with regard to chronology over which days represent the seven days of Unleavened Bread. Just the opposite is true!

Although carefully glossed over by later writers, it is clear that on this particular issue they both agreed. Proof of this agreement, for example, is found in Eusebius. He writes:

And in this state of affairs they held fellowship together and in the assembly Anicetus conceded to Polycarp the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with all the assemblies, both those who did observe (the 14th only) and those who did not.³³

The only way that Anicetus could peaceably yield the Eucharist, which for Eusebius meant the mystery of the cup and bread, to Polycarp, who utterly refused to celebrate it on any other day but the 14th, is if the assembly at Rome was observing the 14th as one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

It is also important to notice that there was no objection based upon fasting, which became a major issue a few decades later, or any other such hindrance to either party taking the Eucharist.

The debate between the Audians (fourth century C.E. advocates of System D)³⁴ and Emperor Constantine adds further proof that System D was the original western view.

In reference to the calculation of the seven days of Unleavened Bread and Passover, the Audians argued that Christians were under instructions from the apostles to “celebrate the festival whenever your brothers from the Circumcision do. Keep it together with them.”³⁵

The Christian Judaeans of the early assemblies (those “from the Circumcision”), as with all members of the early assemblies, were Quartodeciman-based.

The Audians interpreted this to mean that they should observe Passover Sunday during the seven days of Unleavened Bread that were observed by their Quartodeciman Christian brothers, those converted from among the Jews.

Further, that those in the West during the second century C.E. followed System D is directly asserted by the Audians.

We are told that the Audians kept their Passover during the period when the Jews were keeping their days of Unleavened Bread (i.e., the Jewish eight days of unleavened bread, which starts with the 14th day of the first moon).

They “give as their reason the fact that this was the (early) usage of the Assembly.”³⁶ The Audians in turn charged those following System E (the Roman Catholic System) of a sell-out and abandoning the system they originally observed, arguing:

From the time of Constantine, because of special consideration for the emperor, you have abandoned the observance of the fathers concerning the festival of Passover and you have changed the day to one decreed by the emperor.³⁷

Common Apostolic Source
For both the Quartodeciman view (System A) and the quasi-Quartodeciman (System D), the apostles are the common source for their understanding of the 14th as the first of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

To demonstrate, the Quartodeciman named Polycrates reports that the apostles Philip and John taught the assemblies in Asia how to observe the Passover.

After providing a list of other famous men in the East who followed these apostles, he writes, “All these kept the 14th day of the Passover according to the good news (New Testament), never swerving.”³⁸

Likewise, Socrates Scholasticus reports:

Moreover the Quartodecimans affirm that the ob­servance of the 14th was delivered to them by the apostle John.³⁹

Meanwhile, Coleman, bishop of the Scots of Ireland, who defended the System D practice of keeping the 14th through 20th for the seven days of Unleavened Bread, argued at the Synod of Whitby (664 C.E.):

The Passover which I am accustomed to observe I have received of my elders of whom I was sent hither bishop, and this all our fathers, men beloved of the deity, are known to have solemnized after the same manner. And this observation, that none may think it a light matter or to be rejected, is the selfsame which the blessed evangelist John, the disciple whom the sovereign (Yahushua) especially loved, kept, as we read, with all the assemblies over which he was head.⁴⁰

Summary of “Passover – Which 7 Days?”
Three facts are established:

• The Quartodecimans observed the 14th of Abib as their great festival day (high Sabbath) of Passover and the first day of Unleavened Bread.

• It is also understood that the quasi-Quartodecimans kept the same seven days of Unleavened Bread that were observed by the early Quartodecimans.

• Finally, both the early Quartodecimans and the quasi-Quartodecimans of System D deferred to the apostle John as their ultimate authority for when one was to observe the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

To fully establish beyond any doubt that the seven days of Unleavened Bread for both the Quartodecimans and quasi-Quartodecimans extended from the 14th to the 20th, our next post shall examine the records from several important quasi-Quartodeciman sources, including their most notable advocate, Anatolius of Alexandria.

The Ranger wants you to chew on this stuff for just a bit. Then be sure to be on the lookout for more evidence coming in 24. Passover – Anatolius Speaks!

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Lev., 16:31, 23:24, 26-32, 39, all demonstrate that sacred gatherings are also called sabbathon days (i.e., high Sabbaths).

2 Exod., 12:16; cf., Lev., 23:5-8; Num., 28:16-25.

3 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f.

4 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:5f.

5 Melito, Pas., 79.

6 Heracleon was a disciple of Valentinus in the second half of the second century C.E. The Valentinians were Gnostics, explaining everything as symbols of some Gnostic doctrine. Yet their observance of Passover was, as with the earliest Christian practice, Quartodeciman-based.

7 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. Heracleon, frag. 12; Origen, Com. John, 10:116f.

8 Cf., John, 19:31, where John makes reference to the Jewish (Pharisaic) day for the Passover supper as, “that Sabbath was a great day” (cf., John, 18:28, 19:31, 42); and see John, 7:37, where the last day of the Festival of Tabernacles, which is also a high Sabbath (Lev., 23:34-36; Num., 29:12-35), is called, “the great day of the festival.” Eusebius, H.E., 7:30:10, refers to the Christian high Sabbath day of the observance of the Passover supper as “the great day of Passover.” Socrates Schol., 5:2, meanwhile, refers to this day as the “Sabbath of Passover.”

9 For example, see EWJ, p. 19; MSSP, pp. 181-183; PUO, pp. 43f.

10 Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote two books entitled On the Passover (Jerome, Lives, 24; Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:2). Two fragments from the works of Apollinarius of Hierapolis remain in the Chron. Paschale (1, pp. 13f). Each man addressed apologetic arguments of their own to Emperor Marcus Aurelius Verus (161-180 C.E.) (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:1f). Both men are lauded as leaders of Asian assemblies who kept the 14th as the Passover supper (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:5f).

11 Melito, frag. 4, writes, “Under Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris bore witness, there was a great dispute at Laodicea about the Passover, which had coincided according to season in those days.” The most likely date, as discussed by Stuart G. Hall (Hall, Melito, pp. xxi-xxii), is the year 166/167 C.E. (May reckoning). Since this event coincided with the season in those days, we would understand that the debate took place in the spring of 167 C.E. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:3; cf., EEC, p. 141, 26. n. b; JTS (NS), 24, p. 76; JTS, 25, p. 254; BCal, p. 160.

12 Quoted in Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f.

13 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f, cf., LXX Exod., 12:11, 26-27, 48.

14 Matt., 26:17-21; Mark, 14:12-18; Luke, 22:7-16.

15 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f.

16 The surviving text has καὶ (kai; and). Louis Duchesne proposes that the original had ᾗ (hêi; on which), i.e., “on which (day) he suffered” (RQH, 28, p. 10, n. 4).

17 Hippolytus, frag. 1; Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 12f, “λέγει γὰρ οὕτως ἐποίησε τὸ πάσχα ὁ χριοτὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν.”

18 JTS, 25, p. 262.

19 Sin. Pal., at Mark, 15:43.

20 Matt., 28:1; Mark, 16:9; Luke, 24:1.

21 Hall, Melito, p. 43, n. 45.

22 See above n. 2.

23 Ibid.

24 Chrysostom, Adver. Jud., 1 (PG, 48, p. 848); and see comments 22. Passover – The Quartodecimans II. For evidence that the Quartodecimans observed the last day of Unleavened Bread as a great or high Sabbath see FSDY, App. F and App. G.

25 See next post 24. Passover – Anatolius Speaks!

26 Lev., 23:4-21; Num., 28:16-31; Deut., 16:6-10.

27 This view is based upon Matt., 28:1-10; Mark, 16:1-9; Luke, 24:1-7; John, 20:1-19.

28 Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1, 5, 5:24:16f; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 3:3:4; Jerome, Lives, 17. Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2173 (Oly. CCXXXIIII) attributes Anicetus a position of leadership for 11 years. He then places the beginning of the next bishop, Soter, to the ninth year of Verus (Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2185 [Oly. CCXXXVII]). Eusebius supports this with the statement, “Now by this time, εἰς ὄγδοον ἐλαυνούσης ἔτος (eis ogdoon elaunouses etos; at the driving out of the eighth year) of (emperor Verus) showing forth his leadership, Soter succeeded Anicetus in the bishopric of Rome, who had served in all eleven years.” (Eusebius, H.E., 4:19). That ἐλαυνούσης (elaunouses) means “to drive away, expel . . . to drive to extremities,” see GEL, p. 248. The eighth year of Verus was 168/169 C.E., March reckoning. Counting the eighth year of Verus as the 11th year of Anicetus, we are brought back to the 20th year of Antoninus Pius (157/158 C.E., July reckoning). This detail is supported by the statement that Soter, who “ended his life within the eighth year of his leadership,” was succeeded by Eleutherus in “the 17th year of Emperor Antoninus Verus” (Eusebius, H.E., 5:1:1; cf., Jerome, Euseb., yr. 2193 [Oly. CCXXXVIII], i.e., in 177/178 C.E., March reckoning). Once again, this places the first year of Soter in the ninth year of Emperor Verus, in turn placing the first year of Anicetus in the 20th year of Emperor Pius.
Irenaeus relates that Polycarp came to Rome to converse with Anicetus “about some difficulty as to the day of the Passover” (Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1). They discussed the matter fully but were unable to change one another’s opinion (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:16). The most appropriate time for this visit from the leader of the eastern assemblies to Rome would have been shortly after Anicetus obtained his post. We also know that they partook of the Eucharist together, which demonstrates that Polycarp was in Rome during the spring Passover season (Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:17). These details indicate that Polycarp could not have been in Rome any earlier than the spring of 158 C.E., not long after Anicetus became sole bishop and leader of the Roman assembly.

29 Eusebius, H.E., 4:14:1.

30 That the Eucharist, the cup and bread, and Passover supper all became the same thing to Eusebius and those following System E, see Eusebius, Pas., 7-11. The Quartodecimans, on the other hand, as demonstrated by the Didache, followed the original meaning of Eucharist, which is the Jewish berakah or giving of a blessing and thanks before a meal (SNT, 6, p. 276; LD, pp. 377, 399).

31 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24.

32 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24.16.

33 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24; Irenaeus, frag. 3.

34 RAC, 1, pp. 910-915; EEC, pp. 169f, 64, n. a.

35 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:10:2.

36 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:2.

37 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:3.

38 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24; Jerome, Lives, 45.

39 Socrates Schol., 5:22.

40 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

Though they considered themselves not to be under the written Torah, they followed the guides of the Torah with regard to “all the festivals.”

Chrysostom (347-407 C.E.), a strong advocate of the Roman Catholic System E, for example, demonstrates this point in his work titled Adversus Judaeos, where he condemns the Quartodeciman Christians because of their practice of celebrating such scriptural high Sabbath days as the Day of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Festival of Tabernacles.¹

Chrysostom could not condemn Pentecost (the Festival of Weeks) because all of the assemblies, including the Roman Catholic Church, continued to observe that day as a high Sabbath.²

In reference to Passover, the Quartodecimans claimed that they had based their practice upon the custom followed by the messiah and his disciples as well as upon the commandments found both in the Old and New Testaments.

To demonstrate, Eusebius records that the 14th (the night of the Passover full moon)³ was observed as Passover by the Asian assemblies.⁴

Meanwhile, the Quartodeciman from Asia named Apollinarius of Hierapolis writes:

The 14th is the true Passover of the sovereign, the great sacrifice: the son (the messiah) of the deity in the place of the lamb . . . who was buried on the day of the Passover with the stone placed over the tomb.⁵

The 14th (Hebrew reckoning), accordingly, was not only the day when the messiah ate the Passover lamb; it was also the day on which his murder took place.

Peter of Alexandria, with a specific reference to the 14th of Abib, notes that the Quartodecimans “affirm that after he (Yahushua) had eaten the Passover, he was betrayed.”⁶

Within this context, a Quartodeciman told Hippolytus (c.200-236 C.E.):

The messiah kept the Passover on that day (the 14th) and he suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it (the Passover supper) in the same manner AS THE SOVEREIGN DID.⁷

As F. E. Brightman observes, this statement “implies that the speaker reckoned the day as from sunset to sunset” for the reasons that “only so would the Last Supper and the Passion fall on the same day.”⁸

Following Paul’s words to the Corinthians, the assemblies ate “the sovereign’s supper,” i.e., the Passover supper, “in the night in which he was delivered up.”⁹

The Quartodeciman Epistula Apostolorum (140-170 C.E.) shows that this Passover meal and its night of remembrance continued until the cockcrow
(3 A.M.) on the 14th, the time of Peter’s denial.¹⁰

This data also proves that the Quartodecimans understood the scriptural day as beginning with sunset and byn ha-arabim.

The Quartodecimans also based their practice upon the writings of the New Testament. In the second century C.E., for example, the leader of the Quarto­deci­mans of Asia was Polycrates, bishop of the diocese of Ephesus.¹¹

In a letter from Polycrates to Victor, bishop of Rome, he gave a long list of famous people from the Asian assemblies who supported their stand.¹² Polycrates then adds:

ALL THESE KEPT THE 14TH DAY OF THE PASSOVER ACCORDING TO THE GOOD NEWS (New Testament), NEVER SWERVING, BUT FOLLOWED ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF THE TRUST. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, live according to the tradition of my kinsmen, and some of them have I followed. For seven of my family were bishops and I am the eighth, AND MY KINSMEN ALWAYS KEPT THE DAY WHEN THE PEOPLE PUT AWAY THE LEAVEN. Therefore, brothers, I who have lived sixty-five years in the sovereign and conversed with brothers from every country, and have studied all sacred Scripture, am not afraid of threats, for they have said who were greater than I, “It is better to obey the deity rather than men.”¹³

Anatolius likewise states that the Quartodecimans “kept the Passover day on the 14th of the first moon, according to the good news (New Testament), as they thought, adding nothing of an extraneous kind, but keeping through all things the rule of trust.”¹⁴

In turn, the Quartodecimans maintained that the New Testament followed the guide of the written Torah, “that Passover should be kept on the 14th day of the first moon, according to the commandment of the Torah, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur.”¹⁵

Melito of Sardis, in reference to the Passover, states, “the teachings of the good news (New Testament) have been proclaimed in the Torah.”¹⁶

In the early third century C.E., a Quartodeciman named Blastus was keeping the festival and supper on the 14th in Rome.

In Pseudo-Tertullian’s epitome of Hippolytus’ lost work entitled Syntagma, we read that Blastus “says that the Passover is not to be kept otherwise than according to the Torah of Moses on the 14th of the moon.”¹⁷

These statements are vitally important in that they express the Quarto­deciman understanding that the written Torah, and not just the messiah and his apostles, taught that the Passover supper was to be kept on the 14th.

Another important example comes from the records retained from the debate in 196 C.E. between the Quartodecimans of Asia and the leadership of the Roman Church,¹⁸ then headed by Victor.

Eusebius (who supported the Roman side of this argument) records the history of this conflict, stating:

At that time no small controversy arose because ALL THE DIOCESES OF ASIA thought it right, αἱ παροίκιαι ὡς παραδόσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας (ai paroikiai os ek paradoseos arkhaioteras; since sojourning in that manner from a more ancient tradition), to observe for the festival of the saviour’s Passover the 14th day of the moon, on which the Jews had been commanded to kill the lamb.¹⁹

The problem with the Quartodeciman view for those living during the latter half of the second century C.E. in the West and under Western and Roman guidance was that the Quartodeciman Passover too closely resembled the dominant practice of the Jews.

True, these Jews did not eat their Passover supper until the 15th, while the Quartodecimans held their festival and supper on the 14th.

Nevertheless, the Jews did celebrate the 14th as Passover, for it was on that day that they “had been commanded to kill the lamb.”

This common point of reference gave the opponents of the Quartodecimans a weapon that enabled them to discourage and suppress the use of the Christian form of System A.

Summary of The Quartodecimans I & II
The Quartodeciman practice was the earliest known for the original Christian assemblies.

For the Quartodecimans, System A established the correct method of observing the Passover supper as instructed by Yahushua the messiah and the written Torah.

It was in the nighttime portion of the 14th day of the moon of Abib (Hebrew reckoning) that the messiah kept the Passover.

Since this Passover occurred on the date of his death, it was his “Last Supper.” After that dinner Yahushua was betrayed; and during the remaining parts of that same 14th day (Hebrew reckoning), he suffered and died.

In the opinion of the Quartodecimans, the state religion practiced by the Jews (i.e., the Pharisaic form of the Hasidic religion), which observed the Passover supper on the night of the 15th of Abib, was a false system.

Therefore, when the Scriptures speak of those Jews who on the morning of the messiah’s death were still waiting to observe their Passover supper and great Sabbath,²⁰ the Quartodecimans believed it was based upon a Pharisaic misinterpretation of Scriptures.

Yet, it was also necessary for Scriptures to mention this Passover of the Pharisees, since it was the historical occasion and backdrop for the messiah’s martyrdom.

All of the ancient testimony reveals that all the earliest orthodox Christians, referred to as the Quartodecimans, observed the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread for seven days, Abib 14-20.

The first of the seven days began at byn ha-arabim after sundown at the beginning of Abib 14. The Passover meal was eaten at the beginning of Abib 14. This day was also a high Sabbath day.

The last and seventh day began at byn ha-arabim after sundown at the beginning of Abib 20 and ended at the following sundown, being exclusive of Abib 15. Abib 20 was also a high Sabbath day.

What we have uncovered so far is that the evidence is consistently pointing to the authentic and original Passover observance of the early followers of Yahushua the messiah.

As we proceed forward, more information will be provided that will help establish the true and correct practice of the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Needless to say amigos, be sure to be on the lookout for the next installment dealing with evidence for the Quartodeciman practice of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Who knew that history could be so interesting?

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Chrysostom, Adver. Jud., 1 (PG, 48, p. 848).

2 For example see Tertullian, de Orat., 23:1–2, de Bapt., 19:2; Origen, Celsus, 8:22; Eusebius, Pas., 4; Athanasius, Fest. Let., 1:10, Fest. Let., 14:6; Didymus, 5:88; Syn. Elvira, Can., 43; Ambrose, Exp. Luc, 10:34; Apost. Constit., 5:20:2; Theophilus Alex., 20:4; Egeria, 43; ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161. Pentecost also went through a transition among Christians. “By the beginning of the 4th century C.E., Pentecost has lost its ancient christological content and it is seen as the feast of the descent of the Holy Spirit” (EEC, p. 208, 123, n. c; cf., Paulinus, Poem, 27; Augustine, Serm. Mai, 158:4).

3 Philo, Exod., 1:9, Spec., 2:27.

4 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24.

5 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f.

6 Peter Alex., frag. 5:7.

7 Hippolytus, frag. 1; Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 12f, “λέγει γὰρ οὕτως ἐποίησε τὸ πάσχα ὁ χριστὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν.”

8 JTS, 25, p. 262.

9 1 Cor., 11:20-27, esp. v. 23; cf., Mark, 14:17-30; Matt., 26:20-35.

10 Epist. Apost., 15. The section intends to foretell the imprisonment of Peter during the days of Unleavened Bread in the story of Acts, 12:1-19. In this passage of the Epistula Apostolorum the Quarto­deci­mans were advised to “celebrate the remembrance of my death,” “celebrate the Passover,” and the “Agape (Love Feast).” Passover was to be spent as a “night of watching” and “remembrance” that ended at “the cockcrow,” i.e., 3 A.M. Cockcrow was the time of Peter’s third denial of the messiah on the night of the “Last Supper” (Matt., 26:34, 74-75; Mark, 14:30, 68-72; Luke, 22:34, 60-61; John, 13:38, 18:27). Unfortunately, the above passage from the Epistula Apostolorum has been construed by some to mean that the Quartodecimans were fasting until 3 A.M. (e.g., EWJ, p. 123). This view is a matter of overinterpretation; nothing of the sort is even suggested in the text. To the contrary, the “Agape” or “Love Feast” and the “celebration” of the Passover are references to the Eucharist (the ritual of the bread and wine) and Phasekh supper. To superimpose a fast is totally unwarranted.

11 Eusebius, H.E., 5:22; Jerome, Lives, 45.

12 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:1–5.

13 Eusebius, H.E., 5:24:6f; cf., Jerome, Lives, 45.

14 Anatolius, 10.

15 A Quartodeciman quoted by Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 8:11.

16 Melito, Pas., 39.

17 Ps.-Tertullian, 8. This work is an epitome of Hippolytus’ lost Syntagma. Chap. 8 deals with the Quartodeciman named Blastus (JTS, [NS] 24, p. 83, n. 2).

18 Jerome associates this debate with the fourth year of Emperor Severus (196/197 C.E., May reckoning) (Jerome, Euseb., year 2212).

19 Eusebius, H.E., 5:23:1. Cf., translations in Lake, Euseb., i, p. 503; EEC, p. 33.

20 John, 18:28, 19:31.

It may also come as a surprise to learn that this view was in fact the original practice of all the earliest orthodox Christians.

Its advocates and supporters were in later centuries referred to as the Quartodecimans (14th keepers).

In our posts dealing with the Quartodecimans we shall investigate the antiquity of the Quartodeciman practice, demonstrate that they observed the 14th day of the first moon for the Passover supper, and present their claim that they observed Passover according to both Scriptures and the examples set forth by the messiah and his apostles.

As part of this discussion, we will also examine the quasi-Quartodeciman views, especially the early western innovation (System D).

Keepers of the 14th
Beginning in the third century C.E., those who kept the 14th of the first moon as the Passover supper and festival were referred to as “Quartodecimans” by members of the Roman Church and others.

Unfortunately, since the view of the Quarto­decimans was eventually suppressed by the Church of Rome, transmission of their original writings was allowed to fall by the wayside.

With only a few exceptions—and there are exceptions—the evidence we have for their practices was recorded by their antagonists.

Nevertheless, knowledge of the Quartodecimans was retained by those Christians of that period who were advocating the western views for System D and System E.¹

Sozomenus (mid-fifth century C.E.), for example, writes:

The Quarto­­decimans are so called because they observe this festival (of Passover), like the Jews, on the 14th day of the moon, and hence their name.²

John of Damascus similarly states:

The Quartodecimans celebrate Passover on a fixed day of the year, on that day which coincides with the 14th of the moon, whether it be a Saturday or Sunday.³

Jerome notes that the bishops of Asia, “in accordance with some ancient custom, celebrated the Passover with the Jews on the 14th of the moon.”⁴

Yet, the Quartodeciman Passover of the early Christians was markedly different from the Passover of the Pharisees and other Hasidic Jews.

They directly opposed the official Jewish practice sponsored by the Pharisees, arguing that the deity (Yahweh) warned believers about these Jews, that they “did always err in their heart as regards the precept of the Torah concerning the Passover.”⁵

The Hasidic Jews did observe the 14th of Abib as the Passover, but for them this meant only a day of preparation, the removing of leavened bread from their homes, and observing the rituals for sacrificing the Passover lamb.

They did not attend the supper of the lamb until the night of the 15th, which they generally referred to as the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

The early Christian assemblies, on the other hand, celebrated the 14th of the first moon as the day of the Passover supper, as the time of the Eucharist, and as a high Sabbath festival.

The Quartodecimans also differed from the Pharisees in that they observed the seven days of Unleavened Bread like the early Sadducees, from the 14th until the end of the 20th of the first moon (System A), not from the 15th through the 21st (System B).

The only similarity with the Pharisees was the fact that the Pharisees included the 14th as part of their overall Passover celebration.⁶

At the same time, during the first few centuries C.E., there were still some conservative Sadducees and Samaritans tenaciously holding on to their ancient Aristocratic practice.

It is very probable that the Passover supper observed by these conservative Jews might well have been used as still another reference point for those charging the Quartodecimans with celebrating their Passover supper on the 14th “with the Jews.”

In either case, all of the Jews, whether Hasidic or Aristocratic, referred to the 14th as the Passover and it was on this day that the Quartodecimans were found observing their sacred day.

The Quartodecimans differed from the Jews of the earlier Aristocratic school in that they believed that, with the death of the messiah, Christians were no longer under the Torah.

They also understood the fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice in the death of the messiah. For that reason, the Quartodecimans saw no need for the Levitical priesthood and, accordingly, no further need for any of the commanded sacrifices of the Torah.⁷

On the other side of the equation, the Pharisees of this period labeled the early Christians, especially those living in the East, as minim (heresy) and “Sadducees.”⁸

This label seems premised upon the fact that the early Chris­tians (Quartodecimans), like the Sadducees, not only rejected the oral laws ascribed to by the Pharisees and rabbis but celebrated the observance of the seven days of Unleavened Bread, their Passover supper, and Pentecost on the same days as the conservative Sadducees.⁹

The Original Christian View
The suppression of the Quartodecimans by the Roman Church has been so complete that few in the modern world are even aware that the Quartodeci­mans represent the original Passover practice of all the early orthodox Chris­tian assemblies: both Jewish Christians as well as those of the nations.

This important discovery was first demonstrated years ago by E. Schwarts, and later confirmed by K. Holl and B. Lohse.¹⁰

To the voice of these eminent scholars has been added that of the well-respected historian Joachim Jeremias, who concludes:

“The passover of the Early Church lived on in that of the Quarto­decimanians.”¹¹

He also notes that “the Quartodecimanian passover celebration represents, as we know today, the direct continuation of the primitive Christian passover.”¹²

Likewise, Alfred Loisy concludes:

At the beginning the festival was held, as was natural enough, on the same day as the Jewish Passover which might fall on any day of the week, and with no difference except that it now commemorated the Christian’s salvation, won for him by the death of Christ, the true pascal lamb, as the fourth Gospel teaches. The so-called quartodeciman usage, maintained by the congregations in Asia at the end of the second century and condemned by Pope Victor, was the primitive usage of ALL THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATIONS and is indeed presupposed by the Gospel tradition.¹³

Especially noted for advocating this Quartodeciman view are those members from the regions of the famous seven assemblies of Asia listed in the book of Revelation, namely, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Phila­delphia, and Laodicea.¹⁴ Surrounding communities concurred, including the assemblies of Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria.¹⁵

We must also not forget that in the days of Emperors Nero and Hadrian, the Christian population was far more numerous in Asia Minor and Syria,¹⁶ the heart of Quartodeciman country, than other parts of the Roman empire.

The 14th was even observed in the Christian assemblies as far away as the British Isles, where it continued under the System D (early western) form until the end of the seventh century C.E.¹⁷

Likewise, the Quartodeciman practice originally prospered in Rome, Egypt, Ethiopia, as well as other western countries, until the early part of the second century C.E.¹⁸

Due to an accumulation of Roman and Jewish persecution against the Christians, their own anti-Jewish sentiments, and a strong desire by some of the assemblies to separate themselves from the stigma of being classified as a Jewish sect, the Christians at Rome and Alexandria, as well as a few other western cities, began to turn to a modified Quartodeciman interpretation for the observance of Passover, System D.¹⁹

Next, we must divide the Quartodecimans into two general camps: the original and the quasi (those sects which developed in later years who gave variant traditions to the Quartodeciman practice).

Cyril Richardson calls the original Quartodecimans the “conservatives” among the early assemblies.²⁰ F. E. Brightman refers to them as the “original Quartodecimans” and to those of later practices as “quasi-Quartodecimans.”²¹

Among the later quasi-Quarto­deci­mans we must include the Montanists²² and the Sabbatians,²³ who are one branch of the Novatians,²⁴ and are also called Proto-Paschitaes.²⁵

One difference between the two camps of Quartodecimans was the fact that the original Quartodecimans did not fast on the 14th at Passover,²⁶ while some of the quasi-Quartodecimans “fast and celebrate the vigil and the festival simultaneously” on the 14th.²⁷

Other quasi-Quartodecimans only kept the Passover on a fixed day of the year, March 25, which according to the “Acts of Pilate” was the date of the messiah’s death, and consequently, by this interpretation, the day of the solar year on which the 14th of the moon happened to fall in the year of his death.²⁸

Because many of the quasi-Quartodeciman views only provide later traditions and interpretations built up during the Christian period, they offer little to our research.

Therefore, we shall concentrate mainly on the original assemblies and the common themes and premises that held these Quartodeciman views together.

Another quasi-Quartodeciman outgrowth of the original Quartodeciman view was System D (the early western variation). Like the Quartodecimans, those following System D counted the seven days of Unleavened Bread from the 14th until the end of the 20th.

Yet, they differed from the other Quarto­decimans in that they observed the Passover supper and Eucharist only on the first day of the week—the day of the week on which the messiah was resurrected—when that day fell during those seven days of Unleavened Bread.

If the first day of the week happened to fall on the 14th then they would observe the 14th as the Passover.²⁹ This system was continued in some parts of the British Isles until the end of the seventh century C.E.³⁰ A variation of this view was used by the Audians during the time of the Roman emperor Constantine.³¹

Passover Supper on the 14th
The Quartodeciman assemblies followed the Aristocratic understanding of
בין הערבים (byn ha-arabim; within the periods of twilight) and kept the 14th of the first moon both as the time of the Passover supper and as a high Sabbath.

To begin with, it was widely believed among the early assemblies (a belief that continued for a considerable period of time among those of the eastern assemblies) that, at the Exodus from Egypt, the Passover sacrifice occurred after sunset, followed that same night by the Passover supper, and that both events occurred on the 14th day of the first moon (sunset-to-sunset reckoning).

The Christian writer Ephraem the Syrian (mid-fourth century C.E.), to demonstrate, reports that the book of Exodus includes the story about “the lamb” of Passover, noting that:

. . . on the 14th day (of the moon) they slaughtered AND ate it.³²

In another place he states:

And on the 10th of this moon, (each) man will procure a lamb for his household, and will keep it until the 14th; then he will slaughter it at sunset, and sprinkle some of its blood on the door-posts and the lintels of the house where they will eat it.³³

In turn, the Quartodecimans and others, including the advocates of System E,³⁴ all believed that the messiah both ate his last Passover supper and died on the 14th of Abib. Defining this issue, Ephraem continues:

And on the 14th (day), when (the lamb) was slaughtered, its type (the messiah) was killed on a (torture-)stake.³⁵

Aphraates similarly writes:

Our saviour ate the Passover with his disciples in the sacred night of the 14th . . . And he was taken in the night of the 14th, and his trial lasted until the sixth hour, and at the time of the sixth hour they sentenced him and lifted him up on the (torture-)stake.³⁶

Scholars have noticed this important difference between the Quarto­deciman view and the Hasidic practice of the Pharisees.

Raniero Cantala­messa, for example, contrasts this eastern Quartodeciman premise as expressed by Aphraates with that of the Jews (Pharisees), writing:

The Jewish Passover was eaten in the night after the fourteenth of Nisan, but Aphraates puts Jesus’ Passover meal in the night leading to the fourteenth, which his tradition held as the day of Jesus’s death.³⁷

Following this logic, the Quartodecimans and those agreeing with them claimed that the 14th was the correct day in the Torah for keeping the Passover supper as well as the Passover sacrifice.

The African Christian writer Pseudo-Cyprian (c.243 C.E.), for example, attempts to correct Hippolytus—an advocate of System E who believed that the Pharisees were correct in keeping the Passover on the 15th—with quotations from Scriptures.

He writes that Yahweh commanded the whole assembly of Israel through Moses “to wear certain clothes when they ate the Passover ON THE 14TH.”³⁸

The quasi-Quartodeciman, Columbanus of Luxovium, similarly argues that “the 14th day of the moon” was chosen by Yahweh as the night for the first Passover supper and the beginning of the Exodus.³⁹

Pseudo-Cyprian then argues that the events which occurred and special rules which were required in Egypt during the night of the Passover—from the sacrifice of the lamb, the conditions by which the children of Israel should eat the lamb and other foods, the protection of the houses by means of the lamb’s blood, followed by the arrival of the angel of death, and the burning of the remains of the lamb at dawn—were prophetic signatures for the day of the messiah’s capture and murder.

Not only was the lamb sacrificed but, by punishing the Egyptians, Yahweh had indicated “the villainy” of those in Egypt (a type of Jerusalem)⁴⁰ up until that evening.

This villainy, Pseudo-Cyprian argues, was symbolic of the acts of those Jews who “came out with swords and clubs” against the messiah “on the first day of unleavened bread ad vesperam (at twilight),”⁴¹ i.e., the events which took place during the night that the messiah ate his Passover supper and then was seized by the servants of the chief priests on the Mount of Olives.⁴²

In another place this writer adds that the messiah “ate the Passover . . . and suffered the next day” (i.e., in the daylight portion of the 14th).⁴³

With this construct in mind, Pseudo-Cyprian in effect charges the Pharisaic method, followed by the advocates of System E, with error because they continued to keep the Passover supper on the 15th day. He concludes:

And then we shall find that the Passover should not be observed by the Jews themselves before or after the 14th of the moon.⁴⁴

Anatolius of Alexandria (c.270 C.E.) writes of the Quartodecimans:

But nothing was difficult to them with whom it was lawful to celebrate the Passover on any day when the 14th of the moon happened after the equinox. Following their example up to the present time all the bishops of Asia—as themselves also receiving the rule from an unimpeachable authority, to wit, the evangelist John, who learnt it on the breast of the sovereign (Yahushua), and drank in spiritual instructions without doubt—were in the way of celebrating the Passover festival, without question, every year, whenever the 14th day of the moon had come, and the lamb was sacrificed by the Jews after the equinox was past.⁴⁵

With regard to the Quartodeciman practice of the apostle John, the priest Wilfrid, at the Synod of Whitby (640 C.E.), admitted:

And John, according to the custom of the Torah, on the 14th day of the first moon ad vesperam (= byn ha-arabim) began to celebrate the Passover Festival, not regarding whether it fell on the Sabbath day or any other day of the week.⁴⁶

Wilfrid then adds clarification when he remarks that both the apostles John and Keph (Peter) looked “for the rising of the moon ad vesperam (= byn ha-arabim)⁴⁷ on the 14th day of its age, in the first moon.”⁴⁸

This admission verifies that the period of byn ha-arabim was counted by the Quartodecimans from just after sunset, for while the moon was rising toward the middle of the night sky they ate their Passover meal.⁴⁹

Therefore, unlike the practice of the Pharisees (who began the festival at noon on the 14th), the apostles observed Passover from the beginning of the 14th, which is required if one is to eat the Passover supper at night during the 14th.

The famous Quartodeciman writer Melito of Sardis (c.161–169 C.E.), as another example, is specifically said to have observed Passover on the 14th.⁵⁰

In quoting Exodus, 12:6, which discusses the sacrifice of the 14th, he translates the Hebrew בין הערבים (byn ha-arabim) by the Greek πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros esperan; at twilight), just as found in the LXX.

Melito then connects both the Passover sacrifice performed at twilight (a time which Greek writers identified as a part of night)⁵¹ and the Passover supper with the same night, the 14th:

For behold, he (Yahweh) says, you will take a lamb with­out flaw or blemish, and πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros esperan; at twilight) you will slaughter it in the midst of the sons of Israel, and at night you will eat it in haste, and not a bone of it will you break. These things, he said, you will do in a single night. You will eat it according to families and tribes, with loins girt and staff in hand. For this is the Passover of the sovereign, an eternal memorial for the sons of Israel.⁵²

No Animal Sacrifice
The Quartodecimans also believed that there was no longer a need to sacrifice a Passover lamb, for “the messiah our Passover was sacrificed for us.”⁵³

Yet, they continued with the Passover supper and the eating of unleavened bread, per the instructions of Saul (Paul), “Let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”⁵⁴

The yearly slaughter of the Passover lamb came only by means of the written Torah. Therefore, its practice was seen merely as a foreshadowing of the messiah’s death.

The Quartodeciman writer Melito of Sardis, for example, states of the mystery of the Passover, “It is old according to the Torah, but new according to the λόγον (logon; word).”⁵⁵ He adds:

When the thing modeled has been realized, then the model itself is destroyed; it has outlived its use. Its image has passed over to reality. What was useful becomes useless when the object of true value emerges. . . . For the sacrifice of the sheep was once of value, but now it is valueless through the life of the sovereign. The death of the sheep was once of value, but now it is valueless through the salvation of the sovereign.⁵⁶

Melito continues by stating that the messiah is the Passover lamb that was foreshadowed by the sacrifice of the lamb under the Torah of Moses: “This is he who is the Passover of our salvation.”⁵⁷

Apollinarius of Hierapolis (a city in Asia located near Laodicea), a Quartodeciman who flourished in the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus (161-169 C.E.),⁵⁸ emphasized that the 14th is the sovereign’s “true Passover,” since on that day the servant of the deity took the place of the lamb.⁵⁹

The lamb was killed at twilight at the beginning of the 14th and eaten that night, just as Yahushua observed his “Last Supper” Passover. But the lamb symbolized the death of the true lamb later that same day.

Therefore, Melito speaks of the messiah’s death “in the middle of the day for all to see,” not at “πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros esperan = byn ha-arabim).”⁶⁰

Besides the Passover lamb as a type of the messiah, and therefore connected with the sacrifice and supper of the lamb on the 14th, Melito connects other fixtures of the Passover supper with the 14th.

For instance, he identifies the events that occurred on the day of the messiah’s death (the 14th) with the bitter herbs and unleavened bread of the Passover supper and the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

That is why the Festival of Unleavened Bread is bitter, as your scripture says: You shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs. Bitter for you the nails which you sharpened. Bitter for you the tongue which you whetted. Bitter for you the false witnesses you presented. Bitter for you the scourges you prepared. Bitter for you the lashes you inflicted. Bitter for you Judas whom you hired. Bitter for you Herod (Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee) whom you obeyed. Bitter for you Caiaphas whom you believed. Bitter for you the gall you prepared. Bitter for you the vinegar you cultivated. Bitter for you the thorns which you gathered. Bitter for you the hands which you bloodied. For you have slain your sovereign in the midst of Jerusalem.⁶¹

Accordingly, the things of the Passover supper, which they held to have taken place during the night of the 14th, expressed the events for that day. In the same manner, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb at the beginning of the 14th foretold the death of the messiah later that same day.

Time to wrap up Part I of our discussion amigos. Our next post will address the fact that the Quartodecimans actually claimed the authority for their Passover practice from Scripures and Yahushua the messiah himself.

You might want to stay tuned for the next episode, 22. Passover – The Quartodecimans II, as this trek is getting more interesting as we proceed on the “Trail of Truth.”

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 System D differs from System E in that System D calculates the Passover of the resurrection on the first day of the week that falls from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon, while System E places the Passover of the resurrection on the first day of the week that falls from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon.

2 Sozomenus, 7:18. He adds that the Quartodecimans of this period kept the Passover “more according to the manner of the Jews” (Sozomenus, 1:16), implying similarities but not exactness.

3 John Dam., 50.

4 Jerome, Lives, 45.

5 This Quartodeciman argument is reported by Peter Alex., frag. 5:4.

6 Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1.

7 That the followers of the messiah were not under the written Torah see Rom., 6:14-15; Gal., 3:22-25, 5:18. Further, Jer., 7:21-22, notes that when the Israelites left Egypt there were no commanded burnt offerings or sacrifices. Also review the discussion of this issue in FSDY, Chaps. I-VIII.

8 That the Pharisees referred to the early Christian assemblies as Sadducees see LS, pp. 97–99; JE, 10, p. 633; PSSP, p. 226; as minim see JQR, 60, p. 198; CTM, pp. 361–397.

9 As with the Sadducees (DBS, 7, pp. 861–864; EEC, p. 119f, 1b, n. a), the Christians always observed the Festival of Pentecost (the 50th day) on the first day of the week, counting the 50 days from the day after the weekly Sabbath falling within the seven days of Unleavened Bread (e.g., Eusebius, Pas., 4; Athanasius, Fest. Let., 1:10; Apost. Constit., 5:20:2; Theophilus Alex., 20:4 (Jerome, Epist., 96, 20:4); Egeria, 43; ACC, 2, pp. 1157–1161.

10 ZNW, 7, 10f; GAK, 2, p. 214; DPDQ, pp. 74–93.

11 EWJ, p. 122.

12 EWJ, p. 19.

13 BCR, pp. 226f.

14 Rev., 1:11. Some of the most famous Quartodecimans, for example, were Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus), Melito (bishop of Sardis), Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna), Apollinarius (bishop of Hierapolis, near Laodicea), and Sagaris of Laodicea.

15 Athanasius, Epist. Afros, 2, and Epist. Syn., 1:5.

16 EPC, pp. 63, 87, 103; CRG, p. 108. One is mindful of the statement of the newly installed Roman governor named Pliny to Emperor Trajan in 112 C.E. with reference to the country of Bithynia, Asia Minor. Bithynia was one of the several countries of Asia Minor, listed along with Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia proper, as having Christian assemblies to whom the apostle Keph (Peter) wrote (1 Pet., 1:1). Pliny the Younger notes of the Christians in his region that, “It is not only the towns but villages and rural districts also which are infected through contact with this wretched cult” (Pliny Young., Epist., 10:96). Tertullian reports that Pliny was “disturbed by their very number” (Apol., 2:6). Eusebius similarly writes that Pliny was “disburbed by the great number of martyrs” (Eusebius, H.E., 3:33:1; also see Eusebius, Arm., Oly. 221). Paul Allard interprets these and the other words from Pliny’s letter to mean that Pliny had arrived in a Christian state (HDP, p. 154).

17 Bede, Hist., 2:2, 4, 3:3f, 3:17, 35, 7:21.

18 Evidence of the Quartodeciman practices in Rome, Egypt, and Ethiopia comes from copies of the Quartodeciman text entitled Epistula Apostolorum discovered in those regions: a Latin text in a Vienna palimpsest, a Coptic version found in Cairo, and an Ethiopic translation (see SACE).

19 We will address the development of System D and its cognate form System E in our forthcoming posts.

20 JTS, (NS) 24, pp. 81, 83, 84.

21 JTS, 25, pp. 262f.

22 Sozomenus, 7:18. Montanism was an early form of Pentecostalism which came into existence during the mid-second century C.E. (NCE, 9, pp. 1078f). Sozomenus (7:18) notes that the Montanist counted the festivals according to the cycles of the sun and not the moon. The first day of the year was always the first day after the vernal equinox, which according to Roman reckoning was the ninth day before the calends of April (i.e., March 24). They kept Passover on the 14th day of that cycle (April 6), “when it falls on the day of the resurrection; otherwise they celebrate it on the following Sovereign’s day; for it is written according to their assertion that the festival may be held on any day between the 14th and 21st (days).” Also see the comments in BCal, pp. 162f.

23 Sozomenus, 7:18; Socrates Schol., 5:21.

24 Socrates Schol., 4:28.

25 ACC, 2, pp. 1150f; EEC, p. 163.

26 JTS, 25, pp. 260f.

27 John Dam., 50.

28 Epiphanius, Pan., 50:1:5-8, 50:15; JTS, 25, p. 262f.

29 E.g., Anatolius, 10-12; Bede, Hist., 2:2, 4, 3:3.

30 To be addressed in a forthcoming post.

31 ACC, 2, p. 1150; EEC, pp. 169f.

32 Ephraem, Exod., prooem., 14, “et de agno, die decima quarta immolando et edendo.”

33 Ephraem, Exod., 12:1.

34 For examples of those following System E who believed that the messiah kept the Passover on the 14th, as against the Pharisees who kept it on the 15th, see Peter Alex., frag. 5:1–7; Clement, Pas., frag. 28; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:23:3, 4:10:1, cf., EEC, p. 145, 28, n. b; Eusebius, Pas., 8-10; Eutychius, 2. Those of System E depart from the other systems in that they believe that the messiah’s Passover supper was not the legal Passover of the written Torah but an innovation.

35 Ephraem, Exod., 12:3.

36 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6.

37 EEC, p. 183, 87, n. b.

38 Ps.-Cyprian, 2. The mention of clothes by Ps.-Cyprian is a reference to Exod., 12:11, “And you shall eat it (the Passover) this way; (with) your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.”

39 Gregory, Epist., 127.

40 Cf. Rev., 11:8.

41 Ps.-Cyprian, 2. Those who were coming against the messiah with swords and clubs captured him after his “Last Supper” Passover (Matt., 26:46-57; Mark, 14:43-50; Luke, 22:47-54), which meal took place “on the first day of unleavened bread, when they kill the Passover (lamb)” (Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7; Matt., 26:17) and at night (Mark, 14:27-30; 1 Cor., 11:17-28, esp. v. 23; cf., John, 18:3). It was after this meal that Judas went out to lead the Jewish leaders to Yahushua. Therefore, since the reference of Ps.-Cyprian is to the time when the enemies of the messiah “came out” against Yahushua and not just to the events that occurred after they actually captured him, it is clear that Ps.-Cyprian uses the Latin term ad vesperam to include the late evening before midnight, about which time the messiah was captured.

42 1 Cor., 11:23-27; cf., Matt., 26:21-75; Mark, 14:18-72; Luke, 22:14-62; John, 18:1-27.

43 Ps.-Cyprian, 9. In an effort to uphold a Friday crucifixion against the fact that the messiah spent three days and nights in death (Matt., 12:40; cf., Jon., 1:17), Aphraates and some others held to the unique definition that the three hours of darkness that preceded Yahushua’s death (from the sixth until the ninth hour of the 14th day; Matt., 27:45-46; Mark, 15:33-34; Luke, 23:44-46) and the three hours of daylight remaining in that day (the 9th until the 12th hour of the 14th of Abib) represent the 15th day and the first day of Yahushua’s death (e.g., Aphraates, Dem., 12:6-8, 12f). Therefore, the death of the messiah is counted as part of the next day, though in reality it was the afternoon of the 14th (EEC, p. 186, n. i). This arrangement explains Ephraem’s statements that Yahushua ate the Passover on the 14th but was slain on the 15th (Ephraem, Hymns, 3:1). This system of counting must not be confused with the Roman and Alexandrian method (midnight-to-midnight reckoning) which counts the night of the Last Supper as part of the 13th and the death of the messiah as falling within the Roman day of the 14th (e.g., Clement, Pas., frag. 28; Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 2:22:3).

44 Ps.-Cyprian, 2.

45 Anatolius, 10.

46 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

47 See 13. Passover – Hasidic Practice II, n. 9.

48 Bede, Hist., 3:25.

49 During the Passover season, the moon of the 14th actually makes its appearance on the 13th day, about an hour to one and one-half hours prior to sunset. Since Wilfrid’s reference is to those who observed the night of the 14th for their Passover meal, the rising of the moon on the 14th can only refer to its rising during twilight while moving toward the middle of the night sky.

50 In the letter from Polycrates to Pope Victor of Rome (written about 196 C.E.), Polycrates refers to “Melito the eunuch, who lived entirely in the sacred ruach (spirit), who lies in Sardis, waiting for the visitation from heaven when he will rise from the dead.” He adds that Melito was one who “kept the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the good news (i.e., the Synoptic Texts), never swerving, but following according to the rule of trust”(Eusebius, H.E., 4:24). Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote in the time of Emperor Verus (161-169 B.C.E.) (Jerome, Lives, 24; Eusebius, H.E., 4:13:8). Not long after the controversy between Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, (System A) and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, (System D), about 159 or 160 C.E., the dispute was revived again at Laodicea, upon which occasion Melito wrote his two books On the Passover. These works are dated, “in the time of Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris was martyred” (i.e., c.164-167 C.E.). In these works Melito defends the opinion of the Asiatics (Eusebius, H.E., 4:26). More precisely, Melito of Sardis (frag. 4) writes, “Under Servillius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris bore witness, there was a great dispute at Laodicea about the Passover, which had coincided according to season in those days.” The most likely date, as discussed by Stuart G. Hall (Hall, Melito, pp. xxi–xxii) is the year 166/167 C.E. (May reckoning). Since this event coincided with the Passover season in those days, we would understand that the debate took place in the spring of 167 C.E. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 4:26:3; cf., EEC, p.141, 26. n. b; BCal, p. 160.

51 See 13. Passover – Hasidic Practice II, n. 9.

52 Melito, Pas., 12f.

53 The reference is to Saul’s comment in 1 Cor., 5:7.

54 1 Cor., 5:7-8.

55 Melito, Pas., 3. The λόγον (logon), i.e., the “word” of Yahweh, is a reference to the messiah (John, 1:1-18).

56 Melito, Pas., 37, 44.

57 Melito, Pas., 69.

58 Jerome, Lives, 26; Eusebius, H.E., 4:26.

59 Chron. Paschale, 1, p. 14.

60 Stuart G. Hall also recognized this apparent contradiction (Hall, Melito, p. 53, n. 56). It is true that Melito makes the analogy that the messiah, as the lamb of the flock, was dragged to slaughter and was “an ἑσπέρας (esperas; twilight) sacrifice; a nighttime burial” (Melito, Pas., 71). Hall thinks the analogy is “forced” (Hall, Melito, p. 39, n. 38), but this phrase conforms to the parable of the Passover lamb used in this same section. For example, we know that the messiah was not buried at night but buried in the daytime before the arrival of sunset and the new day (Mark, 15:42-47; Luke, 23:50-54; John, 19:31; cf., Deut., 21:22-23). The mentioning of a nighttime burial, therefore, is merely a reference to the parable allowed for by the command to eat the Passover at night (Exod., 12:8). It is an analogy pointing to the messiah’s death, for night and darkness are a metaphor for death. Also see Matt., 27:45-51; Mark, 15:33-37; Luke, 23:44-47, where darkness covered the land at the time of the messiah’s death. The imposition of darkness in mid-afternoon on the day that the messiah died was a demonstration of divine twilight meant for the sacrifice of the divine Passover. This divine Passover was itself symbolized by the natural twilight after sunset wherein the natural Passover lamb was sacrificed.

61 Melito, Pas., 93.

1. The Passover celebration was required for all Christians.¹

2. The Christian Passover was an innovation in that it did not require any ritualistic animal sacrifice.²

3. The Passover lamb of the Torah and its sacrifice was a typology of the death of the messiah, the true Passover lamb of Yahweh.³

4. The bread and wine (or grape juice) of the “Last Supper” Passover possessed a higher typology than formerly stated under the Torah.⁴

5. The day of the messiah’s resurrection was observed, being one and the same with the day of the omer wave offering. This omer wave offering always took place on the first day of the week, on the day following the weekly Sabbath which fell within the seven days of Unleavened Bread. The resurrection day was also the first day in the 50-day count to Pentecost.

6. The messiah ate his famous “Last Supper” on the night of the 14th of Abib and suffered his death in the daylight portion of that same day (Hebrew sunset-to-sunset reckoning).

7. The celebration of Passover was based upon the occurrence of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

8. The festival of Pentecost was a required Christian celebration. Its date was determined by the Aristocratic method, which counted the 50 days from the first day of the week that fell after Abib 14. Pentecost, as a result, always fell on the first day of the week (Sunday).

These eight premises relating to the celebration of Passover and Pentecost are everywhere expressed in ancient Christian literature, regardless of their particular Passover preference.

Nevertheless, today there is not a general knowledge of items six and seven.

Since they are so vital to our research and are basic to understanding the ancient Christian practices, we are obligated at this point to give examples for these two concepts using representatives from each of the four ancient Passover systems.

The Last Supper: Abib 14
That the messiah ate his “Last Supper” Passover at night and suffered death during the following daylight period is clearly established in the Synoptic Texts.⁵

It is likewise stated that these events occurred on the day of the “preparation of the Passover,”⁶ being also the day of the “preparation of the Jews.”⁷

This day of preparation is an obvious reference to the Jewish state religious practice, wherein the Passover preparation is on the 14th and their Passover supper is on the 15th of Abib.⁸

What is not so well-known is that the ancient Christian assemblies held a universal understanding that the messiah observed his “Last Supper” Passover on the night of Abib 14 and died during the daylight portion of that same day (Hebrew reckoning).

For example, Apollinarius of Hierapolis (161-169 C.E.), an advocate of the Quartodeciman System A, argued:

The 14th is the true Passover of the sovereign, the great sacrifice . . . who was buried on the day of the Passover with the stone placed over the tomb.⁹

Anatolius of Alexandria (c.270 C.E.), a supporter of System D, while speaking of the events dealing with the Passover of the “Last Supper,” writes:

And there is no doubt as to its being the 14th day on which the disciples asked the sovereign, in accordance with the custom established for them of old, “Where will you that we should prepare for you to eat the Passover?”¹⁰

The advocates of System E also held to the doctrine that the messiah both ate his “Last Supper” Passover and then died on the 14th of Abib.

Eusebius (fl. 303–339 C.E.), for instance, after reporting that the Jews sacrificed the Passover sheep “on the 14th of the first moon,” defines this day as “the (day of) preparation, on which the saviour suffered.”¹¹ He adds:

Nor did the saviour observe the Passover with the Jews at the time of his suffering. . . . But before he suffered he did eat the Passover and celebrate the festival—with his disciples, not with the Jews.¹²

Clement of Alexandria (fl. 182–220 C.E.), as another example, states that the messiah died on the 14th, prior to the day that the Jews (Pharisees) celebrated their Passover (i.e., the 15th):

Suitably, therefore, to the 14th day, on which (day) he (the messiah) also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes who brought him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the Passover in the evening (of the 15th).¹³

Those following the Syrian hybrid (System F) likewise believed that the messiah ate the Passover on the 14th and then suffered. To demonstrate, the fourth century C.E. Syrian Christian named Aphraates writes:

Our saviour ate the Passover with his disciples in the sacred night of the 14th . . . And he was taken in the night of the 14th, and his trial lasted until the sixth hour, and at the time of the sixth hour they sentenced him and lifted him up on the (torture-)stake.¹⁴

Seven Days of Unleavened Bread
The requirement among the various early Christian assemblies to observe the Passover at the time of the Festival of Unleavened Bread is also well-established.

It was never a matter of whether or not one should use the seven days of Unleavened Bread to set the date, but rather an issue of which method one was to use: the Aristocratic or Hasidic.

The Aristocratic position of the Quartodecimans (System A) and quasi-Quartodecimans (System D), for example, is vigorously defended by Anatolius, who wrote:

Calculate, then, from the end of the 13th day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th, on to the end of the 20th, at which the 21st day also begins, and you will have only seven days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of the sovereign, it has been determined before that the most true festival of Passover ought to be celebrated.¹⁵

Similarly, Abbot Ceolfrid (an advocate of System E) wrote to King Naitan of the Picts of Scotland about the people in that district holding to the System D view, stating:

For they which think that the sovereign’s Passover day must be kept from the 14th of the first moon to the 20th anticipate the time commanded in the Torah.¹⁶

Referencing the events around the year 601 C.E., Bede writes:

For they (the quasi-Quartodecimans of Britain) kept not the Passover on the Sovereign’s day in its due time, but from the 14th to the 20th of the moon.¹⁷

Meanwhile, those of System E and System F regarded the Hasidic method as correct for calculating the seven days of Unleavened Bread (i.e., from the 15th to the 21st).

Proof of this detail is demonstrated in a letter sent by Pope John IV (mid-seventh century C.E.) to the Scots. This letter was composed for the sake of persuading the Scots to amend their System D position.

As part of this letter the Pope is found “plainly asserting therein that the sovereign’s Passover ought to be sought for from the 15th moon up to the 21st, as was approved in the Council of Nicaea.”¹⁸

The Hasidic arrangement also appears in the works of Aphraates (writing in c.344 C.E.), a supporter of the System F Passover. In his work, the 14th is still claimed as the day of the Passover and of the sovereign’s suffering.¹⁹

Neverthe­less, to this celebration is attached the Hasidic construct for the seven days of Unleavened Bread,²⁰ for he states, “after the Passover come the seven days of Unleavened Bread to the 21st (day).”²¹

It is interesting to note that the seven days of Unleavened Bread, as calculated by the Hasidic system, are also a requirement under the more recent Passover construct currently being practiced by the various present-day Yahwehist assemblies which we have called System G.

Summary of Passover – Christian Factions I & II
In our next posts we shall examine in greater detail the evidence for each one of the four major forms of the Passover celebration practiced by the early Christian assemblies during the first seven centuries C.E.

What this data reveals is that, even though there was a common agreement on the eight premises stated above, the various early Christian assemblies still arrived at radically different conclusions.

This diversification in the Christian Passover came as the result of different regions emphasizing different aspects of the messiah’s “Last Supper,” suffering (passion), and resurrection. By applying different interpretations to each of the problems, variant views arose.

Meanwhile, one consistent calculation among the various early Christian assemblies was the celebration of Pentecost. It was always counted by the Aristocratic method, i.e., the 50-day period began on the day after the weekly Sabbath which fell within the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Yet, as we shall demonstrate, the first day of the Pentecost count, which was also the anniversary of the messiah’s resurrection, came to serve as a guide for the western Christian reconstruction of Passover.

For those in the West, those days falling prior to the first day of the Pentecost count were deemed far too sad an occasion for celebrating the Passover supper. It was the time of the messiah’s suffering, death, and burial—therefore, a time for mourning.

The first day of the Pentecost count, on the other hand, because it was also the day of Yahushua’s resurrection, took on a more joyous tone.

From this interpretation arose the various Passover practices of  System D, System E, and System F.

As we are rediscovering the lost history of the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the true practice of this festival is now becoming more apparent as we proceed on the “Trail of Truth.”

If you have been following the Passover series up to this point, then you won’t want to miss our next posts as we will also be addressing the evidence regarding Passover as observed by Yahushua the messiah and the early assemblies.

So hang on to your hats amigos and be on the lookout for 21. Passover – The Quartodecimans I.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Cf., 1 Cor., 5:7-8.

2 Cf., Heb., 7:26-28, 10:1-13; Matt., 9:13, 12:7.

3 E.g., 1 Cor., 5:7; cf., John, 1:29, 36; 1 Pet., 1:19; Rev., 5:6-12.

4 Cf., Matt., 26:26-29; Mark, 14:22-25; Luke, 22:17-20; 1 Cor., 5:8.

5 Matt., 26:17-27:61; Mark, 14:12-16:47; Luke, 22:7-54; 1 Cor., 11:23-26.

6 John, 19:14.

7 John, 19:42.

8 See 10. Passover – Sadducees & Pharisees I, 11. Passover – Sadducees & Pharisees II, 12. Passover – Hasidic Practice I, 13. Passover – Hasidic Practice II.

9 Chron. Paschale, 1, pp. 13f. Also see Eusebius, H.E., 5:24.

10 Anatolius, 8, cf., 10; also cf., Matt., 26:17; Mark, 14:12; Luke, 22:7-9. Also see the discussion between Coleman, bishop of Lindisfarne, and Wilfrid at the Synod of Whitby in Bede, Hist., 3:25.

11 Eusebius, Pas., 7, 9. Also see Peter Alex., frags. 5:1, 2, 7, who specifically identifies the date as Abib 14. Augustine similarly calls the first month “Abib” (Epist., 55:3 §5).

12 Eusebius, Pas., 9, 10.

13 Clement, frag. 28.

14 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6.

15 Anatolius, 8.

16 Bede, Hist., 5:21.

17 Bede, Hist., 2:2.

18 Bede, Hist., 2:19.

19 Aphraates, Dem., 12:6, 8, 12.

20 Aphraates, Dem., 12:8, 12.

21 Aphraates, Dem., 12:12.

Today, few English-speaking Christians, largely due to their long practice
of glossing the Hebrew word Phasekh (Passover) with the name Easter and their abandonment of the Festival of Pentecost, realize that Passover and Pentecost were the chief religious observances of the early Christian assemblies.

In one form or another, all early Christian groups not only observed the Passover and Pentecost but calculated the Passover observance in connection with the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

The Roman Catholic writer Augustine (c.400 C.E.) reminds Christians:

Passover and Pentecost are festivals with the strongest Scriptural authority.¹

With regard to Pentecost, general agreement was maintained among the various Christian factions. The 50 days of Pentecost were celebrated by
the Aristocratic method, counting from the first day of the week following Abib 14.

The Passover was another matter. Unfortunately, as had occurred with the Jewish experience, divergent opinions about the Passover soon sprang up.

Epiphanius (c.378 C.E.), for example, informs us that confusion over Passover arose among the various Christian groups shortly after the circumcised bishops of Jerusalem were removed from power at the beginning of the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba against Rome:

For long ago, even from the earliest days, the Passover was celebrated at different times in the Assembly,² occasioning ridicule every year. For some kept it a week early and quarreled with others, while others kept it a week late. And some celebrated it in advance, others in between, others afterward. And in a word, as is not unknown to many scholarly persons, there was a great deal of muddle and tiresomeness whenever trouble was stirred up in the Assembly’s teaching on the question of this festival. In the time of Polycarp (c.158 C.E.) and Victor (196 C.E.) the East was at odds with the West and they would not accept letters of commendation from each other. But in as many other times—in the time of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Criscen­tius, when we find each of them writing argumentatively to the other, and down to our own day. This has been the situation ever since (the Assembly) was thrown into disorder after the time of the circumcised bishops (ending in 133 C.E.).³

One fact is certainly cogent. Since the messiah never sinned, the Passover observed by the messiah and his disciples provides an important key to the correct Passover celebration.

In this regard, all the various early assemblies made the claim that they were continuing the Passover, either in fact or in spirit, as the messiah had commanded.

Yet, only one of these practices, if any, can be correct.

Therefore, in our search for the original and true observance of Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread, it is incumbent upon us to fully examine these various early Christian systems in order that we might ultimately weigh their credibility and worth against Scriptures.

The Christian Systems
Few Christians today realize the vibrant and rich history that has been preserved for us from the Ante-Nicaean Christian period (30-324 C.E.) and afterward.

Contrary to the popular opinion of a Christian “dark age,” what we actually find is a time of great debate, turmoil, and doctrinal evolution.

As we search through the ancient records from this period, we discover that during the first several centuries of our common era four basic Passover systems, with some local variations, were competing with each other for the hearts and minds of the numerous Christian assemblies.

For simplification purposes, this study shall utilize the following labels to identify each of the four early Christian systems:

• System A (Quarto­deciman)
• System D (Early Western quasi-Quartodeciman)
• System E (Roman)
• System F (Hybrid Syrian)
• System G (Modern Hybrid)

Quartodeciman System A
Click to Enlarge

System A (Quartodeciman Passover): Buried in the pages of antiquity is the little known fact that the original Passover practice of the early Christian assemblies was the Aristocratic System A.

We retain the System A label due to the fact that the original Quartodeciman practice was a direct descendant of the old conservative Zadok (Tsadoq) system of the priests.

For that reason, those who followed this system, or one of its later variants, were subsequently called Quartodecimans (14th keepers).

The Quartodeciman formula was nothing less than a continuation of the Aristocratic understanding: the 14th was Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread continued from the 14th until the end of the 20th of Abib (the first lunar month).

The early Quartodecimans differed from the old Jewish Aristocratic system in that they did not practice the ritualistic sacrifices or offerings of the handwritten Torah, including the slaughter of the Passover lamb.

In its place, they counted the messiah as the true Passover lamb and his death as a realization of the prophetic type expressed in the handwritten Torah and sacrificed and eaten on the night of Abib 14 during the Exodus.

Unleavened bread and the mystery of the Eucharist became the focus of this new Christian Passover repast.

Nevertheless, the method for determining the dates for the Passover dinner and the seven days of Unleavened Bread was identical to that used by the conservative priests (System A).

The Quartodecimans noted that the “Passover of the Jews”—a reference to the Passover repast on the 15th of Abib as practiced by the state religion of the Pharisees—was not the true Passover of the Torah.

Instead, they gave that honor to the 14th of the first moon, claiming four points of doctrine:

• The 14th was a high Sabbath.
• It was a day of remembrance of the messiah’s (the lamb’s) death.
• It was the day of the Passover meal (the Last Supper).
• It was the day of the fellowship of the Passover Eucharist.

The Quartodecimans always celebrated the Passover festival (i.e., the Passover supper and the Eucharist) on the 14th of Abib, regardless of which day of the week it fell on.

Also for the early Quartodecimans, the 14th and 20th were always observed as high Sabbaths.

During the first three centuries C.E., support was very strong among the early Christian assemblies in the East for the Quartodeciman method, especially in Asia Minor where the apostles John and Philip taught.

Nevertheless, after this system was condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. as Judaizing, it was suppressed and soon faded into disuse.

Quasi-Quartodeciman System D
Click to Enlarge

System D (Early Western quasi-Quartodeciman Passover): In the early second century C.E., along with the collapse of the power of the circumcised Christian bishops of Jerusalem, a dissenting opinion appeared among some of the western assemblies.

As a result, a variation of the Quartodeciman view was constructed by some of the bishops in the West.

This western quasi-Quartodeciman method (System D)—which must not be confused with other minor quasi-Quartodeciman systems⁴—retained the Aristocratic under­standing for the seven days of Unleavened Bread, i.e., that these days extended from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon.

This system also recognized that the messiah ate the Passover supper on the 14th of Abib.

Yet, the advocates of this system did not always keep the Passover supper and Eucharist on the 14th, counting that day as far too sad an occasion for such a joyous celebration.

In fact, they considered such an observance an act of Judaizing. In its place, its supporters observed the day of the omer wave offering (emphasized as being the date of the messiah’s resurrection) as the sacred day for the Passover festival and Eucharist celebration.

This festival was always placed on the first day of the week within the seven days of Unleavened Bread and, therefore, it would only occasionally fall upon the 14th day.

Since the festival of Passover was only observed on the first day of the week within the seven days of Unleavened Bread, the Quartodeciman method of always counting the 14th and 20th of Abib as high Sabbaths was abandoned.

This early western quasi-Quartodeciman system became the basis for the first major breach within the early orthodox Christian community.

It was originally used in the western districts of the Roman empire, especially in places like Rome and Alexandria, until the latter end of the second century C.E. At that time it was replaced in those districts with the Roman assembly doctrine of Passover (System E).

The System D (quasi-Quartodeciman) construct was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) in the name of unity and under the guise of avoiding any appearance of Judaizing.

Nevertheless, System D continued in use for centuries among various outlying assemblies.

It was eventually suppressed by the Roman Church, which had slowly gained political power over the other assemblies, and fully disappeared by the early eighth century C.E.

Roman System E
Click to Enlarge

System E (Passover of the Roman assembly): In the late second century C.E. a third important construct was developed in the West, chiefly by the bishops governing the assemblies in Rome and Gaul.

In the early second century C.E., the assemblies at Rome and Gaul had abandoned System A for System D, regarding the former as an act of Judaizing.

Yet, they found it difficult to overcome the Quartodeciman argument that, since the messiah and his disciples had kept their “Last Supper” Passover on the 14th of Abib, all Christians should do likewise.

In response to the Quartodeciman position, those in the West took on a new strategy.

The western bishops had already found reason to fault the Quartodeciman construct that Passover should be held on the 14th—it was the same day that the Jews sacrificed their Passover lamb and it was the sad occasion of the messiah’s death.

The Roman assembly advocates of System E, therefore, believed that if one were to observe the Passover Eucharist⁵ on this date he was also committing the heinous act of Judaizing.

To remove the Quartodeciman claim that the 14th was important, the supporters of System E dismissed the Aristocratic construct altogether and adopted the Hasidic premise, which held that the legal Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread began on the 15th of Abib (System E).

The 14th, they now argued, was merely the day given under the handwritten Torah for the Passover sacrifice.

Indeed, they retorted, since we are no longer under the Torah and since the true lamb has been sacrificed with the death of the messiah on the 14th, that day has been fulfilled.

The celebration of the 14th, as a result, is simply no longer necessary or relevant and, to the chagrin of the Quartodecimans and advocates of System D, they proclaimed that the 14th should never be observed as the Passover festival or for the giving of the Passover Eucharist.

The advocates of System E then carried over the idea developed in System D that, since the messiah was murdered on the 14th, it was only a commemoration of a sad occasion.

The first day of the week (Sunday), on the other hand, being the day of the week of the messiah’s resurrection, was a much happier and more proper day on which to celebrate the Passover.

Therefore, the first day of the week falling within the seven days of Unleavened Bread (counting from the 15th until the end of the 21st) should be observed as the festival. The preceding Friday and Saturday were marked as the day of the messiah’s crucifixion and burial (time in the grave).

These days were honored but only as a time to fast, not to celebrate. At the same time, the advocates of System E disregarded the Hasidic interpretation that the 15th and 21st days of Abib were always high Sabbaths.

Beginning with Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century C.E., the Roman Church obtained the backing of the Roman empire. It is at this point that the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church truly began.

With the Roman government behind them, System E eventually gained the upper hand and overcame all other Christian Passover systems.

Though slightly modified over the centuries, this system is presently the dominant practice among Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians.

Hybrid Syrian
System F
Click to Enlarge

System F (Hybrid Syrian Passover): The transition to System E proceeded along a different path in Syria. A strong Quartodeciman heritage existed in the East and did not allow for any quick transformation.

In response to this reality, those who gravitated toward the western views developed a hybrid system that incorporated both Quartodeciman and western elements.

In many ways this hybrid system mimicked the efforts of the Jewish Karaites and the neo-Samaritans (System C), who blended together the Aristocratic and Hasidic constructs to form a hybrid third view (System F).

In the late second century C.E., the Syrian assemblies were Quarto­deciman. They kept the 14th day of the first moon as the Passover and their seven days of Unleavened Bread were counted from the 14th until the end of the 20th day of the first moon.

Yet, during this same period some of the Syrian Christian assemblies had already adopted the western format of celebrating the day of the resurrection (the first day of the week following the 14th) by keeping the preceding Friday and Saturday as a fast.

Major change came after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. The council, dominated by the Roman Emperor, made the decision to disregard any Quartodeciman or quasi-Quartodeciman system for the observance of the Passover festival.

They then ordered the various Christian assemblies to adopt the Hasidic construct for the seven days of Unleavened Bread. Unwilling to immediately abandon the 14th as Passover, many Syrian Christians continued to observe the 14th.

Yet, to satisfy Rome, some began to attach the Hasidic seven days of Unleavened Bread (from the 15th to the 21st) to their celebration, and like Rome they disregarded the Hasidic idea that the 15th and 21st of Abib were always high Sabbaths.

They also continued to keep the Friday and Sabbath preceding Passover Sunday as a fast, though at times this conflicted with the 14th as Passover, and they continued to observe Sunday as the Passover of the resurrection, the messiah being raised on that day.

In doing so, they remained in harmony with the Roman Catholic celebration. This hybrid form we have labeled System F.

Once the Hasidic construct for the seven days of Unleavened Bread was fully accepted, it was not long before the hybrid System F construct was, for the most part, abandoned and the Roman Catholic System E Passover completely adopted.

Modern Hybrid System G
Click to Enlarge

System G (modern hybrid Passover): In our present time, especially among many Yahwehist assemblies, a new hybrid has developed.

In this form, which we dub System G, the 14th of Abib is the day of the Passover supper, and the 15th is the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

The seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread extends from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of Abib, a total observance of eight days.

Despite the fact that the 14th is also a day of eating unleavened bread, under this system the 14th is not a high Sabbath and is not counted among the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Rather, the 14th is a solemn memorial day in observance of the messiah’s death. At the same time, the Hasidic interpretation that the 15th and 21st days of Abib are high Sabbaths has been retained.

Though System G is not explicitly found mentioned among any ancient Jewish or Christian assemblies, its proponents argue that it was the original practice.

Minor Views: There are likewise some other minor variant views that have been extrapolated over the centuries.

Some believe that arab is merely a point in time. Some claim that the messiah offered his Passover lamb on the 13th of Abib,⁶ while others believe that some of the rites of Passover, such as the Eucharist, should be offered every Sunday as communion.

Such views are either so speculative as to have no substantive support or are so far from the original system that they cannot be remotely considered as celebrating Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Time to conclude Part 1 amigos. In our next post, 20. Passover – Christian Factions II, we will provide testimony from various early Christian writers regarding the “Last Supper” and the “Seven Days of Unleavened Bread.”

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Augustine, Epist., 55:17 §32.

2 The Greek term ἐκκλησίᾳ (ekklesia), Latin ecclesia, shall be translated throughout as “Assembly,” if the reference is to the world body, and as “assembly” if the reference is to a local congregation (see GEL, 1968, p. 509; SEC, Gk. #1577). The Hebrew term behind the Greek and Latin is קהל (qahal), קהלה (qahalah), “an assemblage:—assembly, congregation” (SEC, Heb. #6951, 6952; HEL, p. 228; cf., CS, 1, p. 433). The English term “Church,” which is often used to translate the Greek and Latin words, is misleading in that it gives a connotation of a building for public worship as well as for the congregation.

3 Epiphanius, Pan., 70:9:7–9.

4 We will address the variant practices of some of these minor quasi-Quartodeciman groups in a forthcoming post dealing with the Quartodecimans.

5 We will use the phrase “Passover Eucharist” when referencing the thanksgiving offered with the bread and wine at Passover.

6 CBTEL, 5, pp. 744–746.

Its antiquity is demonstrated by the fact that both the ancient conservative Samaritan and Sadducean (Boethusian) priesthoods practiced the identical Pentecost system—this despite their loathing for each other.

This common approach among competing branches of the Zadokite priests reflects a common history, indicating that this system was used by the Zadokite priests prior to the fourth century B.C.E. (the time when the Samaritan schism took place).¹

These Aristocratic priests were “heirs to the old Zadokite tradition in Jerusalem.”² This Aristocratic system was later followed by the early Christian assemblies,³ demonstrating their belief in its antiquity as well.

Josephus, though himself a Pharisee, retains a relevant record from an earlier Jewish writer, Nicolas of Damascus, further demonstrating the antiquity of the Aristocratic method. This record refers to the days of the Hasmonaean leader Hyrcanus, when the Sadducean (Aristocratic) system for Pentecost was dominant in Judaism.

While the Jewish king was on an expedition, his troops remained at rest for two straight days due to this Jewish festival. Josephus comments, “For the Festival of Pentecost had come around, following the Sabbath (day), and we are not permitted to march either on the Sabbath (day) or on a festival (day).”⁴

Therefore, the Festival of Pentecost was the day immediately following the weekly Sabbath (i.e., a double Sabbath).

We must understand these words in their historical context. Hyrcanus of Judaea made this campaign as an ally of Antiochus VII (Antiochus Sidetes), when the latter marched against Parthia.⁵ Antiochus VII died at the end of this eastern campaign.⁶

Antiochus VII ruled only nine years (138/137-130/129 B.C.E., Oct. reckoning)⁷ and died in early spring 129 B.C.E., just when the snow began to melt, as the crops began to appear, and while his troops were still in their winter quarters.⁸

Nevertheless, Antiochus VII did not bring Hyrcanus under his authority until the fall of his fifth year, being the 179th Babylonian Seleucid year (133/132 B.C.E., Nisan or spring reckoning).⁹

Placed into historical context, which demands a double Sabbath for Pentecost after Antiochus VII conquered Hyrcanus yet before the former’s death, the Pentecost season (late May to early June) of 133 B.C.E. is too early while that of 129 B.C.E., which followed Antiochus VII’s death, is too late.

The double Sabbath in question could only have taken place in the spring of 132 to 130 B.C.E. Under Pharisaic calculations, none of these three years would have resulted in a Sabbath day followed by a high Sabbath day of Pentecost.¹⁰ Therefore, only the Aristocratic system would have worked, reflecting its use during this period.

The second oldest Pentecost system is the quasi-Aristocratic. This point is reflected by the Book of Jubilees (late second century B.C.E.).¹¹ At that time, they still regarded only the first day of the week for both the omer wave offering and the day of Pentecost.

Yet, they differed from the Aristocratic groups in that they began to count from the first day of the week that followed the entire seven days of Unleavened Bread. They failed to listen to the instruction provided by Joshua, 5:10-12.

In effect, this system, despite its error with regard to Joshua, 5:10-12, is further proof of the antiquity of the original Sunday to Sunday format.

Shortly after the appearance of the quasi-Aristocratic Pentecost system came the Hasidic or Pharisaic version. J. B. Segal writes:

And, indeed, the insistence of the Pharisees upon their forced interpretation of the term ‘Sabbath’ shows that the usage was of no great antiquity.¹²

Segal dates the appearance of the Pharisaic Pentecost system to the “second-first century B.C.”¹³ J. Van Goudoever notes that the “influence” of this newer system “was increasing in the beginning of our era.”¹⁴

As we shall show below, the Pharisaic Pentecost system did not replace the Aristocratic Pentecost system in the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem until 68 C.E.

The last Jewish Pentecost system to make an appearance was the quasi-Hasidic view. This system mixes the Pharisaic view (that the Sabbath day mentioned in Leviticus, 23:11, is a festive day) with the quasi-Aristocratic view (that the omer wave offering should follow the entire seven days of Unleavened Bread).

As with the quasi-Aristocratic construct, they failed to heed the instruction provided by Joshua, 5:10-12, which allows for the omer wave offering within the seven days of Unleavened Bread. As a result, their 50-day count begins after the high Sabbath on the last day of Unleavened Bread.

There is some evidence of this quasi-Hasidic view in an old Syriac translation of Leviticus, 23:11 and 15,¹⁵ and it was followed by the Ethiopian Falasha Jews.¹⁶ The Falashas were established shortly before the Mishnah (c.200 C.E.) and the Talmud (c.500 C.E.) were compiled.¹⁷

In either case, because of this evidence one cannot place a valid date of origin any sooner than the early second century C.E., although some would suggest a reason to begin it just before the beginning of our common era.¹⁸

The Triumph of the Pharisees
The priestly Aristocratic system for the omer wave offering and the Festival of Weeks was overthrown during the second half of the first century C.E.¹⁹

In the Megillath Taanith (composed about 68 C.E.),²⁰ for instance, we read that the period from the 8th of Nisan until the 14th was attached to the seven days of the Khag of Unleavened Bread as a period wherein “it is forbidden to mourn.”²¹

According to the Scholiast on the Megillath Taanith, these additional days marked the triumph of the Pharisees over the Sadducees in their famous controversy regarding the date of the Festival of Weeks.²²

No such claim of doctrinal victory was actually made in the Megillath Taanith, which leads scholars like Solomon Zeitlin and J. B. Segal to interpret this claim as a later gloss.²³ It seems rather designed to guise a more sinister episode that accompanied this so-called victory.

Nevertheless, the association of the victory of the Pharisees with a specific time of the year mentioned in the Megillath Taanith lends itself to defining the episode and period of this change. Unlike the Passover, which was a people’s festival, the omer wave offering at the Temple was solely a function of the high priest.

Therefore, the Pharisees were not able to force the conservative Sadducees to submit in this practice unless they had first obtained control over the Temple.

The most auspicious time for this doctrinal victory over the Sadducean priests would have been during the Jewish revolt against Rome, which began in 66 C.E. It would come after the Hasidic Zealots, an extremist group of Pharisees, took control of Jerusalem in November of 67 C.E.

Not long after seizing the city, an insurrection of the populace was instigated against them by Ananus, the senior high priest. The Zealots murdered him and many of the Aristocratic families and then converted the Temple of Yahweh into their fortress, making the sacred place of the Temple the headquarters of their tyranny.²⁴

Having seized the Temple they also seized control of the priesthood. Josephus tells us:

To these horrors was added a spice of mockery more galling than their actions. For, to test the abject submission of the populace and make trial of their own strength, they essayed to appoint the high priests by lot, although, as we have stated, the succession was hereditary.²⁵

They chose from the priestly clan of Eniachin, and cast lots for a high priest. Josephus continues:

By chance the lot fell to one who proved a signal illustration of their depravity; he was an individual named Phanni, son of Samuel, of the village of Aphthia, a man who not only was not descended from high priests, but was such a clown that he scarcely knew what the high priesthood meant. At any rate they dragged their reluctant victim out of the country and, dressing him up for his assumed part, as on the stage, put the sacred vestments upon him and instructed him how to act in keeping with the occasion.²⁶

Since the radical Pharisees called Zealots instructed Phanni, it is clear that it was at this moment that the Pharisaic practice for Pentecost was instituted at the Temple.

As these events were unfolding, the Roman leader Vespasian heard of them from deserters and is said to have entered the city of Gadara on the fourth of the month of Dystrus (i.e., about March 21 of 68 C.E.).²⁷

Therefore, the first occasion for this new high priest to perform functions at the Temple was during the Passover season in the spring of 68 C.E., with preliminary celebrations beginning on the eighth of Nisan.²⁸

On Nisan 16, the first Pharisee-style omer wave offering would have been made by this priest. This moment was later interpreted as a victory for the Pharisaic view. Phanni was also the last high priest to serve in the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem,²⁹ which was destroyed in September of 70 C.E.³⁰

With the destruction of the Temple, Sadducean power was utterly destroyed.³¹

As D. Freeman points out, the Pharisaic “reckoning became the normative in Judaism after A.D. 70, so that in the Jewish calendar Pentecost now falls on various days of the week.”³²

Day of the Sinai Covenant
Another important point of reference for the Khag of Weeks (Pentecost) was the ancient assertion, held by both Jews and Christians alike, that on the day of this festival, during the year of the Exodus (i.e., in 1439 B.C.E.),³³ the Old Covenant Torah with its Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai.³⁴

The widespread belief that Pentecost was the birthday of the Torah demands our attention, for it will later help us set the counting for the Festival of Weeks. What will be apparent is just how well-established this concept was among both Jews and Christians.

We find the claim that the Torah was given to the Israelites on the Festival of Weeks asserted as early as the Maccabean period in the late second century B.C.E.³⁵

The earliest known connection was made by the Book of Jubilees (about 135 B.C.E.),³⁶ whose author, as we have previously noted, followed the quasi-Aristocratic Pentecost system. The Jubilees text demonstrates the historical background for this belief.

The Jewish Falashas of Abyssinia, who follow a quasi-Hasidic Pentecost system, believe that Pentecost is “the day of the giving of the Law.”³⁷ Those adhering to the Aristocratic view of Pentecost also retained this interpretation. It was advocated by the Samaritans,³⁸ and suspected as true by the Karaites.³⁹

Though not directly stated by Josephus and Philo, those holding to the Hasidic Pentecost view also believed in the connection of this festival with the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

For example, this claim is made by the mid-second century C.E. Pharisaic work called the Seder Olam, which reports, “In the third moon, on the sixth day of the moon,” i.e., the day marked by the Pharisees as the Festival of Weeks, “the Ten Commandments were given to them.”⁴⁰

Still later, this view is given in the Babylonian Talmud,⁴¹ in the Exodus Rabbah,⁴² by Maimonides,⁴³ and in the Midrash entitled Tankhuma.⁴⁴

In one passage from the Talmud, for example, we read, “On the sixth day of the moon (of Siwan) the Ten Commandments were given to Israel.”⁴⁵ Rabbi Eleazar (c.270 C.E.) argues that Pentecost was “the day on which the Torah was given.”⁴⁶

This belief eventually led to the custom of studying the Torah all night on Pentecost.⁴⁷

The Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai was a marriage contract between Yahweh and the Israelites.⁴⁸ The Qumran Covenanteers recognized a renewal of this covenant every year on the Khag of Weeks.⁴⁹ The Zohar even calls the time between Passover and Pentecost the “courting of the bridegroom Israel with the bride Torah.”⁵⁰

Christian writers followed the Aristocratic view of Pentecost.⁵¹ They also declared their belief that Yahweh gave the Torah on Pentecost. For them, this was a type of the giving of the sacred ruach on the day of Pentecost in the year of the messiah’s resurrection.⁵²

A fragment of Severian of Gabala (c.400 C.E.), for example, states that “the Torah was given on the day of Pentecost.”⁵³

Augustine (writing between 396-430 C.E.), as another example, speaks of “the 50th day” as “when they received the Torah written by the finger of the deity.”⁵⁴ In another place, he notes that Pentecost was “the day on which the Torah was given on Mount Sinai to Moses.”⁵⁵

In yet another place he writes that the Torah was written with the finger of the deity and was given to Moses on this day, adding that this was a type of the sacred ruach, called the finger of the deity in the New Testament, which the messiah promised to his disciples as a Comforter and sent to them on the 50th day after his suffering and resurrection.⁵⁶

Again Augustine argued:

Why do the Jews celebrate Pentecost? This is a great mystery, brethren, and quite wondrous. Consider this: on the day of Pentecost they (the Jews) received the Torah written by the finger of the deity, and on the day of Pentecost the sacred ruach came (to the disciples of the messiah).⁵⁷

Leo the Great (c.440-461 C.E.), in one of his homilies about the day of Pentecost, reports that on that day, “the Torah was given on Mount Sinai.”⁵⁸ Chrysostom similarly writes, “On that day the Torah was given according to the Old Covenant.”⁵⁹

Summary of “Passover – Pentecost Clarity I & II”
Ancient records have provided us with four models used for counting the 50 days to the Festival of Weeks.

Only two are viable—the Aristocratic and Hasidic (Pharisaic) models—for only these two conform with the example provided by Joshua, 5:10-12, that the omer wave offering can occur during the days of Unleavened Bread.

The heart of the difference between all of these various systems, nonetheless, is their differing interpretations about what exactly is meant by the phrase “on the day after the Sabbath,” as found in Leviticus, 23:11.

Nevertheless, it is important to notice that the oldest of these known systems was the Aristocratic Pentecost, and this was also the system deemed correct by all of the ancient Christian assemblies.⁶⁰

That wraps up our discussion regarding Pentecost.

We will continue our journey with our next post providing a preliminary commentary on the various Passover practices of the early Christian assemblies.

Then hang on to your hat amigos. If you are looking for the real deal concerning the true Passover practice then you are in the right place. The evidence should prove to be interesting to say the least.

You might want to contemplate whether you can handle what is coming your way.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 See 15. Passover – Aristocratic Practice II.

2 E.g., BCal, pp. 20-22, 29.

3 ACC, 2, pp. 1157-1161; BCal, pp. 19-24, 175, 225f.

4 Jos., Antiq., 13:8:4.

5 Ibid.

6 Diodorus, 34:15-17; Justin, 38:10; Livy, Sum., 59; Appian, Syr., 68.

7 Syncellus, 1, p. 552, 2, p. 271; Eusebius, Chron., 1, pp. 255, 263, app. 1, pp. 16, 56, 91f; Jerome, Euseb., 226F-228F; HJP, 1, pp. 131f.

8 Diodorus, 34/35:15-17; Justin, 38:10, 39:1.

9 SJC, chap. xiv.

10 Computer computations show that the Pharisaic calculation for Pentecost would have fallen on May 29/30, Sun. nighttime/Mon. daytime, in the year 134 B.C.E.; May 18/19, Fri./Sat., for 133 B.C.E.; June 5/6, Wed./Thurs., for 132 B.C.E.; May 25/26, Sun./Mon., or possibly May 26/27, Mon./Tues., for 131 B.C.E.; May 14/15, Thurs./Fri., or possibly May 15/16, Fri./Sat. for 130 B.C.E.; June 1/2, Wed./Thurs., for 129 B.C.E.

11 OTP, 2, p. 43-45; DSST, pp. 238-245; THS, p. 283.

12 THP, p. 250.

13 Ibid.

14 BCal, p. 29.

15 APOT, 2, pp. 34f, n. XV.I; BCal., p. 25. The Syriac translation of Lev., 23:11 and 15 reads, “After the latter of the two festival days or after the last day (bathar yawma’ charna).”

16 JE, 5, p. 328.

17 FA, p. xlii.

18 E.g., BCal, pp. 25, 27, 60, 89.

19 BCal, p. 29, “The priestly system in Jerusalem was defeated, probably in the second part of the first century (together with the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple).”

20 The last event chronicled in the text took place on Adar 17, 66 C.E. Meanwhile, the Talmud places its composition a few years before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. (MTS, pp. 3f, 112-115; B. R.Sh., 18b). The Pharisee Zealots overthrew the Sadducee high priest in Nov. of 67 C.E., allowing for the first omer wave offering to be made according to the Pharisaic method in the spring of 68 C.E. The year 68 C.E. for the compostion of the Megillath Taanith, therefore, is in full accord with these events.

21 Meg. Taan., 1.

22 MTS, p. 75; THP, p. 32.

23 MTS, p. 75; THP, p. 32, and n. 15.

24 Jos., Wars, 4:3:7, 4:5:1-4:6:2; cf., HJP, 2, pp. 496-499.

25 Jos., Wars, 4:3:7.

26 Jos., Wars, 4:3:8.

27 Jos., Wars, 4:7:3f.

28 Meg. Taan., 1.

29 Jos., Wars, 6:8:4-5, 6:10:1.

30 Jos., Antiq., 20:10:1.

31 HJP, 2, pp. 402, 414; EJ, 14, p. 622; BCal, p. 29; EBD, p. 902; NBD, p. 1124; CBTEL, 9, p. 241; DB, p. 579.

32 NBD, p. 964; MTS, p. 75.

33 For confirmation of this date see IC and the related study in SJC.

34 NBD, p. 964; NCE, 11, p. 109; BCal, pp. 131, 139-144, 186-190; ACC, 2, p. 1160; JE, 9, p. 592.

35 PCB, p. 232.

36 Jub., 1:1, cf., 6:17.

37 JE, 5, p. 328.

38 TSL, 1, pp. 335ff.

39 Al-Magribi, 15:2f; KAEEL, pp. 224f; ERE, 5, p. 880. The Karaites claimed, “We do not know for certain the precise day when it happened” because the exact day was not directly stated in Scriptures. Their hesitancy seems more from a willingness to criticize the rabbis who claimed this event as a historical fact.

40 S.O., 5.

41 B. Pes., 68b; B. Shab., 86b.

42 Exod. Rab., 31.

43 Maimonides, Moreh, 3:43, “The (Festival of) Weeks is the day of the giving of the Torah.”

44 Mid. Tankh., 26c.

45 B. Shab., 86b.

46 B. Pes., 68b.

47 Zoh., Emor, 98a.

48 See Jer., 31:31-32; cf., Hos., 2:18-20.

49 Jub., 6:17; DJS, 1, pp. 86ff, 19:1-8, 20:1-3; MLDSS, pp. 377f; BASOR, 123, p. 32; BCal, p. 140.

50 JE, 9, p. 593.

51 See FSDY, Chaps. XXII-XXIII.

52 As recorded in Acts, 2:1-13.

53 Severian, frag. (EEC, p. 80, text 80; CGPNT, p. 16).

54 Augustine, Cat. Rud., 23.

55 Augustine, Epist., 55:16 §29.

56 Augustine, Faust., 32:12.

57 Augustine, Serm. Mai, 158:4. Cf., Acts, 2:1-4.

58 Leo, Serm., 75.

59 PG, 63, p. 933.

60 See FSDY, Chap. XXII, pp. 344-347.

This debate was sparked by the fact that there is no direct statement found in Scriptures telling us exactly on which date one is to keep the Festival of Weeks.

Instead, the dating of the festival is dependent upon the timing of the עמר (omer) wave offering, as it relates to the seven days of Unleavened Bread, the interpretation of key words, and the inferences provided from context and statements made in Scriptures.

The result of this method was several varying views and the entire subject became a matter of much controversy.

Our next effort, therefore, is to examine important scriptural statements that must be used to determine the original practice of Pentecost and to investigate the approaches used by the various Jewish religious schools.

Four Approaches
The calculations for keeping the Festival of Weeks was yet one more area where those holding to the Aristocratic view sharply opposed those advocating the Hasidic construct.

Their dispute centered upon the interpretation applied to Leviticus, 23:11, which commands that the omer offering should be waved “on the day after the Sabbath.” The meaning of the word Sabbath as found in this verse became the source of much contention.

As a result, post-Biblical Jewish traditions soon varied concerning the day on which the sickle was to be put into the first corn of a year’s harvest.

Four different interpretations arose: two with a majority following and two with a minority following.

• Aristocratic (majority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the weekly Sabbath. The omer wave offering always occurs on the first day of the week falling just after the festival day of Passover.

• Quasi-Aristocratic (minority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the weekly Sabbath. The omer wave offering occurs on the first day of the week falling just after the end of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

• Hasidic (majority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the high Sabbath festival day of Passover, which for the Hasidim is Abib 15. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on the 16th of Abib (Nisan), the day after Passover, no matter which day of the week that might be.

• Quasi-Hasidic (minority) view: the Sabbath referred to is the high Sabbath festival occurring on the last day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread. For these quasi-Hasidic advocates this date is always Abib 21. The omer wave offering, therefore, always occurs on Abib 22, no matter which day of the week that might be.

To begin with, we shall quickly dispense with the two minority constructs.

These two views were originally advocated by some of the smaller Hasidic groups and a few others strongly influenced by them, such as the Essenes, the Qumran Covenanteers, the Ethiopian Falasha Jews, the Mishawayhs, and at least one Syrian group.

As we shall demonstrate, they are clearly aberrant and do not reflect the original meaning of the Levitical text.

One minority view is a quasi-Aristocratic system found in use among those at Qumran and in the Book of Jubilees. The advocates of this view used the Passover system of the Hasidim but, most likely due to their support of the Zadok line of priests, retained some Aristocratic leanings.

This Pentecost system always counted the 50 days from the Sunday which follows the seven days of Unleavened Bread.¹

Like the Aristocratic groups and those that followed them on the Passover issue, the advocates of the quasi-Aristocratic Pentecost system understood the instruction found in Leviticus, 23:15, that the Khag of Weeks was to be kept on “the day after the Sabbath,” as referring to the weekly Sabbath.

Therefore, the khag of the 50th day must always fall on the first day of the week.

Nevertheless, the advocates of this view failed in that they did not consider the important evidence from Joshua, 5:10-12, which, as we have already demonstrated in an earlier chapter, clearly allows for the omer offering to be waved within the seven days of Unleavened Bread.²

The tenet that it must always be waved after the seven days of Unleavened Bread, therefore, is manifestly wrong.

A second minority view, the quasi-Hasidic Pentecost system, was used by a Syrian Jewish group and is continued to this day by the Falashas of Ethiopia. It always counts from the day after the last day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread.³

In this interpretation, the Sabbath of Leviticus, 23:11 is not perceived as a weekly Sabbath but, as the Pharisees claimed, as a high Sabbath and festival day.

Yet, it too fails to consider Joshua, 5:10-12, by also always placing the first day of the seven weeks beyond the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

We are now left with the two majority systems: one advocated by the Aristocratic groups—the Sadducees (and their Boethusian brothers), the Samaritans, and the Karaites—and a second practiced by the Hasidic Pharisees.

Once again we find ourselves entangled in the debate between the two leading factions of first century Judaism. J. Van Goudoever summarizes these two majority interpretations, stating:

Around the beginning of our era there were at least two rival systems for the counting of the 50 days; one from the Sunday after Passover to the Sunday 50 days later, and one from 16 Nisan to 6 Sivan. It appears that this was not only a question of difference of counting. It was also a difference in the theological conception of Revelation. According to the Pharisees, the Torah (i.e. the five Books of Moses) was revealed to Moses, and the Rabbis were to explain the Torah. According to the Zadokites every law was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai and other regulations were rejected by them.⁴

Aristocratic Pentecost System
The Sadducees, Boethusians, Samaritans, and the Karaites, all representatives of the Aristocratic view, understood the term “Sabbath” in Leviticus, 23:11, literally hence; as the weekly Sabbath.⁵

This view was quite opposite that of the Pharisees, who interpreted this “Sabbath” as the “יום טוב (yom tob),” also Aramaic “יומא טבא (yoma toba),” or “festive day”⁶ of Passover (which for them was the 15th of Abib).⁷

Therefore, in accordance with Joshua, 5:10-12, for those following the Aristocratic view, the omer wave offering came on that first day of the week which followed Passover.⁸

In addition, the passage in Leviticus, 23:15-16 became an important formula in the Aristocratic construct:

And you shall number for yourself from the day after the Sabbath, from the day you bring in the omer wave offering, they shall be seven complete Sabbaths, until the day after the seventh Sabbath. You shall number 50 days.

“The day after the seventh Sabbath” can only mean the day after the seventh weekly Sabbath day, for there was no other Sabbath or high Sabbath day occurring at this time.

This detail is further supported by the expression, “they shall be seven complete Sabbaths.” The words “complete Sabbath” is a reference to a complete week ending with a Sabbath day. Seven complete Sabbaths, in turn, equal 49 days.

The next day after the seventh weekly Sabbath is the 50th day. Therefore, for the advocates of the Aristocratic Pentecost view, the Festival of Weeks always fell on the first day of the week, on the 50th day from the presentation of the omer wave offering.⁹

A demonstration of the Aristocratic view was supplied by their antagonists, the Pharisees, in the Mishnah. In the section entitled the Hagigah, while discussing the issue of Pentecost and the slaughtering of animals on the Sabbath, this text reports:

The High Priest may not put on his high-priestly vestments, and mourning and fasting are permitted, to lend no support to the words of them (the Sadducees) that say, “The עצרת (Atsarth; Closing Assembly) falls on the day after the Sabbath.”¹⁰

The Babylonian Talmud similarly states:

For the Boethusians held that the Closing Assembly must always be on the day after the Sabbath.¹¹

These statements demonstrate the belief of the Sadducees that the Festival of Weeks, contrary to the practice of the Pharisees, always came on the day after the weekly Sabbath.¹²

The first day of the 50 days, accordingly, must also fall on the day after the weekly Sabbath.

The differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees were also expressed by the Menahoth portion of the Mishnah.

While discussing the procedure used by the Pharisees to reap the barley corn for the omer wave offering, the author expresses the Pharisaic sensitivity to specific charges made by the Boethusian Sadducees (who were the priests). The passage reads:

How  did  they  make  (the  omer)  ready. The  messengers  of  the court  used  to  go  out  from  the  arab  (= late afternoon)  of  the יום טוב (yom tob; festive day = Passover) and tie the corn in bunches while it was yet unreaped to make it easier to reap; and the towns nearby all assembled there together that it might be reaped with much pomp. When it grew dark he called out, Is the sun set? and they answered, Yes! Is the sun set? and they answered, Yes! Is this a sickle? and they answered, Yes! Is this a sickle? and they answered, Yes! Is this a basket? and they answered, Yes! Is this a basket? and they answered, Yes! On the Sabbath (day) he called out, On this Sabbath, and they answered, Yes! On this Sabbath, and they answered, Yes! Shall I reap? and they answered, Reap! Shall I reap? and they answered, Reap! He used to call out three times for every matter, and they answered, Yes! Yes! Yes! Where­fore was all this? Because of the Boethusians who used to say: The omer may not be reaped at the close of the יום טוב (yom tob; festive day) (= Passover).¹³

This statement is important because it reflects the early Sadducean (Boethusian) position that the omer of barley could not be reaped on the festive day of Passover. Yet, the Pharisees allowed that it could be reaped on the weekly Sabbath day.

This point is also indicated by the fact that the omer wave offering is mentioned as a separate item after the discussion of the rituals of Passover.¹⁴

The Pharisees could not deny this regulation and were careful that the sun had already set on their festive day of Passover before they reaped their omer of barley. Otherwise the Sadducees would have charged the Pharisees with error regarding their own Hasidic interpretation of which day was the festive day of Passover.

The Karaites also followed the Aristocratic system for Pentecost. The Karaite writer Jacob Al-Kirkisani (10th century C.E.) directly tells us from whom they received their practice. He writes:

As for Boethus he was of the opinion that Pentecost can only fall on a Sunday which is also the view of the Ananites and all the Karaites.¹⁵

In the same way, the Samaritans “maintain that the offering of the Sheaf is to be performed on the Sunday within the Passover week.”¹⁶ They also speak of the khag of the 50th day as the “Sabbath of the seven Sabbaths.”¹⁷

The Aristocratic interpretation of the seven Sabbaths is also basic to understanding their view. They define the “seven weeks” of Deuteronomy, 16:9, by the “seven complete Sabbaths” of Leviticus, 23:16.

The Karaite writer Samuel al-Magribi, for example, writes:

The expression “seven complete Sabbaths” means that each Sabbath is to serve as the concluding day of the week, by way of distinction from a Sabbath which falls in the middle of a different period of seven days, such a week not being regarded as “complete” since it is not uniform with the sequence of the seven days of Creation. The meaning of “complete” is thus that the week is to conclude with a Sabbath, which conforms with the ordinance, “Seven weeks you shall count for yourself” (Deut., 16:9), each week ending with a Sabbath. This is decisive proof in the hands of the Karaites, seekers of the truth, against the dissidents, who hold different opinions on this subject. The reason Scriptures mentions “Sabbaths” before “days” (Lev., 23:16) is because the Sabbaths are meant to be directly connected with the Sabbath quoted before, namely, the one mentioned in “on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it” (Lev., 23:11).¹⁸

The important features of the Aristocratic view for counting the 50 days of Pentecost are, as a result, well-established.

The omer wave offering could only take place “after” Passover and never on that festival day; it can only take place on the first day of the week (Sunday); and it must follow a weekly Sabbath day that falls during one of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Counting seven complete Sabbath weeks from the day of the omer wave offering one arrives at the day after the seventh Sabbath. This day is the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost).

Pharisaic Pentecost System
The Pharisees held quite a contrary opinion. They insisted that the statement, “the day after the Sabbath,” as found in Leviticus, 23:11, refers not to the weekly Sabbath but to the high Sabbath day of Passover, which is a יום טבא (yom tob; festive day).

Tobias, for example, writes:

“The day after the Sabbath” simply means “the day after the יום טוב (yom tob; festive day).”¹⁹

Their festival day for Passover was Abib 15. The day of the omer wave offering, accordingly, was always Abib 16, no matter which day of the week that might be.²⁰

Under this system, the Festival of Weeks came on the 50th day, counted inclusively from the 16th of Abib, regardless of which day of the week it fell on.

Evidence for this view is also thought to come from Joshua, 5:10-12, where they define the statement about the day (the 16th) after the Passover (which they make to be the 15th), when the Israelites began to eat from the stored grain, to mean, “they ate from the produce of the land of Kanaan in that year.”²¹

The Pharisaic view is demonstrated in several sources.

In the Mishnah, as shown above, for instance, it plainly states that the messengers of the court used to go out during the arab (= Pharisaic late afternoon) of the festive day (Passover) and tie the corn in bunches while it was yet unreaped to make it easier to reap for the omer. The barley corn was then cut just after the sun had set and the festive day had ended.²²

The Babylonian Talmud states:

Our Rabbis taught: And you shall count unto you—that is, the counting is the duty of every one—from the day after the Sabbath, that is, from the day after the יום טבא (yom tob; festive day).²³

The first century C.E. Pharisaic priest named Josephus, as another example, dates the offering of the firstfruits of the barley by stating:

On the second day of unleavened bread, that is to say the 16th, our people partake of the crops which they have reaped and which have not been touched until then.²⁴

Another Pharisaic priest from that century, named Philo, similarly writes:

But within the festival (of Passover) there is another ἑορτῇ (heorte; festival) following directly after the first day.²⁵

Since the 16th could fall on any day of the week, this meant that the 50th day could also come on any day of the week and not just after a Sabbath day.

What then of the issue of the “seven complete Sabbaths”? The Pharisees held the exact opposite opinion to that of the Aristocrats. The Pharisees defined the “seven complete Sabbaths” of Leviticus, 23:16, by the “seven weeks” of Deuteronomy, 16:9.

That is, each of the seven Sabbaths represent a “week” as a period of seven days—not as a scriptural week extending from Sunday to the Sabbath. For them, this Sabbath meant a random period of seven days.

Under this interpretation, each of these seven-day periods could begin and end on any day of the scriptural week.

Therefore, one does not really count Sabbaths but days. The rabbis followed the instruction from Leviticus, 23:16, which commands, “you shall number 50 days.”

Rabbi Joshua, for example, argued that, from the day of the omer, one must “count days and sanctify the עצרת (Atsarth; Closing Assembly).”²⁶ Rabbi Jose ben Judah, likewise states, “Scripture says, You shall number 50 days.”²⁷

Some did recognize a contradiction in their logic but interpreted it to their own advantage. To demonstrate, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkari, with a little sleight of hand, breached the contradiction with the following argument:

Now one verse says, You shall number 50 days, while the other verse says, Seven complete Sabbaths there shall be. How are they to be reconciled? The latter verse refers to the time when the yom tob (festive day = Passover) falls on the Sabbath, while the former to the time when the yom tob (festive day = Passover) falls on a weekday.²⁸

Therefore, the command of “seven complete Sabbaths” only refers to those times when Passover fell on a weekly Sabbath. On those occasions, the 16th would be a Sunday and, as a result, the 50th day of the count would also fall on a Sunday.

When the Passover did not fall on a weekly Sabbath, then the 50- day count was used, disregarding the issue of counting Sabbaths.

Time to wrap up this first part of “Pentecost Clarity” amigos. Be on the lookout for  “Pentecost Clarity II” coming soon.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 The Qumran community had a fixed solar calendar whereby this Sabbath always fell on the 26th of Nisan and the Festival of Weeks always came on Sunday the 15th of Siwan (THP, pp. 41, 235, 247-251; EJ, 14, p. 1319; DSSE, pp. 43f; BCal, pp. 25-28; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a). Also see Jub., 1:1-4, 6:17-22, 15:1f, 16:13, 44:1-5, where 29 days appears to have been used for the second month, placing the festival on the 16th day of the third month (?).
2 See FSDY, Chap. X, pp. 165ff. Josh., 5:10-12, notes that the Israelites ate from the new crop on Abib 16, which makes the omer wave offering occur on that date, well within the seven days of Unleavened Bread.
3 THP, p. 255; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a; BCal, pp. 24f; JE, 5, p. 328.
4 BCal, pp. 143f.
5 E.g., Hag., 2:4.
6 The term יום (yom) means “day” (HEL, p. 105); טבא (tob) means, “happy, prosperous . . . valuable . . . goodness . . . wealth . . . prosperity . . . beauty” (HEL, p. 99), “joyous, glad . . . pleasing, desirable” and “(morally) good” (CHAL, p. 122). Therefore, יום טבא (yom tob), being a morally good day, came to be applied to a “feast-day” (CHAL, p. 122), cf., 1 Sam., 25:8. This expression was used by the Talmudists and in the Aramaic writings for a joyous and morally good day, i.e., for the high Sabbaths.
7 See our discussion below under subhead “Pharisaic Pentecost System” and our next post.
8 THP, pp. 248f; Danby, Mishnah, p. 506, n. 1; NBD, p. 179.
9 EJ, 14, p. 1319; JE, 9, p. 593; Danby, Mishnah, pp. 213, n. 12, 506, n. 1; BCal, pp. 12, 18, 19–24; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a; NBD, p. 179.
10 Hag., 2:4.
11 B. Men., 65a.
12 The Karaites, who followed System C—which held the hybrid view combining many of the Aristocratic concepts with those of the Hasidim—argued that the “day after the Sabbath” could include the festive day of the 15th (KAEEL, pp. 215–217). This allowance may well stem from the more ancient Aristocratic view that the 14th was the true high Sabbath of the Passover. This earlier concept was then merged with the Pharisaic view that the seven days of Unleavened Bread extended from the 15th to the 21st of Abib. As a result, the 15th was allowed as a day of the omer wave offering among the Karaites though disallowed by the traditions built up by the Pharisees.
13 Men., 10:3, cf., 10:1.
14 Lev., 23:5-8, and Deut., 16:1-8, deal with the Passover and its requirements, followed by Lev., 23:9-15, and Deut., 16:9, which relate to the omer wave offering and the count of 50 days.
15 Al-Kirkisani, 1:7; KAEEL, p. 50.
16 THP, p. 254; STE, 2, p. 20; DJS, 1, p. xxiii.
17 TSL, p. 285.
18 Al-Magribi, 12:7-8; KAEEL, p. 217.
19 Lek. Tob, Lev., 128f; KBFY, p. 277.
20 EJ, 14, p. 1319; JE, 9, p. 593; BCal, pp. 18f; EEC, pp. 119f, 1b. n. a; Danby, Mishnah, pp. 213, n. 12, 506, n. 1.
21 See the LXX of Josh., 5:10-12. J. Van Goudoever points out that the Pharisees read Josh., 5:11, so that the grain mentioned there is not stored grain but the grain of that year’s crop., i.e., “On the morrow after the Passover they ate from the produce of the land.” This view, though, as he admits, is not probable. He writes, “However, in Joshua the morrow after Passover seems to be 15 Nisan and not 16 Nisan; and in the Greek version the words ‘on the morrow after Passover’ are missing” (BCal, p. 19).
22 Men., 10:3. We have quoted this passage above on pp. 248f.
23 B. Men., 65b.
24 Jos., Antiq., 3:10:5.
25 Philo, Spec., 2:29 §162.
26 B. Men., 65b.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.

This new interpretation (System C) was built under the heavy influence of the Talmudists (spiritual offshoots of the Pharisees). It flourished primarily among the Karaites and neo-Samaritans but was also practiced by some less well-known groups.

Like those of the Aristocratic school (System A), these neo-Aristocratic groups (System C) understood byn ha-arabim as the period of twilight that follows sunset.

But under the influence of the Hasidic schools (System B), they also determined that the seven days of Unleavened Bread extended from the 15th until the end of the 21st day of the first moon. As a result, they celebrated the Passover supper on the night of the 15th.

To bridge the obvious gap created by the simultaneous adherence to these two opposing concepts, the advocates of the neo-Aristocratic view argued that there were two different reckonings of a day: a legal day (from sunset to sunset) and a common day (from post-twilight to post-twilight).

The 14th was calculated as a common day, while the 15th was considered a legal day. As a result of this innovative interpretation, byn ha-arabim actually came to represent both the last part of the 14th, as a common day reckoning, and the first part of the 15th day, as a legal day reckoning.

In the eyes of the supporters of the neo-Aristocratic system, this arrangement allowed for byn ha-arabim to pass the ancient test of being part of the 14th while also allowing the 15th to be the first day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Sadducean Influence
Already by the mid-first century C.E. the Sadducees and the Samaritans had both come under the heavy domination of the Pharisees.

In 70 C.E., with the destruction of the Temple of Yahweh by the Romans, the main branch of the Sadducees had ceased to exist as a political force.¹

The effect of the growing dominance of the Pharisees (Rabbinists, Talmudists) among the Jews was the unavoidable influence and pressure placed upon the earlier Sadducean and Samaritan doctrines.

Those of the Sadducean persuasion who continued to cling to any semblance of their old Aristocratic views were, from 70 C.E. on, placed under tremendous pressure to compromise with the Hasidic-based groups. As suppression continued and necessity grew, new views of the Passover took shape.

These neo-Aristocratic views retained only a shadow of their ancient form and for the most part were recast in the Hasidic mode. Nevertheless, even within this new construct we still see the original Aristocratic understanding of byn ha-arabim.

The Sadducees of Jerusalem had become divided into two main sects by the first century B.C.E.: the Sadducees and the Boethusians (the latter being treated by the Rabbis as if they were one and the same with the other Sadducees).² Late Rabbinic tradition has provided a fictionalized version of these two Sadducean factions.³

Rabbi Nathan ha-Babli states that Zadok and Boethus were disciples of Antigonus of Soho (about 200–170 B.C.E.), a teacher who had received the oral laws from the high priest Simeon II.⁴

With this explanation the Pharisees make it appear that the Sadducees were a heresy derived from the Hasidim, which is clearly not the case.

The truth to the story seems simply that a priest named Boethus and his faction arose at the time of the Hasmonaean revolt in some doctrinal disagreement with the other Sadducean leadership.

Yet, for the reason that the Boethusians were still seen as “the seed of Zadok” (= Sadducees) and agreed with the Sadducees on most issues, the Pharisees and others continued to group the Boethusians under the Sadducean label.⁵

The “Boethusian branch of the Sadducees” seems to have been named after the Boethus family from which later descended Simon Boethus, a well-known priest of Jerusalem whom Herod the Great made high priest in about 25/24 B.C.E.⁶

The priestly “House of Boethus” is criticized in the Talmud for its oppression.⁷ In the New Testament their party appears to be the supporters of the family of Herod the Great.

For example, the party of the Herodians is, in a parallel text, made to be Sadducean, though separate from the Sadducees.⁸

After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. the Sadducees as a distinct political body disappeared. The Pharisees and Talmudists, nevertheless, continued to use the word “Sadducee” for all heretics (including Christians).⁹

Meanwhile, the term Boethusian independently continued and was applied to an individual as late as the time of Rabbi Akiba (early second century C.E.).¹⁰

At this time the Boethusian name often replaced that of Sad­ducees, “only for the sake of opposition,” as the opponents of the Pharisees. They had maintained certain Sadducean traditions but “without proper understanding of the historical principles upon which they were based.”¹¹

It is apparent that the Boethusian branch of the Sadducees, because of their leadership position during the final decades of the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem, were the leaders of the Sadducean movement after the Temple’s destruction.

They also became part of the Jewish Diaspora, establishing themselves in various parts of Asia, especially in the frontier regions, as far north as Armenia.

Here they would still exert their influence on part of Judaism but, as we have already said, without the proper understanding of the historical principles upon which the original Aristocratic movement was founded.

The Karaites
The first clear demonstration of the neo-Aristocratic view comes from the records of the Karaites (the “Readers”).¹²

The Rabbis assert that the Karaite sect (originally called Ananites)¹³ was identical with the Sadducees and had originated with Anan ben David (about 740 C.E.), because the latter was ignored in the election of a new Resh-Gelutha.¹⁴

Karaite activity was transferred from Asia to Europe by the pupils of Abu al-Faraj Furḳan (Jeshua ben Judah) in the middle of the 11th century.¹⁵

Today it is admitted that before Anan there were already groups of people holding to his basic views living in outlying districts whom Anan was able to organize. Leon Nemoy calls them the “never entirely suppressed opposition (represented in earlier times by the Sadducee faction).”¹⁶

They absorbed into their ranks the Jewish sects of “the Isawites (adherents of Abu ‘Isā al-Iṣfahāni) and the Yudghanites, who were influenced by East-Islamic tendencies, and small remnants of pre-Talmudic Sadducees and Boethusians and similar anti-traditional movements.”¹⁷

There seems little doubt that many of the remaining Samaritans were also in some kind of loose alliance with these various remnants.

The Karaites themselves claimed that their predecessors (at least those who held similar ideas) went back much further than Anan.

They believed that the true law had been preserved by the Sadducees, whose leader, Zadok, had discovered a “portion,” but not all of the truth.¹⁸ Anan, they claimed, was merely a leader of some renown who had only later organized the forces in opposition to the Rabbis.

At the same time, the assertion that the Karaites were Sadducees is in part a fabrication, for they disagreed with the Sadducees on many important issues, including issues about the Passover and the resurrection.¹⁹ In fact, they represented an amalgamation of Jewish ideas.

Since Boethusian leadership survived the first century C.E., it is highly probable that the information about the Sadducees, to whom the Karaites made reference as providing some of their spiritual background, came by means of the Boethusian branch of the Sadducees.

Indeed, for example, the Karaites claimed that their opinion about how to calculate Pentecost came from Boethus.²⁰

It is also clear that the ruling Boethusian Sadducees, ever since the first century C.E., had already been compromised by the Pharisees with reference to the practices of Passover, for they had been forced to keep the Passover according to the dictates of the Pharisees.

Herein lie the reasons why men still holding Sadducee-like views were flourishing in 740 C.E. when Anan ben David came to power. Yet, like the Boethusians under Pharisaic domination, they kept the Hasidic method of seven days of Unleavened Bread from the 15th until the end of the 21st.

It was the continuing Pharisaic (Talmudic) repression of those Jews holding on to the Aristocratic understanding of how to observe the Passover that resulted in the creation of the neo-Aristocratic view (System C).

The Passover of the Karaites
As far as the observance of Passover, the Karaites were divided. Some divisions adjusted the calendar according to the season in which the crops became ripe in Palestine. Others adopted the Rabbinical system in its entirety.²¹

Earlier Karaites, like Anan ben David, believed that the Passover did not override the weekly Sabbath, others held a contrary opinion.²² These variations merely demonstrate that rabbinical Judaism had a great deal of influence over these Aristocratic-leaning groups.

The fact remains that Karaite ideas had in part sprung from the families of Sadducean priests and therefore retained some of the priestly interpretations for the Passover and its observances. Yet, the Karaites also lived in a time of heavy Pharisaic (Talmudic) influence.

For this reason, though they agreed with the Sadducees on the time of day that the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed (i.e., between sunset and dark), they also adopted ideas from the dominant Hasidic groups, like the Pharisees and Essenes, as well as from the powerful Mohammedans and others.

The Jewish Encyclopedia notes:

But Karaism in fact adopted a large part of rabbinical Judaism, either outright or with more or less modifications, while at the same time it borrowed from earlier or later Jewish sects—Sadducees, Essenes, Isa­­wites, Yudghanites, etc.—as well as from Mohammedans.²³

This merging of Sadducean and Rabbinical Judaism, therefore, directly affected the Karaite practice of Passover. To demonstrate, the Karaite writer Samuel al-Magribi understood “byn ha-arabim” as follows:

Its beginning is the setting of the sun, and its end the disappearance of the last brightness of daylight, and this is the period of dusk which lingers for some time after the sinking of the last portion of the disk of the sun.²⁴

In Scriptures, the Passover is to be sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan. Yet, the Karaites, clearly under Pharisaic-Talmudic influence, sacrificed during the twilight at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan and ate the Passover that same night.

To bridge the gap between the apparent contradiction Samuel al-Magribi provided the following reasoning:

This time is regarded as part of two days: of the common day, which is the fourteenth of Nisan, as mentioned above; and of the legal day, which is the fifteenth. The common day begins after the sinking of twilight and continues until its next sinking; this is the day as reckoned for the purpose of offering the sacrifice. The legal day begins with sunset and lasts until the next sunset.²⁵

For the Jews, the legal (scriptural) day ended at sunset,²⁶ while the common day ended after twilight, with the appearance of the first three stars of the evening.²⁷

Indeed, in the time of Pliny (first century C.E.), a day for “the common people everywhere” extended “from dawn until the darkness of night.”²⁸ For this reason the Greek words δείλης (deiles), δείλινος (deilinos), etc., meaning the last half of daylight (the afternoon),²⁹ were at times used by editions of the LXX to translate the Hebrew word arab.³⁰

Some LXX versions use δείλης (deiles; afternoon) in place of ἑσπέρας (hesperas; twilight) as a translation of arab.³¹ These details show that a legal day overlapped with the common day during the period of twilight. This period of overlap was the source of much debate in Talmudic circles.³²

The Karaite view is undoubtedly derived from a strained effort to merge the diverse practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Such a merger came about because of Pharisaic dominance (demanding that Passover be sacrificed toward the end of the 14th and eaten on the night of the 15th), while the party of the Karaites, still a minority, clung to the ancient priestly interpretation that byn ha-arabim was twilight after sunset.

System C simply bridged the gap between the two opposing views.

The Samaritans
The Samaritans suffered through the same pressures and changes that developed the Karaite view (if indeed they are not both derived from the same source).

We know, for example, that in the latter part of the second century B.C.E., the Jews of Judaea had conquered the country of the Samaritans.³³ Though they never agreed with the Pharisees on many scriptural issues, the Jews of that time had gained important political influence over the Samaritans, just as they had become dominant over the Sadducees.

Because of Judaean supremacy, the Samaritans became subject to the same rules as the Edomites who were living in southern Judaea. Since they were living in the ancient land promised by Yahweh to the Israelites, they were obligated to keep the laws of the Jews. Failure to keep these laws meant exile.³⁴

Meanwhile, the Pharisees became dominant in the reign of Queen Alexandra of Judaea (76/75–68/67 B.C.E.),³⁵ which was not long after Ezekielos the Tragedian wrote.

As a result, the Samaritans from the mid-first century B.C.E. onward fell under the authority of the Pharisees, just as the Sadducees and others had been forced to do.

The Samaritans, meanwhile, were strong allies and supporters of Herod the Great,³⁶ who conquered and ruled Judaea in the winter of 37/36 B.C.E.³⁷ For a time Herod even left his relatives in Samaria for safety.³⁸ Herod married a Samaritan woman named Malthace,³⁹ the mother of his son named Archelaus, who ruled Jerusalem after Herod’s death.⁴⁰

During his siege against Jerusalem, while residing in Samaria, Herod took another wife, named Mariamme, the daughter of Simon, the son of Boethus, the Jewish priest.⁴¹ In late 30 B.C.E. Samaria was brought under direct control of this Jewish king.⁴²

After Herod’s death, Augustus Caesar assigned Samaria to King Archelaus (4 B.C.E.–6 C.E.), the son of Herod the Great.⁴³

Meanwhile, King Herod the Great (36–4 B.C.E.) was supported by the Boethusian Sadducees. He appointed Simon, the son of Boethus, high priest in about 25/24 B.C.E and then, as we have stated above, married Simon’s daughter, Mariamme.⁴⁴ Mariamme, in turn, became the mother of Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great.⁴⁵ Herod Antipas later became the tetrarch of Galilee.

During the Herodian period, the family of Boethus supplied several high priests: Joezer, who filled the office twice;⁴⁶ Eleazar;⁴⁷ Simon Kantheras;⁴⁸ his son Elioneus;⁴⁹ and Joshua ben Gamaliel, whose wife, Martha, belonged to that house.⁵⁰

The close political association between the Samaritans and the Boethusians with the family of Herod the Great was strong.

Nevertheless, it is not difficult to conclude that, after the Herodians lost power, some of the Samaritans, despite their dislike of the Jerusalem priesthood and the Temple at Jerusalem, fell under the same kind of Pharisaical pressures that affected the Boethusians and other Sadducees.

Over the years some of the Samaritans would have found it necessary to make the same kind of compromise that the Boethusians of the first century C.E. had made in their celebration of the Passover.

Different Samaritan Sects
There is no evidence of a continuous tradition among the Samaritans. To the contrary, the Samaritans have undergone many vicissitudes since they were founded.⁵¹

The great divergence in Samaritan attitudes began shortly after a period of intellectual stagnation, which occurred “from the time of Hadrian and a little later, when most of the ancient literature of the Samaritans had been irretrievably destroyed.”⁵²

Between the early second and fourth centuries C.E. a number of Samaritan sects emerged, namely, the Dositheans, Gorothenians, Masbothaeans (Sebuaeans), and by the fourth century a faction that was identified with the Essenes.⁵³

Their willingness to compromise is also demonstrated by the fact that Pharisee-like eschatological tenets and the dogma of the resurrection (previously denied by the Sadducees and Samaritans) already appeared in full bloom by that time.⁵⁴

The early Dositheans, for example, reflected the changing positions of some of the Samaritans, for some of them “believed in the resurrection of the dead, which belief is foreign to the Samaritans.”⁵⁵

As James Montgomery poignantly comments:

For from all we know of Samaritanism there can be no doubt that it remained under the steady influence of Judaism, and that this spiritual patronage was so strong and so necessary that even after the complete excommunication of the schismatics in the IIId and IVth Christian centuries Rabbinism still infiltrated into Samaria.⁵⁶

The Essene faction is vital to understanding the development of the neo-Samaritans. As discussed earlier, the Jewish Essenes were a Hasidic-based group.⁵⁷ Indeed, Hippolytus even classified the Pharisees as an Essene sect.⁵⁸

That the Essenes would have established themselves among the Samaritans proves that by the fourth century C.E. serious inroads had been made by the Hasidic schools into the Samaritan groups. With regard to the festivals, the Essene Samaritans “celebrated their feast indifferently with whomsoever they chance to be.”⁵⁹

In this willingness, one can already see the roots for a compromise between the Aristocratic and Hasidic forms of the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread. At about this time, due to Jewish suppression, the Samaritans seem to vanish.

Moses Gaster writes:

The persecution of the Samaritans was so effective that for close upon a thousand years their very existence was entirely forgotten, and they lived only in the memory of the ancient writers.⁶⁰

We do know that many Samaritans spread to other regions, which served as a source for the acquisition of different ideas.

For example, there was a large Samaritan population living in Egypt by the 12th century C.E.⁶¹ At the same time, the destruction of ancient Samaritan literature makes it difficult to trace the history of these changes, the oldest known Samaritan writings belonging only to the 10th or 11th century C.E.⁶²

Yet, there is good evidence of differing opinions among the Samaritans even over the last centuries.⁶³ It is very probable that various factions continued to celebrate Passover quite differently over the centuries.

Neither should we doubt that there were contacts between the Samaritans and the Karaites. James Montgomery’s research into Samaritan theology, for example, admits to this influence.⁶⁴

It was from this mix of ideas that, in the final stages of the existence of the Samaritan religion, at a time when their numbers had dwindled so drastically, that the neo-Aristocratic view emerged as dominant.

The Neo-Samaritan Passover
With regard to the celebration of the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread, we are not made aware, with any detail or clear delineation, of the modern or neo-Samaritan view until the end of the 19th century C.E., with the work on Samaritan beliefs and practices composed by the high priest Jacob ben Aaron, titled The Guide.⁶⁵

Parroting the Pharisees of the first century C.E., the neo-Samaritans celebrate eight days of Unleavened Bread.⁶⁶ They remove the leavening at the very end of the 13th and keep the festival from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 21st of Nisan/Abib.⁶⁷

To this very day, the 14th of the moon is considered by the neo-Samaritans a day of preparation. Using as their authority Exodus, 23:18, “You shall not sacrifice over leaven the blood of my sacrifice,” the neo-Samaritans neither eat “leavened or unleavened” on the 14th nor keep “anything fermenting into yeast.”⁶⁸

The neo-Samaritans, like the Karaites, have put a strange twist on the understanding of Passover and the concept of “between the arabim.” They bridge the gap between the Aristocratic and Hasidic views by calculating byn ha-arabim as the time between sunset and dark. Then they calculate byn ha-arabim as occurring at the end of the day.

Therefore, for the neo-Samaritans, as with the Karaites, the common day ends at the arrival of dark (i.e., the appearance of the first three stars in late twilight).⁶⁹

Also, like the Karaites and Pharisees, they make the legal day end with sunset (arab), but the expression “between the arabim,” for religious purposes, means the end of the common day. Sunset is the first arab and the setting of twilight the second arab.

The neo-Samaritans sacrifice their Passover lamb after sunset, which they believe is the last part of the 14th, holding that they are following the prescription of Exodus, 12.⁷⁰

For the neo-Samaritans, “Real twilight is the space of two minutes after the actual going-down of the sun. This is the moment when the Paschal Sacrifice is slaughtered.”⁷¹ Passover, therefore, is eaten at the beginning of the 15th, just as it was with the Pharisees and their confederates.

Accordingly, although the neo-Samaritans have developed a different understanding of the phrase “between the arabim,” in that it actually ends rather than begins a day, it is certain that their view of the expression “between the arabim,” to mean the period between sunset and dark, was a very ancient one—derived from the same priestly source as that practiced by the Sadducees.

For this reason, the neo-Samaritans continue to cling to that understanding, if for no other reason than that it serves as a mark of distinction and national pride.

At the same time, for an assortment of reasons, the ranks of the Samaritans have greatly dwindled over the centuries. In 1970, for example, there were only 430 Samaritans counted as still living in Palestine.⁷²

As a result, there are very few Samaritans remaining who continue to practice the neo-Samaritan Passover system.

Summary for the Neo-Aristocratic Practice
The ancient Aristocratic priests and their spiritual brothers and descendants the Sadducees, ancient Samaritans, and Boethusians retained the ancient view of byn ha-arabim. In their understanding, byn ha-arabim meant the period between sunset and dark.

The earlier Aristocratic groups, including the Sadducees and ancient Samaritans, kept only a seven-day festival, lasting from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th.

Later groups, such as the Karaites and the neo-Samaritans, modified their Passover observance so that they could retain their more ancient definition of byn ha-arabim as between sunset and dark.

Yet, they conformed with the Pharisaic interpretation of the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread, beginning it with the 15th and continuing it until the end of the 21st.

In doing so they created a third interpretation of the festival observance (System C).

That’s it for now amigos. Looks like we’ve covered the details regarding the neo-Aristocratic practice regarding Passover and Unleavened Bread.

With our next two posts we will take a slight diversion and address the different approaches for the count of Pentecost.

After the conclusion of these discussions we will then continue our  journey on the “Trail of Truth” as we proceed to uncover Yahweh’s true practice of the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 HJP, 2, pp. 402, 414; EJ, 14, p. 622; EBD, p. 902; NBD, p. 1124; CBTEL, 9, p. 241; DB, p. 579.
2 In the Mishnah and Baraita the terms are freely interchanged (GDJ, 3, pp. 694f). In the dispute between the Pharisees and the Boethusians over where the high priest was to prepare the incense for the Day of Atonement, the Tosef. Yom., 1:8, and J. Yom., 1:39a, call them Boethusians, while the parallel account in the B. Yom., 19b, calls them Sadducees. Also see JE, 3, p. 285; EJ, 4, p. 1169; PSSP, pp. 227f.
3 CBTEL, 9, pp. 239f; JE, 3, p. 285, 4, p. 1169, “legendary”; HJP, 2, p. 406, “historically unreliable.”
4 Ab. R.N., 5; Ab., 1:3.
5 CBTEL, 9, p. 240.
6 Jos., Antiq., 15:9:3. The Boethusian name was not necessarily from Simon Boethus himself, as concluded in CBTEL, 9, pp. 240f. Boethus seems merely a surname carried by numerous members of that family, i.e., the “House of Boethus” (see below n. 7). Also see HJP, 1, pp. 320f, 2, p. 406; EJ, 4, p. 1169; ADB, 4, p. 350; PSSP, p. 227, n. 67.
7 B. Pes., 57a; cf., Tosef. Men., 13:21. See EJ, 4, p. 1169.
8 Cf., Matt., 16:6, “Sadducees” with Mark, 8:15, “Herodi”; yet Mark, 12:13, “Herodians” are listed as separate from those “Sadducees . . . who say there is no resurrection,” v. 18. It is possible that the parallel verses may only demonstrate that the party of Herod was somehow connected with the Sadducees politically and may not mean that they were Sadducean in their religious beliefs; but see EJ, 4, p. 1169; CBTEL, 9, pp. 240f.
9 JE, 10, p. 633; PSSP, p. 226; LS, pp. 97–99.
10 B. Shab., 108b; Sof., 1:2.
11 JE, 10, p. 632.
12 CBTEL, 5, p. 17. קראים (Qaraim) is the plural form of the Hebrew קרא (qara), meaning “called . . . call together, assemble,” with the idea of having a convocation for reading Scriptures (HEL, p. 234; SEC, Heb. #7121,7122, 7123, 7124 cf., #4744). They saw themselves as those who relied upon Scriptures rather than upon the oral laws of the Talmudists. The principle was established by Anan, as transmitted by Japheth ben Ali, that one was to, “Search thoroughly in the Torah and do not rely on my opinion.” This statement was meant to uphold the doctrine that the Scriptures were the sole source of law. Its reality was to create a great variety of opinions among the Karaite factions (EJ, 10, pp. 765, 777).
13 JE, 7, p. 438; EJ, 10, p. 764.
14 CBTEL, 5, p. 17.
15 JE, 7, p. 441.
16 KAEEL, p. xvi.
17 EJ, 10, p. 764.
18 EJ, 10, p. 765.
19 For example, the Karaites, unlike the Sadducees but in accord with the Pharisees, believed in the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgment as well as in rewards in the afterlife (EJ, 10, p. 778; CBTEL, 5, p. 18).
20 Al-Kirkisani, 1:7.
21 THP, p. 255, n. 1.
22 THP, p. 255.
23 JE, 7, p. 438.
24 Al-Magribi, 2:1; KAEEL, p. 199.
25 Al-Magribi, 2:3; KAEEL, pp. 199f.
26 THP, p. 131, and n. 3, p. 199, and n. 6; EJ, 5, p. 1374; ADB, 4, p. 766. For the scriptural evidence that the legal day ends and begins with sunset—the moment when the entire sun disappears below the horizon (EJ, 5, p. 1376)—see 12. Passover – Hasidic Practice I, n. 21.
27 B. Ber., 2a–b; Maimonides, Code, 3, 1:5:4; JE, 3, p. 501.
28 Pliny, 2:79.
29 GEL, 1968, pp. 373f.
30 CS, 1, pp. 286, 287.
31 CS, 1, p. 557, at Exod., 18:13, and 1 Macc., 10:80.
32 This debate is discussed at some length in the B. Shab., 34a-35a. Here the twilight after sunset, called arab and byn ha-arabim by those of the Aristocratic school, was by the Talmudic writers referred to as בין השמשות (byn ha-shamasuth; between the suns). They argued whether it should be counted as the last part of day (i.e., the common day) or the first part of night. They determined that any conclusion was in doubt. Admitting that the legal day ended at sunset, at which time a person, if he followed the purity laws, was rendered clean, the rabbis judged other issues leniently. For example, one was allowed to store away food בין השמשות (byn ha-shamasuth; between the suns) but is forbidden to do so after dark on the Sabbath day. Cf., Maimonides, Code, 3, 1:5:4.
33 Jos., Antiq., 13:10:2f.
34 SJC, chap. xxv; cf., Jos., Antiq., 13:9:1.
35 Jos., Wars, 1:5:1-4, Antiq., 13:15:5-13:16:6.
36 Jos., Antiq., 14:11:4, 14:15:3.
37 For the date of Herod the Great’s conquest of Jerusalem see SJC, chaps. xvi–xx.
38 Jos., Antiq., 14:15:4.
39 Jos., Antiq., 17:1:3, Wars, 1:28:4.
40 Jos., Antiq., 17:10:1.
41 Jos., Antiq., 14:12:1, 14:15:14, Wars, 1:12:3, 1:17:8.
42 Jos., Antiq., 15:7:3; NBD, p. 1132.
43 Jos., Antiq., 17:11:4.
44 Jos., Antiq., 15:9:3, 18:5:4, 19:6:2.
45 Jos., Antiq., 18:5:1.
46 Jos., Antiq., 18:1:1.
47 Jos., Antiq., 17:13:1.
48 Jos., Antiq., 19:6:2.
49 Jos., Antiq., 19:8:1.
50 Yeb., 6:4.
51 THP, pp. 251f.
52 SHDL, p. 3.
53 Eusebius, H.E., 4:22; Epiphanius, Pan., 1:10; Theodoret, Fab., 1:1; John Dam., in EGM, 1:282; Nicetas, 1:35; SEJS, pp. 252–265.
54 SEJS, pp. 239–251.
55 John Dam., 13.
56 SEJS, pp. 72f.
57 HJP, 2, pp. 413, 586f; SCO, p. 22; MDB, p. 263; EBD, pp. 351, 465; NBD, p. 505.
58 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:23.
59 John Dam., 12.
60 SHDL, p. 2.
61 Gaster, Asatir, p. 170.
62 Gaster, Asatir, pp. 134f.
63 Gaster, Asatir, p. 259.
64 SEJS, p. 204.
65 Quoted in PHT, pp. 78–83.
66 Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1.
67 SEJS, p. 40.
68 PHT, pp. 77–78.
69 See above n. 27.
70 PHT, p. 81.
71 Ibid.
72 EJ, 14, p. 738.

To support this detail, we retain one piece of evidence from an ancient Samaritan writer, Ezekielos the Tragedian, in his work titled ἐζαγωγή (Exagoge; Deliverance).¹

This work was composed sometime between the first part of the second century until about 90 B.C.E.,² i.e., as early as the outbreak of the Hasmonaean Revolt or as late as the first decade of the next century.

Clement of Alexandria calls Ezekielos “the poet of Jewish tragedies.”³ Important fragments of the Exagoge have survived in the works of Eusebius.⁴

Internal evidence from this tragic drama reveals that the author belonged to the ancient Samaritan sect, which used the Aristocratic method.⁵

These Samaritans (called “Kuthim” by the Judaeans) were a mixture of foreign peoples, largely from the Babylonian, Median, and Persian regions, who had been forcibly settled in the country of Samaria, north of Judah, after the northern Israelites were deported out of their homeland by the powerful Assyrian empire in the late eighth until the mid-seventh century B.C.E.⁶

Finding it difficult in their new home, and believing that their problems stemmed from their failure to worship the deity of the land, the Samaritans sent for a Levitical priest who converted them to the religion of Yahweh.⁷

Though they were not actually descendants of the Israelite people, these foreigners made claim to being descendants of the Israelites when the circumstances suited them—a point of great irritation to and a source of condemnation by the first century Judahites of Judaea.⁸

Later, in the year that Alexander the Great invaded Samaria and Judaea (332 B.C.E.), Manasseh—a Levitical high priest of the Zadok (Tsadoq) line of Aaron, and brother of Jaddua,⁹ the high priest of Yahweh at Jerusalem—married Nikaso, the daughter of Sanaballetes, king of the Samaritans.¹⁰

As the result of this marriage, Manasseh was made high priest of a new Temple of Yahweh built for the Samaritan people on Mount Gerizim, situated in Samaritan territory.¹¹ Manasseh would have brought with him the Aristocratic view of Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Our first proof of the relationship between the conservative Zadok priests and the Samaritans is found in the works of Hippolytus (early third century C.E.), who writes that a sect of the Sadducees “had its stronghold especially in the region around Samaria.”¹² Epiphanius and John of Damascus likewise identify the Samaritans with the Sadducees.¹³

Next, these Samaritans followed only the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, discounting even the Old Testament books of the Prophets, and like the Sadducees they dismissed any need to observe the oral laws of the Pharisees.¹⁴

The Samaritans, from the latter part of the second century B.C.E., differed from the Sadducees in that they argued that the high priest and the priesthood at Jerusalem, as well as the Temple built there, were not legitimate.¹⁵

The high priests of Jerusalem had been dominated for years by the Hasmonaeans and others who were appointed by the Herods or controlled by the Pharisees.

On the other hand, the priesthood established among the Samaritans claimed Zadok heritage through Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua. Also in their eyes, the holy mountain was not Mount Zion but Mount Gerizim.¹⁶

The Sadducees and early Samaritans were politically opposed to one another. Therefore, the many points of agreement they shared in reference to the issues about Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread along with the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost) must all have come from a previous long-standing practice prior to their schism.

Since the schism between the two parties was among the ruling priests and occurred in the later half of the fourth century B.C.E., this information indicates that the Aristocratic practice for these festivals was both dominant and very early.

Ancient Samaritan Understanding
With the fact that the high priests of the Samaritans were derived from the conservative Zadokites and were so similar to the Sadducees that they were called by that name, we can now examine the ancient Samaritan beliefs about Passover as revealed in the record from Ezekielos.

In Ezekielos’ drama of the Exodus, Yahweh tells Moses:

And you shall say to all the people, The full moon of the moon of which I speak, having sacrificed the Passover to the deity τῇ πρόσθε νυκτὶ (te prosthe nukti; before night), touch the doors with blood, which sign the fearsome angel will pass by. But you shall eat the roasted flesh by night.¹⁷

The Greek phrase τῇ πρόσθε νυκτὶ (te prosthe nukti) refers to the time in front of and immediately preceding the dark of night,¹⁸ i.e., the period of twilight after sunset. To this passage we add another that makes reference to the separation of the Passover lamb on the tenth of the moon. Ezekielos writes:

And when the 10th day of this moon is come, let Hebrew men by families thus select unblemished sheep and calves, and keep them until the 14th ἐπλάμψει (epilampsei; has fully come in) and sacrifice it προς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan; at twilight).¹⁹

The Passover victim was kept until the 14th day ἐπλάμψει (epilampsei; has fully come in).²⁰ R. G. Robertson translates ἐπλάμψει (epilampsei) to mean “has dawned,” i.e., the 14th day had just begun.²¹

It has been known for some time now that the Hebrew-Aramaic word אור (aur; to illuminate)²² is a technical term used for the twilight after sunset (a type of dawning light of a new day) which comes before the dawn of daylight (since in Hebrew and Samaritan time-reckoning the night precedes daylight).²³

This usage is well-attested in the Mishnah,²⁴ and, as Jehoshua M. Grintz so poignantly notes, “in the Gemara there is a discussion about the exact meaning and origin of this strange usage: ‘light’ is an euphemistic surrogate for ‘night.’”²⁵

This same Hebrew phrasing is found behind the Greek of Matthew, 28:1.²⁶ Ezekielos was a Samaritan, and the Samaritans spoke a form of Hebrew-Aramaic. His Greek tragedy about the Exodus merely reflects this old Hebrew-Aramaic thought and usage.

In effect, from his perspective, the twilight (dawn) coming after sunset begins a 24-hour day, just as much as the twilight (dawn) before sunrise begins the daylight portion of a common day.

It is within this context that the Greek expression προς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan; at twilight),²⁷ being the time of the sacrifice, must be understood.

When these thoughts are all placed together, it shows that the sacrifice was made προς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan; at twilight), just when the 14th ἐπλάμψει (epilampsei; had dawned, had fully come in), yet τῇ πρόσθε νυκτὶ; (te prosthe nukti; before night).

Therefore, the Passover was sacrificed at twilight, just before nightfall, on the 14th day of the first moon; it was then eaten on that same night, on the 14th day of the moon.

Finally, Ezekielos states, “You shall keep this festival to the master (Yahweh) seven days unleavened. Leaven will not be eaten.”²⁸

For the early Samaritans, these seven days of Passover were counted “from the morn in which you fled from Egypt, and did journey seven days, from that same morn.”²⁹ This passage is only correctly understood from the ancient Aristocratic viewpoint.

It is more fully expressed in the Samaritan Commentary to the Asatir, which notes, “The sacrifice of the Passover was from arab until the break of the first dawn. And the festival is from the break of the first dawn to the setting of the sun.”³⁰

This statement reveals that, for those of the Aristocratic school, like the ancient Samaritans, byn ha-arabim—being the time when the lamb was sacrificed—and the nighttime period when the lamb was consumed were both part of the first half of the 14th day.

The remains of the lamb were burnt in the morning, thereby ending that part of the festival. Meanwhile, sunset ended the second half of the day.

The seven days are thereby divided so that the first day of Unleavened Bread consists of the sacrifice and Passover supper, lasting from the period immediately following sunset (= arab) until the dawn of the first day.

The Khag of Unleavened Bread follows in the second half of the first day, from the dawn until sunset of the 14th, and then continues six more days.

It was a technical way for the early Samaritans to explain the superimposition of the one-day Khag of Passover atop the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread at the time of the Exodus.

The day of the Passover, accordingly, was the same day as first of the seven days of Unleavened Bread.

Except for Ezekielos the Tragedian and the later Commentary to the Asatir, we know little more of how the ancient Samaritans kept the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Nevertheless, we cannot fail to realize that the neo-Samaritans, who are a much more recent sect, would not have held on to their Aristocratic interpretation of byn ha-arabim (= twilight after sunset), neither would they have resisted the pressure from the more powerful Pharisees to adopt the Hasidic view, unless the Aristocratic approach was indeed their own original understanding.

The records show that the Samaritans were first taught by the early Levitical priests and, in the days of Alexander the Great, established Manasseh (the brother of Jaddua, the conservative Zadok high priest of Jerusalem) as the founder of their own high priest line.

As a result, ancient Samaritan ideas about the Passover and the seven days of Unleavened Bread paralleled the conservative Aristocratic understanding.

The evidence also proves that the Aristocratic system was in practice long before the founding of the Hasidic school.

Therefore, the ancient Zadokite priests and their spiritual brothers and descendants the Sadducees, ancient Samaritans, and Boethusian Sadducees retained a more ancient view of byn ha-arabim.

In their understanding byn ha-arabim meant the period between sunset and dark.

In turn, the earlier Aristocratic groups, including the Sadducees and ancient Samaritans, kept only a seven-day festival, lasting from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th.

This point shall be demonstrated even further in our forthcoming post dealing with the Quartodeciman Christians, who followed the Aristocratic system.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 Fragments are quoted by Eusebius, P.E., 9:28f; Clement, Strom., 1:23:155f; and Ps.-Eustathius (PG, 18, p. 729).

2 OTP, 2, p. 804, “perhaps the first part of the second century B.C.”; AOASH, 2, p. 148, suggests that Ezekielos flourished about 90 B.C.E.

3 Clement, Strom., 1:23.

4 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28.

5 This evidence comes from two details. First, Ezekielos shows a clear bias toward the Aristocratic view that byn ha-arabim begins the day and that the entire Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread lasts only seven days, beginning with the 14th. Second, Ezekielos regards the ordinances from the time of the Exodus out of Egypt—that is, the selection of the Passover victim on the 10th day, the smearing of the blood of the Passover victim, and the special wardrobe worn—as binding on later generations. Only the Samaritans are known to have continued these customs (see REJ, 46, pp. 174ff; THP, pp. 24f). The fact that Ezekielos is a Samaritan yet is called a Jew is easily explained. The Samaritans were considered a Jewish sect by ancient writers (Eusebius, H.E., 4:22:7; Socrates Schol., 5:22), and the Samaritans (Kuthim) often made the claim that they were descendants of the ancient Israelites who had originally settled in the districts of Samaria (see below n. 8). Also see SHDL, pp. 143f.

6 2 Kings, 17:24; Ezra, 4:8-10; Jos., Antiq., 9:14:1, 3, 11:4:3, cf., 11:7:2.

7 2 Kings, 17:24-34; Jos., Antiq., 9:14:3.

8 E.g., Jos., Antiq., 9:14:3, 10:9:7, 11:2:1, 11:4:3f, 9, 11:7:2, 11:8:6, 12:5:5; John, 4:9; Luke, 9:51-56; Shebi., 8:10, “one who eats the bread of the Kuthim is as if he eats swine’s flesh.”

9 Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2-11:8:4, cf., 20:10:1f.

10 Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2, 11:8:2-4.

11 Jos., Antiq., 11:7:2, 11:8:2-4, 13:9:1.

12 Hippolytus, Ref. Her., 9:24.

13 Epiphanius, Pan., 1:14; John Dam., 16.

14 SEJS, pp. 225f; BJK, p. 387; DB, p. 584; EBD, p. 907; cf., Jos., Antiq., 13:8:6, 18:1:4. John Dam., 14, states that the Samaritans “reject the post-Mosaic prophecies.” The statements asserted by Epiphanius (Pan., 14), Origen (Celsus, 1:49), and Jerome (Com. Matt., 3, on 22:31-33), that the Sadducees rejected the prophets and Hagiographa, and relied upon the Pentateuch, refer only to the Samaritans and not to the Judahite Sadducees (cf., CBTEL, 9, pp. 235f).

15 SHDL, p. 65.

16 SHDL, pp. 7, 55–57; SEJS, pp. 234–239; SAJ, pp. 142–144.

17 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:16 (lines 156–160).

18 For the Greek term πρόσθε (prosthe) see GEL, 1968, p. 1513, “of Time, before”; and for νυκτὶ (nukti), a form of νύζ (nuks), see GEL, 1968, p. 1185, “night.”

19 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:19 (lines 175–179).

20 The Greek term ἐπλάμψει (epilampsei) means to “shine after or thereupon” and in the case of ἡμέρης ἐπιλάμψάσης, “when day had fully come,” i.e., when a day had fully begun (GEL, 1968, p. 642).

21 OTP, 2, p. 816 (line 178). The Syrian Christian writer Aphraates (Dem., 12:12, cf., v. 6-8, 12-13) similarly follows this Aristocratic interpretation and places the correct observance of the Passover supper on the “dawn of the 14th,” equating it with the time of night that the messiah kept his Last Supper with his disciples.

22 SEC, Heb. #215.

23 JBL, 79, pp. 37–39.

24 E.g., Pes., 1:1, 1:3.

25 JBL, 79, pp. 38.

26 JBL, 79, pp. 37–39. In the case of Matt., 28:1, the Greek term ἐπιφωσκούσῃ (epiphoskouse) was used, meaning “to begin to grow light:—begin to dawn” (SEC, Gk. #2020).

27 The term πρὸς (pros), when used with ἑσπέραν (hesperan), means “at” or “on the side of” the time of hesperan (GEL, 1968, pp. 697, 1496f). More exactly, this phrase refers to the very beginning time or just upon the time of hesperan (= arab). The Greek phrase πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan) is used in the LXX as the equivalent of the Hebrew לעת ערב (la-ath arab; at the time of arab), cf., LXX at Gen., 8:11; 2 Sam. (MT 2 Kings), 11:2; Isa., 17:14; and the Hebrew בין הערבים (byn ha-arabim), cf., LXX at Exod., 12:6, 16:12; Num., 9:3, 11, 28:4, 8. This detail seems to indicate that the original thought in this passage was the time byn ha-arabim. The Samaritans considered the time of byn ha-arabim to be two minutes past sunset (PHT, p. 81.), therefore just at the beginning of twilight.

28 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:19 (lines 188f). Line 189 literally states, “Seven days (of eating) unleavened (bread), and you will not eat leavened (bread).” An alternate form of punctuation links the first part of this line with the preceding line, resulting in the translation, “You will keep this festival to the master, seven days unleavened. Leaven will not be eaten” (OTP, 2, p. 816, n. b3).

29 Eusebius, P.E., 9:28:17 (∞. 168f).

30 Com. Asatir, 8:32.

Moreover, the Aristocratic practice was utilized by Yahushua the messiah, his apostles, and the early assemblies that followed him.¹

Very few writings which discuss just how to observe Passover have come down to us directly from any acknowl­edged Sadducean, Boethusian, or ancient Samaritan source. So, for an acquaintance with their opinions, we are mainly dependent upon their antagonists.²

These antagonists, and records which are derived from the later variations of this view (as demonstrated by the neo-Samaritans and Karaites),³ show that, contrary to the Hasidic views, the Aristocratic approach understood that the first ערב (arab; intermixing of light and dark) occurred at sunset and the second at deep twilight (the setting of darkness).

Aristocratic Interpretation
The Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon explains the Aristocratic interpretation:

Dual. עַרְבַּיִם the two evenings; only in the phrase בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, between the two evenings, Ex. 16:12; 30:8; used as marking the space of time during which the paschal lamb was slain, Ex. 12:6; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3; and the evening sacrifice was offered, Ex. 29:39, 41; Num. 28:4; i.e. according to the opinion of the Karaites and Samaritans (which is favoured by the words of Deut. 16:6), the time between sunset and deep twilight.⁴

James Hastings notes:

The time of the Passover sacrifice is defined in the Law as ‘between the two evenings’ (בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, Ex 12⁶, Lv 23⁵, Nu 9^{3. 5. 11}). This was interpreted by the Pharisees and Talmudists to mean from the hour of the sun’s decline until its setting; and this was the later temple practice (cf. Pesach. v. 1; Jubilees, 49; Jos., BJ vi. ix. 3). The Samaritans, Karaites, and Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the period between sunset and dark was intended.⁵

The Targum Onqelos renders the term בין חערבים (byn ha-arabim) into its Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch as בין שמשיא (byn shamashia; between suns).⁶

The Talmud explains בין שמשיא (byn shamashia) to mean the time between sunset and the stars becoming visible,⁷ i.e., the twilight after sunset.

In support of this view, the noted Jewish scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164 C.E.), made an attempt to independently establish the literal meaning of the Hebrew text.⁸ His examination of the term byn ha-arabim resulted in his agreement with the view held by the Aristocratic school. He states:

Behold, we have two arab periods, the first is when the sun sets, and that is at the time when it disappears beneath the horizon; while the second is at the time when the light disappears which is reflected in the clouds, and there is between them an interval of about one hour and twenty minutes.⁹

Though records are sparse and direct evidence limited, there is no doubt that those of the original Aristocratic school began their day at sunset.¹⁰

The Mishnah, for example, reports that the Sadducees render a thing clean with “the setting of the sun.”¹¹

Since their point of view held that the period of byn ha-arabim was between sunset and dark, we have our first indication that the Sadducees and others of the Aristocratic school originally preferred to sacrifice their Passover victim at the beginning of the day, just after sunset, during the twilight of the 14th of Nisan.

The Aristocratic view is also demonstrable in the instruction of Exodus, 12:6-8, which ordered the Israelites to eat the lamb “this night,” immediately after its sacrifice.

Since byn ha-arabim was followed by night, the early Sadducees, Samaritans, and others of like mind held to the view that one should eat their Passover supper on the night of the 14th rather than on the night of 15th, as the Hasidic Pharisees and others were accustomed.

Indeed, there is some indication of this practice in ancient records during the early life of the messiah.¹²

But after 7 C.E. the Pharisees gained religious dominance and the ruling Sadducees were forced by their adversaries to hold Passover supper on the night of the 15th.¹³

How long other Jewish groups who practiced the Aristocratic method held out in their belief is unknown.

Yet, it is certain that nearly all of the Jews living in Judaea, with the exception of the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah,¹⁴ fell beneath the iron hand of the Pharisees prior to the end of the first century C.E., which certainly would have influenced their subsequent decisions.

Shortly after the fall of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and because of their conservative religious nature and close ties to the Temple, the power of the Sadducees died out.¹⁵

The Boethusian branch of the Sadducees did continue as a recognized group for a number of years longer but they too passed into history.¹⁶

The neo-Samaritans and Karaites, who observed a modified form of the Aristocratic view (System C), have remained to our present time but, for all intents and purposes, they too have ceased as a religious force.

Originally, the assemblies following Yahushua the messiah also observed the Aristocratic system.

Yet as time passed they suffered through a period of radical change with regard to the Passover festival, a transformation which began in the first half of the second century C.E. We shall discuss this transformation in our subsequent posts.

Issues for the Aristocratic View
Those adhering to the original Aristocratic reckoning for Passover (System A) saw the issues quite differently from the Hasidim (System B).

For them the expression byn ha-arabim, the time of day on the 14th when the Passover lamb was sacrificed, was the twilight after sunset and was the first part of the day. The Passover supper was eaten during the night of the 14th.¹⁷

Further, they followed the statements in Exodus, 12:18-19 and Ezekiel, 45:21, indicating that the 14th of Abib (Nisan) was the first day of the seven days of eating unleavened bread.

The expression, “In the first (moon) on the 14th day of the moon within arab you shall eat unleavened bread until the 21st day of the moon within arab,”¹⁸ was understood as inclusive of the 14th day and exclusive of the 21st day.

Accordingly, the seven days lasted only “until” arab (twilight)—i.e., to the beginning of the 21st day.

For the Hasidic interpretation the statements found in Leviticus, 23:5-8 and Numbers, 28:16-25, where the 14th was the Passover and the 15th was called a Khag of Unleavened Bread for Yahweh, are pivotal points for their case.

For those holding to the original Aristocratic view, the adherents to the Hasidic system were suffering from a case of overinterpretation. They saw the solution as follows:

• To begin with, for the advocates of the original Aristocratic system, per scriptural command,¹⁹ there are only seven days of Unleavened Bread—not seven and one-fourth days (eight days) as produced in the Hasidic system. Since the 14th was a day of Unleavened Bread,²⁰ they counted these seven days from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th day (beginning of the 21st day) of the first moon.

• Second, when the festival is referred to in Scriptures as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, without reference to the Passover, it has seven days.²¹ And, when the festival is referred to only as the Festival of Passover, with no reference to it as the Khag of Unleavened Bread, it still has only seven days.²² Therefore, Passover and Unleavened Bread are two names for one-and-the-same seven-day festival period.

• Third, the entire seven-day festival was originally named the Khag of Unleavened Bread.²³ Therefore, each day is a khag, not just the first day. At the time of the Exodus, the first day of the seven-day Khag of Unleavened Bread, which is a sabbathon, was renamed the Khag of Passover. That left six more khag-days from the original description. These remaining six days formed the Khag of Unleavened Bread and began on the 15th of Abib. This construct is explained by the six days of eating unleavened bread found in Deuteronomy, 16:8. For those holding to the original Aristocratic view, that is all that Leviticus, 23:5-8 and Numbers, 28:16-25, are saying.

What then of the issue of Leviticus, 23:32, with reference to the Day of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh moon?

As we have shown, the advocates of the Hasidic view argue that the phrase בתשעה לחדש בערב (be-teshuah la-khodesh be-arab) means “in the ninth (day) of the moon at arab,” and that this proves that there is a period of arab at the end of the ninth day.

Those adhering to the Aristocratic view, meanwhile, see this translation as an error, concocted by the Hasidim in an effort to create support for their interpretation.

In the eyes of those advocating the Aristocratic system, this verse does not even mention the ninth.

Rather, this passage actually reads that the Israelites should humble themselves “בתשעה (be-teshuah; with deliverance) לחדש (la-khadash; for renewing) at arab.”²⁴

That is, one is delivered from his sins when he renews himself by making atonement, symbolized by fasting. This fasting starts at arab, at the beginning of the 10th day.

Early Aristocratic View
At present we have very few extra-biblical sources demonstrating exactly how the Festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread was observed prior to the outbreak of the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) Revolt (late 167 B.C.E.).

Two Aramaic ostraca dated to the early fifth century B.C.E., though quite probably written later,²⁵ do mention the Passover but give no definition.²⁶

One heavily damaged papyrus from Elephantine, Egypt, dated to the fifth year of Darius II of Persia (419 B.C.E.), does mention the days of unleavened bread.²⁷

The text also says something to the effect that “thus shall you count: fo[urteen . . . ,” and adds, evidently by continuing to count, “and from the 15th day until the 21st.”²⁸ It also explains that something occurs from some date (now lost in the text), extending “. . . f]rom the setting of the sun until the 21st day of Nisa[n . . . .”²⁹

Nevertheless, the text is so defective that we are unable to decipher its precise meaning. If “until the 21st” is by exclusive dating, it would refer to the Aristocratic system; yet if that phrase is inclusive, it would reflect the Hasidic method. There is simply no clear way of knowing.

Fortunately, we do have at least one solid reference to the practice of the Jewish priests in the pre-Hasmonaean period and it demonstrates the Aristocratic view (System A).

This one record comes from the works of Aristobulus of Paneas and is found in the Canons of Anatolius on the Passover.³⁰ Anatolius (c. 262–282 C.E.) was an Alexandrian Christian teacher who became bishop of Laodicea in Syria.³¹

A. Yarbro Collins writes of Anatolius, “In his work On the Passover, he apparently defended the position of the Quartodecimans,” i.e., the early Aristocratic understanding which held that the seven days of Unleavened Bread were to be celebrated from the beginning of the 14th day until the end of the 20th of the moon of Abib/Nisan and that the Passover supper should take place on the night of the 14th.³²

As part of his treatise on the Passover, Anatolius defers to the authority of “the excellent Aristobulus from Paneas,”³³ a city better known as Caesarea Philippi, located about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee near the source of the Jordan river. It is today called Banias.³⁴

Anatolius notes that Aristobulus, also called Aristobulus the famous,³⁵ was one of the 70 Judahite priests (Levites) who translated the Pentateuch into the Greek LXX during the reign of Ptolemy II (Ptolemy Philadelphus) (283–246 B.C.E.).³⁶

While noting that the Festival of Unleavened Bread continued from the beginning of the 14th until the end of the 20th (as opposed to the Hasidic idea that it began with the 15th and ended at the end of the 21st),³⁷ Anatolius cites Aristobulus of Paneas as one of his chief proofs.

He adds that “the day of διαβατηίον (diabaterion; the crossing-festival, Passover) was assigned to the 14th of the moon μεθ’ ἑσπέραν (meth hesperan; within twilight = byn ha- arabim).”³⁸

As a result, Anatolius, who is using Aristobulus of Paneas to support the Quartodeciman reckoning, has revealed to us that during the mid-third century B.C.E., the priests sacrificed the Passover lamb “within” the time of hesperan, i.e., within the time of twilight following sunset,³⁹ at the beginning of the 14th day, being the first day of the seven-day festival.⁴⁰

Time to take a break amigos. We will continue our discussion of the Aristocratic practice with the viewpoint of the ancient Samaritans in our next post titled 15. Passover – Aristocratic Practice II.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 The system used by the early assemblies following Yahushua the messiah will be discussed in the forthcoming post dealing with the Quartodecimans.

2 CBTEL, 9, p. 235.

3 The neo-Aristocratic view will be addressed in a forthcoming post.

4 GHCL, p. 652, s.v. br[.

5 ADB, 3, p. 691.

6 Targ. Onq., Exod., 12:6, 16:12, 29:39, 30:8; Lev., 23:5; Num., 9:3, 5, 11, 28:4, 8.

7 E.g., B. Shab., 34a–b; cf., B. Ber., 2a–b. Also see S. R. Driver’s comments (BE, p. 89).

8 EJ, 8, p. 1166.

9 Abraham, Com. Exod., 12:6.

10 Par., 3:3, 7; B. Hag., 23a; B. Par., 34b, 36b; B. Yom., 1:19b.

11 Par., 3:7; cf. B. Yom., 1:1a.

12 The Sadducees controlled the celebration of Passover until Archelaus was removed as king of Judaea in 6 C.E. and an aristocratic government of priests was set up in mid-7 C.E. Yahushua was 12 years old in the spring of 7 C.E. and is said to have gone with his parents to Jerusalem at that time to celebrate Passover (Luke, 2:41-42). Since the messiah never sinned, and since he observed the Passover supper on Abib 14, it stands to reason that his parents, to whom he was subject, did likewise.

13 This point is especially true in light of Jos., Antiq., 18:1:3, that “all prayers (vows) and sacred rites of divine worship are performed according to their (the Pharisees’) exposition.”

14 The Aristocratic practice continued strong among many Christian groups until the third century C.E. It began to be heavily suppressed after the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. but lingered on in more remote regions until the seventh century C.E.

15 NBD, p. 1124; MDB, p. 785.

16 The Talmud mentions a Boethusian in a dispute with one of the pupils of Rabbi Akiba during the first half of the second century C.E. (Shab., 108a; Sof., 1:2).

17 Exod., 12:11-12.

18 Exod., 12:18.

19 Exod., 12:15-20, 13:6-7, 34:18; Lev., 23:5-8; Num., 28:16-18; Deut., 16:3.

20 Exod., 12:18; Ezek., 45:21; cf., Num., 9:11-12.

21 Exod., 23:14-15.

22 Ezek., 45:20-24.

23 The evidence shows that the Passover, as a commanded sacrifice, was not originally part of the seven-day festival. It was originally intended only as a one-time event in Egypt meant for the Exodus. To demonstrate, there were no commanded sacrifices after the Israelites left Egypt (Jer., 7:21-26). As a result, in the covenant at Mount Sinai, only the statute to keep “the Khag of Unleavened Bread” was affirmed, with no reference to any Passover sacrifice (Exod., 23:14-17). The Passover sacrifice was reintroduced only after the Israelites rebelled by building the golden calf at Mount Sinai. With this act of idolatry, the Israelites had broken their marriage covenant with Yahweh. To reinstate them into this covenant, Yahweh commanded that a Passover victim be sacrificed each year with the unleavened bread (Exod., 34:25).

24 In Hebrew, בתשעה (be-teshuah) means, ב (be) = “in, among, with” (HEL, p. 30), and תשעה (teshuah) = “rescue . . . deliverance, help, safety, salvation, victory” (SEC, Heb. #8668), “freedom, safety, salvation, deliverance” (HEL, p. 262). The word לחדש (la-khadash; for renewing) means, ל (la) = “to, towards . . . at, in . . . till, until . . . in order to, for the purpose of . . . for, belonging to, with respect to” (HEL, p. 131), and חדש (khadash) = “a prim. root; to be new; caus. to rebuild:—renew, repair . . . new:—fresh” (SEC, Heb. #2318-2319), “renew, restore” (HEL, p. 80).

25 Cf., comments in THP, p. 8, ns. 2, 8.

26 ESE, 2, pp. 1903–1907; RES, no. 1792; PSBA, 33, facing p. 184; THP, p. 8.

27 APOJ, tafel 6; THP, pp. 9f.

28 APOJ, tafel 6, lines 4–5.

29 APOJ, tafel 6, line 8.

30 The relevant quotation from the Canons of Anatolius on the Passover is found in Eusebius, H.E., 32:14–19.

31 Jerome, Lives, 58; Eusebius, H.E., 7:32; ANF, 6, p. 145; OTP, 2, p. 837, n. a.

32 OTP, 2, p. 837, n. a. Also see below n. 37.

33 The connection with Paneas is found in the Latin and Syriac text (OTP, 2, p. 837, n. c). This “Aristobulus the famous” (i.e., Aristobulus of Paneas) must not be confounded, as is often the case (as done in HJP, 3, pp. 579-586; JE, 2, p. 97f; EJ, 3, pp. 443f; and so forth), with the philosopher named “Aristobulus of Alexandria,” also called “Aristobulus the Peripatetic,” who flourished in the time of Ptolemy Philometor (181-145 B.C.E.) (Eusebius, P.E., 9:6). The fragments from both are found in Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:16-18, P.E., 8:9:38-8:10:17, 13:12:1f, 9-16, 13:13:3-8, 34; Clement, Strom., 1:148:1, 1:150:1-3, 5:99:3, 5:107:2, 6:32:3–33:1, 6:137-144. An English translation of these is provided in OTP, 2, pp. 837-842.

Of this second Aristobulus, Eusebius notes that he was a “wise man of the Hebrews, who flourished under the rule of the Ptolemies” (Eusebius, P.E., 7:13). He adds that this Aristobulus partook of Aristotle’s philosophy as well as that of his own country and he is the person mentioned at the beginning of 2 Maccabees” (Eusebius, P.E., 8:9). The book of 2 Maccabees refers to this Aristobulus as a teacher of King Ptolemy and “of the stock of the anointed priests” (2 Macc., 1:10). This passage adds that the leadership of Judaea sent a letter to this Aristobulus in the 188th Jewish Seleucid year (124 B.C.E.). In a work of this second Aristobulus (Aristob. Alex., frag. 3; Eusebius, P.E., 13:12:2), which he dedicates to a King Ptolemy, he comments that, “the entire translation of all the (books) of the Torah (was made) in the time of the king called Philadelphus, your progenitor.”

All problems disappear once it is realized that we are speaking of two different men named Aristobulus (a common name used by the Jews during the Seleucid period). Anatolius spoke only of the man who assisted in the translation of the Torah into Greek. As for the claim that the name Aristobulus does not appear in Aristeas’ list of the 72 translators (Aristeas, 47-51), any such objection fails on three counts. First, Jewish priests of this period often carried more than one name—e.g., Jonathan Johanan (379–348 B.C.E.); Joshua Jason (180-178 B.C.E.); Onias Menelaus (177-162 B.C.E.). Second, the list at question claims 72 names but only 71 remain (one name clearly being erased). The name missing is the sixth name of the fourth tribe (OTP, 2, p. 16, n. k). That someone begrudged Aristobulus of Paneas his place in this list might well serve as a reason to erase his name. Third, the fourth name of the tenth tribe is Baneas, which seems nothing less than Paneas, which easily could represent Aristobulus of Paneas. Any one of these reasons would explain why the name of Aristobulus does not presently appear.

34 Pliny, 7:16 §74; Eusebius, H.E., 7:17; Jos., Wars, 2:9:1, Antiq., 18:2:1. Also see DGRG, 2, p. 540; NBD, p. 175; DB, p. 100.

35 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:16, “Αριστοβούλου τοῦ πάνυ.”

36 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:16.

37 Anatolius went to great lengths to define what he meant by the “seven days of unleavened bread.” He explains that the 14th day was the first day of Unleavened Bread and the day in which the messiah ate the Passover. He then demonstrates that if one counts “from the end of the 13th day of the moon, which marks the beginning of the 14th, on to the end of the 20th, at which the 21st day also begins, and you will have only seven days of unleavened bread, in which, by the guidance of the sovereign, it has been determined before that the most true Festival of the Passover ought to be celebrated,” and that these seven days do not go “beyond the limit of the moon’s 20th day” (Anatolius, 8, 11).

38 Eusebius, H.E., 7:32:18.

39 For μεθ’ (meth), a form of μετά (meta), “within,” i.e., “in the midst of, among, between . . . of motion, into the middle of, coming into or among” (GEL, 1968, pp. 1108f). For ἑσπέραν (hesperan) see 13. Passover – Hasidic Practice II, n. 9.

40 The Aristocratic understanding of these seven days will be discussed in our forthcoming posts dealing with the seven days of the Quartodecimans and Quasi-Quartodecimans.

The Book of Jubilees
The Book of Jubilees, originally composed in Hebrew by the Hasidim in the late second century B.C.E.,¹ gives us the earliest representation of the Hasidic argument. To date, the most complete version of this text is found in the Ethiopian edition. It reports:

Remember the commandment which the sovereign commanded you concerning Passover, that you observe it in its time, on the 14th of the first moon, so that you might sacrifice it BEFORE IT BECOMES ARAB and so that you might eat it DURING THE NIGHT ON THE ARAB OF THE 15TH FROM THE TIME OF SUNSET. For on this night there was the beginning of the festival and there was the beginning of joy. You continued eating the Passover in Egypt and all of the powers of Mastema (Satan) were sent to kill all of the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the captive maidservant who was at the millstone and to the cattle.²

Let the children of Israel will be ones who come and observe Passover on its moad (appointed time), on the 14th of the first moon byn ha-arabim,³ from the third (part) of the day to the third (part) of the night, because two parts of the day are given for light and one third for arab.⁴ This is what the sovereign commanded you so that you might observe it in the time of arab.⁵

In this text the Hasidic understanding of byn ha-arabim is defined. For Passover, the first arab is the last one-third of the 14th day (i.e., from the eighth until the 12th hour of daylight).

The last arab of byn ha-arabim begins at sunset and consists of the first one-third of the night (including twilight as part of night), i.e., from the first until the fourth hour of night. The lamb is slaughtered within the arab ending the 14th day and is eaten during the arab at the beginning of the 15th day.

This evidence also demonstrates that the early Hasidim began their legal day at sunset and had two periods of arab. The arab at the end of the day consisted of one-third of the daylight, i.e., from the eighth hour until the fulfilling of the 12th hour at sunset.

Following sunset was the arab of the night, which began the 24-hour day. The arab of the night consisted of one-third of the night, i.e., the four hours following sunset, the first through fourth hours of the night.

Philo
Philo, a mid-first century C.E. Jewish Pharisee and priest from Alexandria, Egypt,⁶ also expresses the Hasidic system when he writes:

After the New Moon comes the fourth ἑορτὴ (heorte; festival), called the διαβατήρια (diabateria; crossing-festival), which the Hebrews in their native tongue call Passover. In this festival many myriads of victims FROM NOON ἂχρι (akhri; TERMINATING AT)⁷ ἑσπέρας (hesperas; TWILIGHT) are offered by the whole people, old and young alike, raised for that particular day to the dignity of the priesthood.⁸

The Greek word ἑσπέρα (hespera), like the Latin term vespere, is properly a reference to the evening star, Venus. By extension it came also to refer to the time of the day when that evening star made its appearance—i.e., the period of twilight just after sunset and lasting until dark—as well as to the westernmost sky and lands.⁹

Philo uses this term to translate the Pharisaic idea of arab. The above statement from Philo shows that the victims were sacrificed from noon only up until the beginning of hesperas (twilight). Philo continues:

The ἑορτῆω (heorteo; festival) BEGINS at the middle of the moon, ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY, when the moon is full, a day purposely chosen because then there is no darkness, but everything is continuously lighted up as the sun shines from earliest dawn unto ἑσπέραν (hesperan; TWILIGHT) and the moon (shines) from ἑσπέρας (hesperas; TWILIGHT) terminating at dawn, while the stars give place to each other no shadow is cast upon their brightness.¹⁰

Notice that the moon shines from ἑσπέρας (hesperas; twilight = arab) until the dawn on the 15th day.

Since during the 14th to the 16th the moon makes its appearance before sunset, Philo has demonstrated that, in this case, by ἑσπέρας (hesperas = arab) he means the twilight on both sides of sunset, including the time when the star Venus would make its appearance as the evening star. Philo also adds:

Again, the festival is held for seven days to mark the precedence and honor which the number holds in the universe, indicating that nothing which tends to cheerfulness and public mirth and thankfulness to the deity should fail to be accompanied with memories of the sacred seven which he intended to be the source and fountain to men of all good things. TWO DAYS OUT OF THE SEVEN, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, ARE DECLARED SACRED. In this way he gave a natural precedence to the beginning and the end; but he also wished to create a harmony as on a musical instrument between the intermediates and the extremes. Perhaps too he wished to harmonize the festival with a past which adjoins the first day and a future which adjoins the last.

These two, the first and the last, have each the other’s properties in addition to their own. The first is the beginning of the festival and the end of the preceding past, the seventh is the end of the festival and the beginning of the coming future. Thus, as I have said before, the whole life of the man of worth may be regarded as equivalent to a festival held by one who has expelled grief and fear and desire and the other passions and distempers of the soul. The bread is unleavened, EITHER¹¹ because our forefathers, when under divine guidance they were starting on their migration, were so intensely hurried that they brought the lumps of dough unleavened, OR ELSE because at that season, namely, the springtime, when the festival is held, the fruit of the corn has not reached its perfection, for the fields are in the ear stage and not yet mature for harvest.¹²

Philo further comments:

With the διαβατηρίοις (diabateriois; crossing-festival) he (Moses) combines one in which the food consumed is of a different and unfamiliar kind, namely, unleavened bread, which also gives its name to the festival.¹³

Philo’s interpretations are in accordance with the opinion quoted by S. R. Driver, “that the sacrifice if offered before noon was not valid.”¹⁴

But those supporting the Hasidic view, when translating the Hebrew thought into Greek, also used the term ἑσπέρας (hesperas) as a translation of their idea of the afternoon arab which ends the day.

For example, in another text Philo writes:

Why is the Passover sacrificed προς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan; at twilight = byn ha-arabim)?¹⁵ Perhaps because good things were about to befall at night. It was not the custom to offer a sacrifice in darkness, and for those who were about to experience good things at night it was not (proper) to prepare it before the ninth hour (about 3 P.M.). Therefore it was not at random but knowingly that the prophet set a time between the turning προς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan; at twilight = byn ha-arabim).¹⁶

 The Greek phrase πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan; at twilight) was used by those holding to the Hasidic view as a translation of the Hebrew בען הערבים (byn ha-arabim), by which term they meant the arab of the afternoon.¹⁷

This interpretation must not be confused with the proper Greek usage of hespera (twilight after sunset and early dark) or the Aristocratic usage (twilight after sunset).

In this above instance from Philo, when we come to the idea of בען הערבים, he takes the standard Pharisaic line for the two periods of arab.

He therefore refers to each arab as a time of ἑσπέραν (twilight), and makes the first ἑσπέραν (twilight) occur at the ninth hour (about 3 P.M.).

This awkward usage of the Greek word ἑσπέραν (the period of twilight and early dark after sunset) for mid-afternoon is unique to the Greek-speaking Hasidim and other adherents to System B.¹⁸

With regard to Philo’s wording for the phrase “between the two evenings,” F. H. Colson, citing S. R. Driver on Exodus, 12:6, states, “For this [[phrase]] the traditional interpretation adopted by the Pharisees and Talmudists was that the ‘first’ evening was when the heat of the sun begins to decrease, about 3 P.M., and the second evening began with sunset.”¹⁹

Josephus
The Jewish Pharisee priest Josephus, writing around 93 C.E., also gives us the Hasidic-Pharisaic view about Passover. We begin with his discussion of the Passover that occurred at the Exodus:

The deity, having revealed that by yet one more plague he would constrain the Egyptians to release the Hebrews, now bade Moses instruct the people to have ready a sacrifice, making preparations on the 10th of the moon Xanthicus (Abib/Nisan) over against the 14th day—this is the moon called by the Egyptians, Pharmuthi, by the Hebrews Nisan, and by the Macedonians termed Xanthicus—and then to lead off the Hebrews, taking all their possessions with them. He accordingly had the Hebrews ready betimes for departure, and ranging them in fraternities kept them assembled together; then when THE 14TH DAY was come the whole body, in readiness to start, sacrificed, purified the houses with the blood, using bunches of hyssop to sprinkle it, AND AFTER THE MEAL burnt the remnants of the meat as they neared freedom. Hence comes it that to this day we keep this sacrifice in the same customary manner, calling the festival Passover, which signifies ‘passing over,’ because on that day the deity passed over our people when he smote the Egyptians with plague. For on the selfsame night destruction visited the first-born of Egypt, insomuch that multitudes of those whose dwellings surrounded the palace trooped to Pharaoh’s to urge him to let the Hebrews go.²⁰

In another place Josephus writes:

In the moon of Xanthicus, which with us is called Nisan (Abib) and begins the year, ON THE 14TH DAY BY LUNAR RECKONING, the sun being then in Aries, our lawgiver, seeing that in this moon we were delivered from bondage to the Egyptians, ordained that we should year by year offer the same sacrifice which, as I have said, we offered then on departure from Egypt—the sacrifice called Passover. And so in fact we celebrate it by fraternities, nothing of the sacrificial victims being kept for the morning. ON THE 15TH THE Passover IS FOLLOWED BY THE FESTIVAL OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, LASTING SEVEN DAYS, during which our people subsist on unleavened loaves and each day there are slaughtered two bulls, a ram, and seven lambs. These are all used for burnt offerings, a kid being further added as a sin-offering, which serves each day to regale the priests.²¹

Josephus reports that, during the first century C.E. (up until the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E.), at which time the Hasidic practice was the state religion, the hour for the Passover sacrifices was as follows:

Accordingly, on the occasion of the festival called Passover, at which they sacrifice FROM THE NINTH TO THE ELEVENTH HOUR, and a little fraternity, as it were, gathers round each sacrifice, of not fewer than ten persons—feasting alone not being permitted—while the companies often included as many as twenty, the victims were counted and amounted to two hundred and fifty-five thousand six hundred; allowing an average of ten diners to each victim, we obtain a total of two million seven hundred thousand, all pure and sacred. For those afflicted with leprosy or gonorrhea, or menstruous women, or persons otherwise defiled were not permitted to partake of this sacrifice, nor yet any foreigners present for worship, and a large number of these assemble from abroad.²²

Based upon these views, Josephus then concludes:

Hence it is that, in memory of that time of scarcity, WE KEEP FOR EIGHT DAYS A FESTIVAL called the Festival of Unleavened Bread.²³

Supporting the idea that Passover was counted as one day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread followed by seven more days, Josephus, in a discussion of Hezekiah’s celebration of the Passover festival, writes:

Now, when the Festival of Unleavened Bread came round, they sacrificed the Passover, as it is called, but then they offered the other sacrifices for seven days.²⁴

Josephus also notes that the entire eight-day Pharisaic observance (actually seven and one-quarter days) was called Passover. In the events of the year 65 B.C.E., he reports:

But as this action took place at the time of observing the Festival of Unleavened Bread, WHICH WE CALL Passover, the Jews of best repute left the country and fled to Egypt.²⁵

Josephus also comments, “While the priests and Aristobulus (II) were being besieged, there happened to come round the festival called Passover, at which it is our custom to offer numerous sacrifices to the deity.”²⁶ These numerous sacrifices refer to the entire festival period. Similarly, in his history of the death of King Herod the Great during the spring of 4 B.C.E., Josephus writes:

At this time there came round the festival during which it is THE ANCESTRAL CUSTOM OF THE JEWS TO SERVE UNLEAVENED BREAD. IT IS CALLED Passover, being a commemoration of their departure from Egypt. They celebrate it with gladness, and it is their custom to slaughter a greater number of sacrifices at this festival than at any other, and an innumerable multitude of people come down from the country and even from abroad to worship the deity.²⁷

In another book, while discussing the same event, he writes:

And now THE FESTIVAL OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, WHICH THE JEWS CALL Passover, came round; it is an occasion for the contribution of a multitude of sacrifices, and a vast crowd streamed in from the country for the ceremony.²⁸

Mishnah
The Mishnah (about 200 C.E.), being a written record of the Pharisaic oral laws and traditions, confirms that during the time of the second Temple the lamb was sacrificed shortly after the eighth and one-half hour (i.e., after 2:30 P.M.) on the “arab of Passover” (i.e., according to Pharisaic interpretation, the afternoon arab before the night of the Passover supper). It states:

The Daily Whole-offering was slaughtered at a half after the eighth hour, and offered up at a half after the ninth hour; (but) on the arab of Passover it was slaughtered at a half after the seventh hour and offered up at a half after the eighth hour, whether it was a weekday or the Sabbath. If the arab of Passover fell on the arab of a Sabbath, it was slaughtered at a half after the sixth hour and offered up a half after the seventh hour. AND, AFTER THIS, THE PASSOVER OFFERING (WAS SLAUGHTERED).²⁹

The difference between the Passover of the Exodus from Egypt and those that followed are explained in this way:

Wherein does the Passover of Egypt differ from the Passover of the generations (that followed thereafter)? At the Passover of Egypt the lamb was obtained on the 10th (of Abib), sprinkling (of the blood) with a bunch of hyssop was required on the lintel and on the two side-posts, and it was eaten in haste and during one night [. . .]³⁰ whereas the Passover of the generations continued throughout seven days.³¹

The heart of System B is the belief that the seven days of Unleavened Bread begin with the 15th of the first moon and last until the end of the 21st day.

It is also obvious from this evidence that, for the adherents to the Hasidic view (System B), the expression ערבים (arabim) represents two periods of the day: the afternoon and the evening twilight, with mid-afternoon or sunset at the end of a day dividing the two.

Another way of looking at this view is to make the early afternoon the first arab and the late afternoon, either ending at sunset (a legal day) or ending at dark (a common day), the second arab.

Sacrificing the Passover lamb at about 3 P.M., accordingly, accommodates all three Hasidic understandings.

Since the destruction of the Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E., sacrifices required under the Torah of Moses, including the Passover sacrifice, have been dispensed with by the Jews.

Yet, many of the Jewish faithful look forward to the reintroduction of these sacrifices when a future third Temple is built in Jerusalem.

When these sacrifices are reinstituted, it is their belief that a Passover lamb should once again be sacrificed in the afternoon of the 14th of Abib and eaten during the night of the 15th.

This wraps up the discussion regarding the Hasidic practice of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Our next post will address the Aristocratic view which was observed by the messiah and the early assemblies. So be sure to be on the lookout for
14. Passover – Aristocratic Practice I.

For further reading see the publication by Qadesh La Yahweh press titled The Festivals and Sacred Days of Yahweh.

Who was that masked man anyway?

Footnotes:

Click this link for Bibliography and Abbreviations.

1 OTP, 2, pp. 43–45.

2 Jub., 49:1f. This passage is taken from the Ethiopic text—the Latin is lacking at this point.

3 That the Ethiopic term used here is equivalent to byn ha-arabim see HBJ, p. 172, n. 8. The Latin gives ad vesperam, which is used in the Vulgate to translate byn ha-arabim (cf., Vulg. at Exod., 12:6; Num., 9:3, 5, 11; Lev., 23:5). It is emended by R. H. Charles to read ad vesperas (HBJ, p. 173, and n. 5). Also see below n. 36 regarding the parallel Greek term ἑσπέραν (hesperan; twilight).

4 At this point the Latin text uses the term in vespere and, as reflected in the Ethiopic text, should read for the Hebrew “arab.”

5 Jub., 49:10f; Latin and Ethiopic in HBJ, pp. 172 and 173.

6 Jerome, Lives, 11.

7 The term ἂχρι (akhri) is akin to the term ἂχρον (akhron), “through the idea of a terminus” and means, “(of time) until or (of place) up to:—as far as, for, in (-to), till, (even, un-) to, until, while” (SEC, Gk. #891); “Prep. with gen., even to, as far as . . . of Time, until, so long as” (GEL, 1968, p. 298)

8 Philo, Spec., 2:27 §145.

9 GEL, 1968, p. 697. The Greek word ἑσπέρας (hesperas), “Lat. vespera, properly fem. of ἕσπερος . . . evening, eventide, eve” . . . ἕσπερος (hesperos), “of or at evening” . . . “esp. of the planet Venus . . . ἕσπ. θεός the god of darkness” (GEL, p. 318; GEL, 1968, p. 697; NGEL, p. 579). Macrobius, Saturn., 3:14f, “vespera follows” sunset. For the Greeks, ἑσπέρας (hesperas) properly represents the period from sunset until the first hour of darkness at night. It is the time of Venus as the evening star as opposed to Venus as the morning star (e.g., see Aristotle, EN, 5:1:15; Homer, Iliad, 22:317f; cf., Horace, Odes, 2:9:10f). James Donnegan’s lexicon defines it this way, “Hesperus, (the planet Venus) when it sets after the sun; Lucifer, Φωσϕόρος, when it rises before” (NGEL, p. 579).

Leonard Whibley notes that the period of ἑσπέρα (hespera) was part of the period associated with darkness as opposed to those Greek terms associated with daylight (CGS, p. 589, §626). To demonstrate further, the Greek writers make the evening star appear at the time of “ϕθιμενοις (phthi-menois; waning)” of the day (Gk. Anth., 670). Oppian defines this period of hespera when he writes, “ἑσπερίῃσιν ὅτ’ ηέλιος ζυγα κλίνει (hesperiesin ot helios zuga klinei; the time of hespera, at which time the sun’s team laid down), when herdsmen command their herds what time they travel homeward to their folds, heavy of breast and swollen of udder” (Oppian, Cyneg., 1:138ff). The Greek idea was that the team that pulled the sun chariot across the sky during the day laid down to rest after the sun had been pulled beneath the horizon. According to Pliny, the day among all “the common people everywhere” extended “a luce ad tenebras (from dawn until the dark of night)” (Pliny, 2:79). Therefore, the evening star appeared during the waning part of the day (after sunset).

Other markers demonstrating the Greek concept of the time of hesperas are as follows: In Acts, 4:3, this period is placed in context when we read that Keph (Peter) was placed in a holding cell “until the αὔριον (aurion; morning breeze; SEC, Gk. #839), for it was already ἑσπέρα (hespera),” in order that he might be brought before the rulers and elders at Jerusalem. Accordingly, he was placed in a holding cell after the government’s daily business hours. Homer, meanwhile, speaks of how some people “waited until hesperon should come; and as they made merry dark hesperos came upon them. Then they went, each man to his house” (Homer, Ody., 1:422f). This statement clearly connects the time of hesperon with the darkening of light after sunset. In another place Homer writes that some people were to “gather at hesperious beside the swift ship,” and then subsequent to that event notes, “Now the sun set and all the ways grew dark. Then she (the goddess) drew the swift ship to the sea” (Homer, Ody., 2:385–389). Therefore, the people gathered at twilight and only after it became dark did the ship set sail. Homer also notes that a man visited his fields and herdsmen and then afterward, when hesperios arrived, returned to the city (Homer, Ody., 15:503–505). Homer also writes that it was at the time of hesperios that the ram longs to return to the fold (Homer, Ody., 9:447–452). As any sheep rancher will advise, this occurs with sunset. He also reports the words of a man advising a stranger that, “The day is far spent, and soon you will find it colder ποτἰ (poti; toward) ἑσπερα (hespera)” (Homer, Ody., 17:190f).

In another place Homer reports that certain people “took supper, and waited until hesperon should come” (Homer, Ody. 4:785f). Men generally worked in the fields until the 11th hour (e.g., Matt., 20:1-13), after which they would return home to supper (cf., Ruth, 3:7). It would be fair to conclude that this also was the hour for supper among the Greeks. It is true that supper among the priests and upper class Jews was a little earlier, coming late in the afternoon, at various times between the ninth until the twelfth hours (EWJ, pp. 44f). Yet this principle was in part guided by the fact that the ninth hour (3 P.M.) was the hour of prayer (Jos., Antiq., 14:4:2; Acts, 3:1). Josephus notes that the Essenes had breakfast in the fifth hour (11 A.M.) and then returned to their labors until δείλης (deiles; afternoon), at which time they would have supper (Jos., Wars, 2:8:5). In either case, the supper mentioned in the Greek story took place at some point prior to the arrival of the hour of hespera. This detail places the Greek time for hespera later in the day than the Hasidic concept of an afternoon arab, despite the fact that the Hasidic writers used hesperon to identify an earlier period of arab.

Hespera, therefore, is a reference to the time of a day connected with darkness, after supper, and when the Hesperus star appears, that is, the period of twilight after sunset.

10 Philo, Spec., 2:28 §155.

11 Notice that Philo can only offer guesses as to why unleavened bread was used. The Jews were puzzled by this question. It was answered by the messiah and the disciples, who noted the unleavened bread represented the messiah’s body, truth, and sincerity (1 Cor., 5:8, 11:23-24; Luke, 22:19; Matt., 26:26; Mark, 14:22); that is, unleavened bread represents the sinlessness of the messiah.

12 Philo, Spec., 2:28 §156f.

13 Philo, Spec., 2:28 §150.

14 BE, p. 90, n. 6; also cited in Colson, Philo, vii, p. 627.

15 See Marcus, Philo, Sup. II, p. 20, n. d. The term πρὸς (pros), when used with ἑσπέραν (hesperan) means “at” or “on the side of” the time of hesperan (GEL, 1968, pp. 697, 1496f). More exactly, this phrase refers to the beginning time of hesperan (= arab). The Greek phrase πρὸς ἑσπέραν (pros hesperan) is used in the LXX as the equivalent of the Hebrew לעת ערב (la-ath arab; at the time of arab), cf., LXX at Gen., 8:11; 2 Kings (MT 2 Sam.), 11:2; Isa., 17:14; and the Hebrew בען הערבים (byn ha-arabim), cf., LXX at Exod., 12:6, 16:12; Num., 9:3, 11, 28:4, 8.

16 Philo, Exod., 1:11. J. B. Aucher renders this last line literally, “tempus mediocre ad vesperam vergens (the time between inclining toward vesperam)” (Marcus, Philo, Sup. II, p. 20, ns. d & h.).

17 See the LXX at Exod., 12:6, 16:12; Lev., 23:5; Num., 9:3. Interestingly, both the supporters of the Hasidic view and the Aristocratic view could look at the same words used in the LXX and come to entirely opposite understandings of what the word pros hesperan meant. For those of the Aristocratic school it meant twilight after sunset, while those of the Hasidic school interpreted it to mean the afternoon arab.

18 The Latin term vespere (vesparum; etc.), which has essentially the same meaning as the Greek term ἑσπέραν (hesperan), was also used by the supporters of System B for the mid-afternoon arab. Also see above ns. 30 & 36.

19 Colson, Philo, vii, p. 627; BE, p. 90, n. 6.

20 Jos., Antiq., 2:14:6.

21 Jos., Antiq., 3:10:5.

22 Jos., Wars, 6:9:3f §423ff.

23 Jos., Antiq., 2:15:1.

24 Jos., Antiq., 9:13:2-3.

25 Jos., Antiq., 14:2:1.

26 Jos., Antiq., 14:2:2.

27 Jos., Antiq., 17:9:3.

28 Jos., Wars, 2:1:3.

29 Pes., 5:1.

30 The Gemara points out that there is a lacuna here in the Mishnah. In its place, the Gemara claims, it should state that the prohibition against leavened bread during the Passover of Egypt “lasted but one day,” and then the text continues as above (Gem., 96b).

31 Pes., 9:5.