Save Christians from S*u*n(g*o*d)day

The following is based on an article in Biblical Archeology Review by Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi, How It Came About: From S*a*t*u*rday to S*u*nday (Biblical Archeology Review, 1978.09-10, p. 32ff. with follow-up letters in BAR 1979.01-02). In-depth documentation and support of his article is found in his seminal book: Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University, From Sabbath to S*u*nday : A Historical Investigation of the Rise of S*u*nday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977). Modifications are incorporated to eliminate the names of pagan idols and maintain consistent Torah-compatible language in order to eliminate differences attributable solely to language.

Scholars have long debated how the first day of the week – S*u*n(g*o*d)day – came to be adopted by a majority of Christians as the day of rest and worship in place of the Biblically-prescribed, seventh-day Sabbath…

The adoption of S*u*nday observance has been traditionally attributed to ecclesiastical authority rather than to Biblical or apostolic precepts This has been the position of most historians who have studied the questions.

Recently, however, some scholars have argued that S*u*nday observance has a Biblical or apostolic origin. According to these scholars, from the inception of the [N^әtzarim], the [Sh^әlikhim] themselves chose the first day of the week in place of the seventh day in order to commemorate the resurrection… three days after his crucifixion.

This thesis fails on four points:

1. Count backwards three days and three nights from dawn of the first day of the week and try to reconcile that with being taken down from the stake as Shabat approached. Ribi Y^әhoshua prophesied in his own words that he would be in the earth three days and three nights ( The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 12.40). Conundrum. Gentiles, not most Jews, understand the Greek; but Jews, but not gentiles unfamiliar with Judaism, realize that this can only refer to the Hebrew counterpart of μιαν σαββατων (mian Sabbaton; one of the ShabatS), and that this phrase can only refer to one of the special Shabats that occur during Khag ha-Matzot. Computer-generated calendars for the period specify the year in which the Shabat of the Seventh Day of Khag ha-Matzot fell on the necessary – 4^th – day of the week (see The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 28.1.1). Moreover, that is the only year, for several years on either side, in which this occurred, pinpointing the date of death precisely. Further, by Jewish, rather than Roman, reckoning of days, the tomb was found empty at the end of Shabat in the evening – about 12 hours before "dawn" of the first day of the week. Empty at the end of Shabat necessarily means that the resurrection occurred on Shabat, not S*u*n(g*o*d)day! For complete details, see The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) note 28.1.1.
   
   
2. Some gentile scholars have suggested that the N^әtzarim observed both Shabat and S*u*n(g*o*d)day. If they were familiar with Torah they would never suggest such an impossibility. "The plain fact is that an objective study of the first century history of the [Y^әrushalayim Beit-ha-K^әnësët], makes it abundantly clear that such an hypothesis is altogether untenable" (Bacchiocchi, BAR 1979.01-02, p. 9). The Roman Hellenists and their S*u*n(g*o*d)day were prohibitively pagan. They worshipped the S*u*n(g*o*d) since 135 C.E. – Gaston H. Halsberghe, The Cult of S*o*l Invictus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972)!
   

   "In early Christian art and literature, the sun is often used as a symbol to represent Christ. The orientation of early Christian Churches [unlike Jewish Batei-ha-K^әnësët]… were oriented to the East. The dies natalis S*o*lis Invicti (the birthday of the Invincible Sun) was chosen as the Christian Christmas." (Bacchiocchi).

   Transgressing the mitzwah requiring l^ә-havdil between Qodesh and khol would have immediately alienated the N^әtzarim as apostate Hellenists, causing their immediate ejection from the P^әrushim community.

   "Both Eusebius and Epiphanius inform us, however, that the [N^әtzarim Beit-ha-K^әnësët in Y^әrushalayim] after 70 [C.E.] and until Hadrian's siege of Y^әrushalayim in 135 [C.E.] was composed of and administered by [[N^әtzarim] Jews, characterized as 'zealous to insist on the literal observance of the [Torah]'" (Bacchiocchi). For a survey of the literature demonstrating this point, see Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision (Y^әrushalayim: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971).

   
   
   
3. "The change from S*a*t*u*rday to S*u*nday occurred sometime after 135 [C.E.]" (Bacchiocchi)
   
   
4. "The change originated in Rome, not [Y^әrushalayim]" (Bacchiocchi)
   
   

The earliest explicit references to the observance of S*u*nday as the Christian ["Sabbath"] are by Barnabas ca. 135 [C.E.]) and Justin (ca. 150 [C.E.])" (Bacchiocchi, see The Epistle of Barnabas 15; Justin, I Apology 67).

However, the speculated date of the original writing, no copy of which exists, isn't the critical issue since the 4^th-century Hellenizing redactions are known to have introduced many thousands of misojudaic Hellenized readings, making it impossible to know what the original writings said. All of the NT demonstrates that thousands of redactions were incorporated subsequent to 135 C.E. to rewrite the text into conformance with pagan Hellenist beliefs and practices.

The earliest extant ms. of The Epistle of Barnabas is the 4^th-century א (the Codex Sinaiticus), which has been demonstrated to be extensively redacted thousands of times to rewrite texts into conformance to Hellenist Christian doctrines. (See, inter alia, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible ("Text, NT" 2^nd Edition, Abingdon, 1962 and Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN), note to section Netzarim Paqid ⇒ Gentile 'Bishop').

Similarly, even the original writings of Justin, no longer extant, post-date 135 C.E. (A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Smith & Wace, III.560-87) by more than two decades. "His apology may be dated internally from the statement in chapter 6 that 'Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius.' Since Quirinius entered office in the year 6 C.E. according to Josephus, the apology may be dated to the year 156 CE" (Peter Kirby, earlychristianwritings.com). As a Samaritan from Sh^әkhem, Justin reflects the Samaritan apostasy condemned by Ribi Y^әhoshua, not the Pharisaic beliefs of N^әtzarim, Jews.

Far more importantly, however, the earliest extant copy of Justin, documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia, is from the 14^th century C.E.: " There are extant but three works of Justin, of which the authenticity is assured: the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue". They are to be found in two manuscripts: Paris gr. 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. 82, written in 1571, actually at Cheltenham, in the possession of M.T.F. Fenwick. The second is only a copy of the first, which is therefore our sole authority; unfortunately this manuscript is very imperfect (Harnack, "Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten" in "Texte and Untersuchungen", I, Leipzig, 1883, i, 73-89; Archambault, "Justin, Dialogue a vec Tryphon", Paris, 1909, p. xii-xxxviii). There are many large gaps in this manuscript, thus II Apol., ii, is almost entirely wanting, but it has been found possible to restore the manuscript text from a quotation of Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xvii)."

Certainly thoroughly redacted by the 6^th century C.E. to support Christian doctrines, the Sacra Parallela Christian anthology contains only a pseudo-Justin listed by the Catholic Encyclopedia as "others under Justin's name that are doubtful or apocryphal." The earliest extant copy of Justin, therefore, is the 14^th century C.E., by which time Hellenizing misojudaic redactions supporting Christian doctrines had long been thoroughly completed. Earliest extant copies are never something Christians like to deal with. Eusebius' description would be less corrupt; and the best ms. for Eusebius is given as Codex Parisinus – in the 15^th-century (Introduction, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, p. xxvii-xxviii)!!!.

It has also been argued that the Didache and Ignatius "prove" that S*u*nday worship was a feature of the N^әtzarim before 135 C.E.

According to Peter Kirby (earlychristianwritings.com) and others, the earliest extant source for the Διδαχη (Didakhei; popularly spelled Didache) is the "Jerusalem Codex (1056) which includes the Didache." Later corroboration from other manuscripts only demonstrates that the misojudaic Hellenizing redactions had resulted in a fairly consistent text by 1056 C.E. Earliest extant copies are never something Christians like to deal with.

Do the Didache or Ignatius even demonstrate compellingly that, contrary to the known practices of the N^әtzarim until that time, the switch from Shabat to S*u*n(g*o*d)day occurred before 135 C.E.? The burden of proof, it must be remembered, logically falls on the one who wishes to demonstrate a departure from the known. The N^әtzarim were known to emulate a P^әrushi Ribi, and Qumran scroll 4Q MMT makes it crystal clear that at the beginning of the 1^st century C.E., not only that Torah was the center of the life of every religious Jew but that the Oral Law was the core of Torah for every religious Jew – including Ribi Y^әhoshua and the N^әtzarim! That's the known norm starting point in 135 C.E. The burden of proof is to document and prove their transition to Roman paganism.

Not only do the Didache or Ignatius fail to prove any switch from Shabat to S*u*n(g*o*d)day, the attempt is demonstrated false.

The literal reading of the [Didache] text… is not to come together "on every Lord's Day" but "according to the Lord's of the Lord – kata kuriaken de kuriou" (Bacchiocchi).

Considering the likely underlying Hebrew, this phrase probably was "according to Adonai Adoni – [according to] the Lord of my sir.

[The example of Ignatius] "reveals the same fallacious methodology." [The argued translation is,] "They (referring to early Christians) ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord's Day." Is this what the text actually says? Are the "early Christians" the subject of the sentence? Is the substantive "day" explicitly present in the text? A close look at the text shows that the answer is no… Thus, Ignatius' statement as well as that of Didache hardly prove that "S*u*nday worship was a feature of the Church prior to 135 [C.E.]." The way in which these and similar documents are often accommodated for apologetic purposes… hardly bespeaks of the highest scholarly (let alone Christian) ethics." (Bacchiocchi)

Thus, the change from Shabât to S*u*n-g*o*d-day did not take place until after 135 C.E. (Samuele Bacchiocchi, "How It Came About: From S*a*t*u*r*day to S*u*nday," Biblical Archaeology Review, IV, 3, 78.09-10, p. 32ff). Note that 135 C.E. is when the Hellenist Roman goyim exiled the N^әtzârim from Y^әrushâlayim along with the other Jews, built their pagan city – dedicated to Z*e*u*s-J*u*p*i*t*e*r upon the ruins of Y^әrushâlayim, and replaced the Pâqid ha-N^әtzârim with their own – goy – Rome-oriented, Hellenist 'bishop.' Thus, they didn't change Shabât to S*u*n-g*o*d-day until long after they had ousted the N^әtzârim and displaced their leadership.