Matthew 26:17 Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες· Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα;
"On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus ...(NIV)"
Every English translation including literal versions use 'on' for δὲ which would indicate that it was the 1st day of the feast. But in my study it seems like the coming event, the Lord's Supper, happens before the 1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is it possible to translate:
"Moreover, [because of] the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus ..."?
This transitions well from the previous verse 26:16, "From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over." It also does not demand a specific time for first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 13th, 2022, 8:21 pm
- Location: Taiwan
Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
Δαβιδ Wilens
δοῦλος Θεοῦ
Ταϊβάν
δοῦλος Θεοῦ
Ταϊβάν
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
You'll likely find that most English translations haven't bothered to translate the particle δὲ, due to it functioning as a way to connect one clause to another in simple continuation.
As per BDAG:
As Matt 26:17 is just a new pericope after Matt 26:16, there's no need to translate it and just merely have it as a different paragraph. Also the English translations aren't translating δὲ as "On"; that would just be to reflect the dative τῇ πρώτῃ (On the first...).
Furthermore the first day of Unleavened bread by the 1st century CE has incorporated Passover as part of the full week (hence "where do you want us to prepare the Passover?"). Suggest a read of Jesus and the Last Supper by Brant Pitre concerning this point.
As per BDAG:
(Emphasis mine)δέ (Hom.+) one of the most common Gk. particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw[een] clauses—though the contrast is oft[en] scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated (Denniston 162–89; Schwyzer 2, 562; B-D-F §447).
As Matt 26:17 is just a new pericope after Matt 26:16, there's no need to translate it and just merely have it as a different paragraph. Also the English translations aren't translating δὲ as "On"; that would just be to reflect the dative τῇ πρώτῃ (On the first...).
Furthermore the first day of Unleavened bread by the 1st century CE has incorporated Passover as part of the full week (hence "where do you want us to prepare the Passover?"). Suggest a read of Jesus and the Last Supper by Brant Pitre concerning this point.
-
- Posts: 257
- Joined: May 31st, 2011, 5:11 pm
- Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA
- Contact:
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
"On" in the English translations here comes from the article τῇ, dative singular feminine. The dative case often corresponds to "on" or "in" in English.
How did you conclude that the Last Supper came before the Feast of Unleavened Bread?
How did you conclude that the Last Supper came before the Feast of Unleavened Bread?
Dewayne Dulaney
Δεβένιος Δουλένιος
Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/
"Ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ θανάτου."--Διδαχή Α, α'
Δεβένιος Δουλένιος
Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/
"Ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ θανάτου."--Διδαχή Α, α'
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 13th, 2022, 8:21 pm
- Location: Taiwan
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
Thanks, S Walch for explaining the use of δὲ.
OK, this post is now going off topic into interpretation issues. To avoid irritating folks, here is my short version.
Yes, I am trying to reconcile synoptic Gospels versions of the Lord’s Supper as a Passover with John 13:1. “It was just before the Passover Festival... (NIV)”
I’ve spent the last 5 days doing far too much research and I found when tracing references back, there is little historical/rabbinical support for when each group kept the Passover or whether they followed sunrise or sunset reckoning, so I think there could be several possible reasonable explanations, this scenario seems to fit better than others.
Daniel Chwolson (Khvolʹson) reasonably concludes based on Rabbinic literature that the Sadducees used SUNRISE reckoning in “The Last Passover of Christ and the Day of His Death (Das letzte Passamahl Christ und der Tag seines Todes);” p. 35-36.
Since the Sadducees were in control of the temple, they fixed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs before sundown on the 14th of Nisan by sunrise reckoning and they followed with the seder after sundown on the 15th - over 24 hours later by sunrise reckoning. This is the Passover spoken of by John.
The Galileans kept 2 seders - one a day early as in the diaspora Passover.
If you wish to reply, it should probably be done through a private message.
OK, this post is now going off topic into interpretation issues. To avoid irritating folks, here is my short version.
Yes, I am trying to reconcile synoptic Gospels versions of the Lord’s Supper as a Passover with John 13:1. “It was just before the Passover Festival... (NIV)”
I’ve spent the last 5 days doing far too much research and I found when tracing references back, there is little historical/rabbinical support for when each group kept the Passover or whether they followed sunrise or sunset reckoning, so I think there could be several possible reasonable explanations, this scenario seems to fit better than others.
Daniel Chwolson (Khvolʹson) reasonably concludes based on Rabbinic literature that the Sadducees used SUNRISE reckoning in “The Last Passover of Christ and the Day of His Death (Das letzte Passamahl Christ und der Tag seines Todes);” p. 35-36.
Since the Sadducees were in control of the temple, they fixed the sacrifice of the Passover lambs before sundown on the 14th of Nisan by sunrise reckoning and they followed with the seder after sundown on the 15th - over 24 hours later by sunrise reckoning. This is the Passover spoken of by John.
The Galileans kept 2 seders - one a day early as in the diaspora Passover.
If you wish to reply, it should probably be done through a private message.
Δαβιδ Wilens
δοῦλος Θεοῦ
Ταϊβάν
δοῦλος Θεοῦ
Ταϊβάν
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:30 am
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
@living_manna, in case you’re not familiar with it, here’s a link to an academic paper published eleven years ago by Helen K. Bond of Edinburgh University. Although her formula for reconciling — if you can call it that — the dating of the Crucifixion in John and the Synoptics seems to be inviting controversy, as far as I know nobody has ever seriously challenged her findings in all that time.
Bond concedes that nearly all scholars think the date can only have been either 30 or 33, but she then says there are historical reasons why the precise date can no longer be recovered. All that anyone can claim with any degree of historical certainty, she says, is that Jesus died some time around Passover — perhaps a few days earlier, when Jerusalem was already overflowing with thousands of pilgrims — in any one of the six years from 29 to 34.
https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/1048 ... nation.pdf
Bond concedes that nearly all scholars think the date can only have been either 30 or 33, but she then says there are historical reasons why the precise date can no longer be recovered. All that anyone can claim with any degree of historical certainty, she says, is that Jesus died some time around Passover — perhaps a few days earlier, when Jerusalem was already overflowing with thousands of pilgrims — in any one of the six years from 29 to 34.
https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/1048 ... nation.pdf
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
Try not to be upset if you don’t come up with a satisfying answer.living_manna wrote: ↑December 13th, 2024, 5:49 pm Yes, I am trying to reconcile synoptic Gospels versions of the Lord’s Supper as a Passover with John 13:1. “It was just before the Passover Festival... (NIV)”
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 13th, 2022, 8:21 pm
- Location: Taiwan
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
Jason, Ha! Yeah, no, my faith is based on the person of God. I don't worry too much when I see an apparent Bible discrepancy or even something that seems quite wrong. I assume the scripture is inspired because I have learned that the problem is usually in my perspective.
Brian, yes, from a forensic scientific perspective, it is impossible to scientifically PROVE what happened in the past. All we can do is look at evidence and infer what is the most likely scenario. Here, I was just looking for a reasonable explanation.
Brian, yes, from a forensic scientific perspective, it is impossible to scientifically PROVE what happened in the past. All we can do is look at evidence and infer what is the most likely scenario. Here, I was just looking for a reasonable explanation.
Δαβιδ Wilens
δοῦλος Θεοῦ
Ταϊβάν
δοῦλος Θεοῦ
Ταϊβάν
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:30 am
Re: Matthew 26:17 δὲ not 'on'?
I’m pretty sure nobody here is going to disagree with that. What we are looking for here is not certain knowledge of a verifiable fact but rather a balance of probabilities. Personally, I find Helen Bond’s proposed solution the most convincing I’ve seen so far. She solves the apparent contradiction by postulating three hypothetical developments:living_manna wrote: ↑December 15th, 2024, 4:10 am Brian, yes, from a forensic scientific perspective, it is impossible to scientifically PROVE what happened in the past. All we can do is look at evidence and infer what is the most likely scenario. Here, I was just looking for a reasonable explanation.
1. In the original eyewitness account, the arrest, trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus were said to have happened “at Passover”
2. Some Christian communities understood that to imply that the Last Supper was a Paschal meal
3. Other communities understood it to imply that Jesus’ death on the Cross coincided with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs on the Temple Mount