Talk:Sunday

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.

—Yamara ✉  05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Weekend
Seems a bit strange that the discussion on Sunday doesn't mention the idea of "weekend" even though I know it is a western cultural thing? --BozMo|talk 15:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sunday for me is the first day of the week, and another day of opportunity for peace on the weekend. The bible talks of christians going to church on the day after sabbath. It describes sabbath as being a day of rest and sanctity. For seeing back over the previous 6 days.For family/Important.For rest and consolence/Joy and reflection.The great day for You/us, after the weeks 6 work days; work, in all its varieties. [Mal.Armstrong.Adelaide South Australia.](58.84.68.84 03:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

The official ISO 8601 Calendar Standard states that Monday is the first day of the week. So "in some countries" actually reflects the standard and Sunday being the first day of the week (in most Anglo-Saxon countries) is non-standard. The utterance "in some countries" should actuelly be reversed to reflect the the real situation of mainstream use and official standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkniskanen (talk • contribs) on 19 August 2006


 * I deleted a false or very misleading statement. Sunday was named after the Sun, which was named after the German deity.  Sunday was NOT named after any god.  The seven days of the week are refernces to astrology, not pagan theology; astrology, although rejected by many Christians as superstition, was not one of the bible's proscribed occultic practices.  In fact, the foreigners who adored the baby Jesus were astrologers.  Astrology observed seven planets, the Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn.  The days of the week are named after those seven planets, which in turn are named after deities.  In English, Northern European gods replaced the names of equivalent greco-Roman gods, except for Saturn, which remains named after Saturn.


 * How can we tell the difference between being named after gods, and being named after planets, and is there a distinction? Because the order of the days of the week is the order of the periodicity of the planets: Because they are the same seven gods which are the seven planets.  Most gods' names weren't given to planets.  The astrologers' belief was that those born on a given day of the week had the traits which were ascribed to each of the planets.  (Since this is all so far afield of the topic of Sunday, I simply deleted, rather than correcting, the incorrect or misleading statement.)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.31.101 (talk • contribs) on 7 May 2006


 * This differs greatly from other accounts (including that included in every other Day of The Week article). Citation needed.


 * Someone has cited the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Christian Calendar. ( "http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03158a.htm" ). Basically, we have a bit of a problem- as it stands, this article contradicts the other 6 day-of-the-week articles, in that they all claim that they are named after gods, while this claims it is named after celesetial bodies. Either we acceptc this citation as reliable and change the other articles to match, or we change this article to match th others. They cant stay contradicting each other. 82.69.37.32 14:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the citations. They don't claim that the days of the week are named for the planets, but that the order of the planets determined the order of the days of the week. All planets are named for gods (with the possible exception of the Sun and Moon, whose gods may have been named for the corresponding 'planets'), hence all days of the planetary week are named for gods. This should be clarified in the article. — Joe Kress 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless, this article is still at odds with the other Day-of-the-Week articles. Whatever we decide is "true" still needs to be applied to all the articles, or they'll stay contradictory. 82.69.37.32 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But is it not the case, as a matter of historical fact, that the days of the week were named for planets and that they would not have been named for gods if the planets had been given other names (by the Babylonians)? -- Bob (15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs)

Constantine
just a suggestion...but since sunday as a day of rest was first strictly enforced by Constantine...perhaps...just perhaps...someone should include him in this discussion. OH...and by the way...the citation for that is in Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"... vol. 1. page 636.

Foolish statement about Sunday position in the week as the last
"This view was influenced by old economics when Monday was the first working day of the week; banks in general being closed on Saturday and Sunday." Monday was the first day of 6-day working cycle but not the week iself. The first day in Europe was and is the day of Sunday.--133.41.4.46 17:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sunday is the day of rest according to chirstianty, so what did god do.. have a rest then build the heavens and the earth.. secondly sunday is part of the weekEND (i.e end of the week) not the start, and 3rdly Monday is the first day of the week as in MONO meaning 1.. or first. there are my 3 points to say that Sunday is NOT the first day of the week. 82.24.168.34 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except the article clearly states the bible having no such reference to Sunday being the last day. It also states Saturday is.Xolver 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To the first anonymous: Monday is, though it's not always been, considered the first day of the week in almost all Europe. There's nothing foolish in it, they are just customs. To the second anonymous: It is true that Sunday doesn't born as the first day of the week, that we inherited from Jews, since Saturday was their holy last day, the day when (according to Cristians too) God rested. And the (English!) name of Monday doesn't come from the word mono, but from the god Màni (Mona), god of Moon. Lupo Azzurro 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The last anonymus edit had a taste of "purge" (doing away with the mention of 1. day in the opening paragraph). I guess it is futile to fight about right or wrong. We have two different concepts which are differently used in different countries and I have tried in my edit to show their relationship. --Kipala 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets just forget about religion for the moment, and focus on the fact that Sundays need to be purged from the calender. They're not productive in the slightest. Hate. 82.16.83.23 (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sabbat not "seven"
I changed the explanation for "Sabbath (שבת)" originating from the Hebrew word "seven (שבע)". This is not correct even if it is a popular misunderstanding because of the similarity.--Kipala 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, but what is it then? Derived from the word "sit" (ישב)? As in god sat down, rested? Xolver 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My Gesenius (dic for Old Hebrew) gives me שבת as a verb root with meanings of "stop, rest, sit"; though same dic leaves options for connecting this verbal root with שבת="shabbat" or with some other semitic roots. My Hebrew grammar isn't good enough any more to explain better... Kipala 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense that it comes from the word sit, which in old hebrew probably meant rested too. Thus god created the world for 6 days and sat (rested) in the 7th.Xolver 04:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain Malachi 4:2 reference?
As of 06/22/07 the article contains this sentence: "The Christians reinterpreted the indigenous name as implying the Sun of Righteousness with reference to his "arising" (Malachi 4:2)"

Here is Malachi 4:2 as taken from the New King James Version Bible: "But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves."

In my humble opinion, I believe this passage is referring to the Messiah, i.e. the "Sun of Righteousness," who will come to heal those who have faith in God ("But to you who fear My name").

I don't understand how this passage relates to the Sabbath. There doesn't appear to be anything in the surrounding passages talking about days of the week or the Sabbath. What, according to the author of the sentence, did the Christians "reinterpret" as evidenced by this passage? Is the author claiming that Christians at one point used this passage in some way that related to their belief of the origins of the word "Sunday"? If so, more elaboration and a reference to an historical source is needed.

If this is relevant to the discussion, for historical background, Malachi was around before Christ and Christianity, a prophet from the Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh.

Sunday, First or LAst day of the week?
In my opinion it's the first day!--   Hornetman16   23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's not really a matter of opinions, it's more about what happens actually. I think this article lacks of a good explanation about which countries start the week on Sunday and which don't (the article Week doesn't say anything either).


 * In the Judaeo-Christian tradition Sunday has been considered as the first day of the week. However, in some countries calendars show Monday as day 1 of the week. There are also countries where both types of calendars can be found.


 * I find this paragraph rather unrealistic, since it's not only "some" countries that start the week with Monday. Most countries in Europe (and at least most countries that belonged to France or Spain, like South America and half Africa) do so. Loqu 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it even a question of which country starts the week on which day? Yes, it's about what actually happens.  "Nothing changes on New Year's Day" sing U2.  So what's the official first day of the week in your country ... would you even know the difference?  Thus is it not a matter of opinions?  I consider Sunday to be the first day of the week & don't care what country I happen to be in.  The point being that we've first got to determine what it means for a country to start the week on this day or that. J IM ptalk·cont 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my "In the Judaeo-Christian as well as in Islamic tradition, Sunday has been considered as the first day of the week." Says who? In the UK and I will lay good money Australia and most of the former colonies, Monday is certainly the first day of the week. 100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.188.188 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in obvious deviation from Judaeo-Christian tradition, by a change done in the 1970s.--131.159.76.164 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

dominoes can not be played on sunday in alabama
For something that silly can it have a source?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange...
"Any month beginning on a Sunday will contain a Friday the 13th."

Is the above statement taken from the introduction true?

Does anyone have a link to help verify this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.158.105 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, it’s true. All you have to do is add. If Sunday is the first, Monday will be the second, and in a couple of weeks, Friday will be the thirteenth. —Stephen (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Technical error on Gregorian calendar
The article states: "The Gregorian calendar repeats every 400 years, and no century starts on a Sunday." Perhaps this sentence should be deleted, because it is only partly true and does not provide information directly relevant to the topic "Sunday." While it is true that most groupings of 400 years have a number of days that is evenly divisible by seven, those groups of 400 years that include a year evenly divisible by 4,000 will not have a number of days evenly divisible by seven. That is because years that are evenly divisible by 4,000 are an exception to the rule that years evenly divisible by 400 are leap years (even though years evenly divisible by 100 are otherwise not leap years). Such rules are necessary because the orbital period of the Earth around the Sun is completely independent of the Earth's rotational period, so that there is no simple set of rules that can keep the calendar completely in sync with the Earth's orbit around the Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article is correct. The "exception to the rule" that you refer to is not part of the Gregorian calendar, but is a modification proposed by John Herschel, which has never been officially adopted. On the other hand, I agree with you that the sentence is not relevant to the topic, and appears to be meaningless trivia. In context it appears to be hinting that the lack of centuries beginning on Sunday is one of the motivations for the ISO standard. But there appears to be no evidence or reliable source suggesting this, so I am removing the sentence as well as the subsequent ones unless someone can provide a better reason why they should be in the article. David9550 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

David9550 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok Always thought the Greek God, Apollo was also worshiped on Sunday?
Thought Greek God Appllo was worshiped on "SunDay" day of the sun sun god Appollo? Didnt see mention in article on this!Thanks!Andreisme (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I clarified the Roman calendar's influence. See Sol Invictus.  Nobody has documented a Greek influence.  -- SEWilco (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology in Asian languages
Might I suggest that we mention the East Asian etymology of Sunday as we've done with some of the other days of the week? Monday we cite as being 月曜日（げつようび）(with the character 月 meaning "moon" or "month") in Japanese (though it cites some Chinese origin) and Sunday shares the distinction in Japan as being a day of the sun as well 日曜日. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.242.96 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comes from Chinese 星期日, literally "sun day". - M0rphzone (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of statement regarding connection to Julian calendar
The article states: "The ancient Romans traditionally used the eight-day nundinal cycle, but after the adoption of the Julian calendar, in the time of Augustus, the seven-day week came into use."

I question the accuracy of the statement. It should be deleted unless a source can be found for it. The eight-day nundinal cycle was an integral part of Roman time-keeping and continued in use for centuries after the adoption for the Julian calendar. In particular, after the Augustan religious reforms, the calendar continued to have eight-day long markets associated with various festivals. Furthermore, the eight-day nundinal period appears to be integral to the Julian calendar. For example, most people are confused by the fact that the Romans considered March 25 to have been the day of the spring equinox, even though the astronomical day for this event would have been March 21 at the time the Julian calendar was developed. Of possible relevance is the fact that March 25 is 24 days after March 1, which is exactly three eight-day nundinal periods after March 1. Also showing the possible structural relevance of the eight-day nundinal period to the Julian calendar is the fact that there are 184 days between March 1 and September 1 -- a number that is evenly divisible by 8 but not evenly divisible by 7. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC))


 * The article's statement does not say that the nundinae was replaced by the seven-day week. The next sentence states "For a while, the week and the nundinal cycle coexisted", and indeed in the Calendar of 354 the nundinae (A–H) and the seven-day week (A–G) are given side-by-side throughout the year. However, the article's statement is unfortunate because it implies that the seven-day week and the Julian calendar were related. Although both appeared in Rome during the latter half of the 1st century BC on stone calendars, they were not related (those same stone calendars had the letters of the nundinae (A–H) next to those of the seven-day week (A–G)). Nor is the nundinae related to the Julian calendar, despite your numerology. Selecting March 1 to September 1 rather than other dates is totally arbitrary. The Saturnalia (AD 430) by Macrobius describes how the Julian calendar was derived from the Roman Republican calendar by adding one or two days near the end of specific months, but he does not mention the nundinae during his discussion. See Nundinal Letters for additional info.


 * The early imperial Romans did not place the vernal equinox on March 25. Writing in 37 BC, Varro in De re rustica I.28 clearly states that the vernal equinox occurred on March 24. See A.U.C. 717 = 37 B.C. and in the English translation On rustic matters see "A Calendar of Agricultural Operations". March 21 is the traditional date of the equinox at the time of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), and the Church of Alexandria was already using March 21 as the equinox within its Easter tables as early as AD 313. It was the 3rd-century Christians who placed Creation, the vernal equinox, and the Passion of Christ all on March 25. Venance Grumel in La chronologie (1958) thinks that March 25 originated in the Easter table of Hippolytus (AD 222). During the 4th century, after December 25 was adopted as the Nativity of Jesus, March 25, nine months earlier, was also identified with the Anunciation of Jesus. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Tyndale House website should be used with extreme caution.  Macrobius is definite that twelve, and only twelve, leap days were added during the first 36 years of the Julian calendar.   He also says that the number should have been nine, and this was dealt with by omitting three leap years in the calendar after it was corrected.   Again, Tyndale puts the first leap year at 44BC, but since Caesar prescribed one leap year every four years and was still alive in 44BC (before his successors had the chance to misinterpret the rules) it is difficult to see why his first leap year would have come only one year after the calendar was corrected.   Again, Egyptian astronomers started the Julian calendar on the same day that it was referred back to after Augustus' reform, so it is difficult to see why in Rome it should have started a day later.   Comparison of the nominal date of the equinox with the astronomical date is dangerous - the astronomical date varies over a minimum of two calendar days and the ancients consistently placed it a day or so late - the fathers of Nicaea placed it on 21 March in AD325 although the astronomical date was 20 March.   A more convincing astronomical fix is that the Romans wanted the start of the Julian calendar to coincide with the new moon.


 * One of Tyndale's arguments for its peculiar three - year leap year cycle is that Augustus started provinces in Asia Minor off on the cycle in 8BC, when it had already been consigned to the dustbin in Rome.  Tyndale argues that the relevant proclamation provides for the month containing the leap day to have 32 days in every third year.   This is impossible - the calendar was locked to the Julian in one - to - one date correspondence, and no Julian month contains more than 31 days.   All the proclamation said was that one month should have 32 days three years into the future (at the time the alignment of the two calendars was to be made).   Every reform consists of two parts - the adjustment (to correct the date) and the new leap year rule (to keep the date correct in the future).   For Britain and the United States this was the deletion of eleven days in 1752 and the provision that most century years should no longer be leap years.


 * The link between the Roman calendar and the nundines is that the old Roman year of 304 days contained exactly 38 market weeks.  In the Roman Republican calendar which followed these 304 days were redistributed (I believe, although I may be wrong, that there were then 304 fasti interspersed among the dies nefasti on which certain activities were restricted).   Also, there was one market week from the nones to the ides and two market weeks from the ides to the last day of the month (this last relationship did not hold good in February). 156.61.160.1 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Sunday "role" in christianity
In current version of article there is following sentence:

"For many Christians it is the day set apart for worship of God, due to their belief in Christ's resurrection on a Sunday, according to the Gospels."

I always thought that Sunday originates from "fact" that God created world in six days and rest on the seventh one. People should not work on seventh day of week in order to worship God and his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.186.140 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems you messed the Jews and the Christians up. - The issue is more complex, and there's no denying that a bit of the old Sabbath went into the, as it were, New Sabbath; but that's chiefly the old Jewish Sabbath you're speaking about.--131.159.76.164 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

First day in the Hebrew calender
Monday is by no way the first day in the hebrew calender but rather Sunday. This is also written in the linked page hebrew calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.8.53 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

First Sunday in the history?
And how the Sunday defined or the first week defined in history is not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.157.74.169 (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Christians, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. So the 7th day is a day of rest. So the first Sunday was at the end of the first week. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard this argument and it certainly doesn't seem Biblical. Sunday worship appeared in Christianity after the Apostolic Age during the Great Christian persecution. In the book 'Faith of Our Fathers' by James Cardinal Gibbons pg. 72-73 and 'The Faith of Millions' by John A. O'Brien, explains the Catholic Church admits that there is no Biblical evidence of Sunday worship. They both state that the "Mother Church," meaning the Catholic Church, devised Sunday worship and instituted it as a religious observance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animo elohist (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Day names in Slavic languages
Slavic languages, at least Polish, DO NOT implicitly number Monday as day number one. At least in Polish days were named with Sunday as the reference and Sunday is traditionally considered as the first day. So the Monday is the day after Sunday (niedziela -> poniedziałek), ... and czwartek (Thursday) is the 4th day after Sunday, not the 4th day (see http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazwy_dni_tygodnia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:13A0:3010:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Seventh day adventists in early christian times?
In the section Sunday In Christianity/Christian disputation, this article currently says:


 * Early Christians had differences of opinion as to whether Sabbath (the day of rest) should be observed on a Saturday or a Sunday. The issue did not arise for Jews or Seventh-day Adventists, for whom "Shabbat" or Sabbath is unquestionably on Saturday.

However our article Early Christians defines them as:


 * the period of Christianity preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

and our article on Seventh-day Adventists says:


 * The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the mid-19th century and was formally established in 1863

So it seems to me that the reference to Seventh Day Adventists here is clearly out of context. Whatever their beliefs, they clearly didn't impact the differences of opinion amongst Early Christians in the period prior to 325AD, which is what this section and paragraph is about, because they simply didn't exist back then. And their beliefs seem adequately covered in the more relevant Modern practices section which immediately follows, although I'd be happy to see the statement:


 * for whom "Shabbat" or Sabbath is unquestionably on Saturday

moved there if people feel it adds something there.

However my attempt to remove the out of context reference was reverted by User:ScrapIronIV with the comment 'Discuss on talk'. So here I am. I don't see any case for the revert, which simply reinstates a chronological confusion, but I'm quite happy to discuss it further. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue came up for early Christians, but it did not arise for Seventh Day Adventists. The sentence is not saying that Seventh Day Adventists were "Early Christians."  There is no conflict between sources or articles, and offers clear information on the beliefs of Seventh Day Adventists. It is not out of context.  Scr ★ pIron IV 12:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any way we can clarify that by modifying the sentence structure? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not certain it needs to be changed; I understood the context when I read it. The prose can always be improved to provide greater clarity if others believe it is necessary.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is heavily contaminated with Sabbatarian propaganda anyway. So, to speak of "the Sabbath" as name for the day of rest is to move back a certain English speech-pattern into the 4th century, to begin with; when these people said "the Sabbath", they meant Saturday, including when they said that a Christian does not merit by holding the Sabbaths. Second, they did not dispute; while it does seem that Christians largely participated in the Jewish rituals as long as the temple stood, they ceased to do so by at least the time of Ignace of Antioch, and that there were any specific Christian assemblies on Saturday (other than perhaps its evening) that couldn't as well have been held on any other day is not suggested anyway. That there was ever a significant (note: significant) movement within Christianity which, after the fall of the Temple, would give the pride of place within the week to Saturday rather than Sunday is bogus. (And that, frankly, includes all the time up to this day, because seventh-day Sabbatarians are not significant; though we may say that at least they exist at all, and that maybe in the 2nd century there were also some few; and that between the Council of Nicea and the beginning of the modern period there were none at all.)--131.159.76.164 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)