Did Chrysostom Say What Had Once Been Required by the Turah Was Now Wrong to Observe?
Source: Homily 4
What the ancient record says
Yes, one of the most revealing arguments. Discussing the Yahudi appointed times, he acknowledges there had once been a proper time for their observance, then argues that the proper time no longer exists; the translation states in substance that what had once been according to the ancestral instruction was now opposed to it.
He is not denying the practices existed in the ancestral writings, he argues they were once commanded but continuing them now is wrong. On Pasakh: in Homily 4 he refers to the command and explicitly acknowledges the fourteenth day of the first month and Yahrushalam as part of the ancestral instruction, then argues that without the required place the observance cannot legitimately continue.
So he knew the fourteenth day, he references it himself; his disagreement concerns whether it remains valid. Does his interpretation define what the Turah actually means?
No, he is a 4th-century interpreter; his claim must be compared with the earlier Scroll witness. The card establishes his argument, it does not elevate his interpretation over the source.
Read it for yourself. Chrysostom, Homily 4 (Pasakh, the fourteenth day, Yahrushalam, the appointed times) (Tertullian Project).
Evidence strength: Direct primary evidence for Chrysostom's interpretation.