'first of sabbaths' nonsense

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Gerhard Ebersoehn, Dec 1, 2015.

  1. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Claim:

    First of the Sabbaths is a Hebrew idiom describing the First Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks. Any first century Hebrew would immediately understand the meaning......as well as being able to tell you when the Fourth of the Sabbaths occurred.....and the fifth and sixth etc.

    Rebuttal:

    “~First of the Sabbaths~” may be “~a Hebrew idiom describing the First Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks.~” I wouldn’t know because I don’t know Hebrew or the etymology or the usage of the phrase you describe as “~First of the Sabbaths~”.

    But this I do know, that “~First of the Sabbaths~” appears nowhere in the New Testament which is Greek of course. The nearest in the NT to “~First of the Sabbaths~” in my opinion must be Luke 6:1, “and it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first [sabbath], that he went through the corn fields. Nestle, ‘egeneto de en sabbatohi diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimohn’; fragments, ‘egeneto de en sabbatohi deuteroprohuohi; ‘sabbato mane’. View NTG Nestle for the very complicated manuscript differences. My explanation may be seen in ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’, but I cannot tell you where exactly after the many years that have past since I wrote it at first.

    However, A.T. Robertson remains the best and will never be improved on. I remember one crucial page was missing, but luckily the librarian could supply me with a copy.

    672 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
    use so far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew
    idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at
    least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then theN. T.
    naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter
    to the Hebrew influence. In theN. T. indeed we once have 7rpWTTI
    ua{3{3lJ.Tov (Mk. 16 : 9), which belongs to the disputed close of the
    Gospel.l Cf., on the other hand, fls J.I.Lav ua{3{3aTwv (Mt. 28 : 1),
    1rpwt Hil J.LL~ Twv ua{3(3aTwv (Mk. 16: 2), TV J.LL~ Twv ua{3{3aTwv (Lu.
    24: 1; Jo. 20: 1; Ac. 20: 7); Kanl. J.Llav ua{3{3aTov (1 Cor. 16: 2).
    There is nothing peculiar in the use of evtavTov Kal J.Lfivas e~ (Ac.
    18: 11). Cf. Rev. 12: 14.
    ‘Prohtos’, “First”, in Mark 16:9

    A. T. Robertson, ‘Grammar’,

    “Everywhere [in the papyri and Koineh] it is the language of life and not of the books [Asianism and Atticism].” p. 74.

    Generally the Gospel according to Mark seems to be written in the language of the people. But ‘prohtehi’ instead of ‘miai’ in 16:9, shows the author of ‘the second ending’, preferred “the language of the books” and did not “deviate… from classical orthodoxy”.

    Robertson,
    “Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom [while] the vernacular Koineh is utterly free from this vice . . .” of “Attic refinements”. p. 73.
     
  2. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Robertson,
    “Ordinal Numerals, The article is usually absent in expressions of time. The ancient idiom is here followed.” p. 793.

    Mark 16:9 has no article in ‘prohï prohtehi sabbatohn’ which confirms Mark does not use the expression to express rank--<<chief of sabbaths>>, but time, “on the First Day of the week”.

    (See Robertson’s absolutely brilliant animadversion with regard to the omission of the Article, chapter 12, 8, p. 790.)

    Robertson, p. 671,
    “…ordinals are indeed adjectives as are the first four cardinals . . .
    The use of ‘heis’… [[e.g., Mark in 16:2, Luke in 24:1 and John in 20:1]] …rather than ‘prohtos’ . . . [[e.g., Mark in 16:9]], …is one of the most striking points to observe. Before we can agree with Blass that this is “undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom”, who follows Winer, we must at least hear what Moulton has to say in reply. To begin with, “in modern Greek the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted the ordinals entirely.” Then we learn from the inscriptions that this usage of cardinals as ordinals is as old as the Byzantine Greek. . . . In the N. T. we only find this substitution of the cardinal in the case of ‘heis’ while in the modern Greek the matter has gone much further. In the classic Greek no real analogy exists though ‘heis’ stands in enumerations when ‘deuterors’ or ‘allos’ follows, and in compound numerals a closer parallel is found, like ‘heis kai triakostos’, though even here the case is essentially different. . . . . Certainly then it was possible for this development to have gone on apart from the Hebrew, especially when one considers that ‘prohtos’ is not derived from ‘heis’. . . . Moulton further objects that if Semitic influence had been at work we should have had ‘tehi pente’ in the modern Greek since the Hebrew used the later days of the month in cardinal numbers. Still the striking fact remains that in the LXX (cf. Numb. 1:1) and in the N. T. the first day of the month [Sic.] is expressed by ‘mia’, not by ‘prohteh’. [[****Obviously Robertson meant to say, “in the LXX (cf. Numb. 1:1) the first day of the month, and in the N. T. the first day of the week, is expressed by ‘mia’, not by ‘prohteh’”.]] This was obviously in harmony with the Koineh of a later time, but the first evidence of its actual ______________” [my page 672 missing]
     
  3. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Closes Robertson at the end of,
    “(d) THE DISTRIBUTIVES” p. 673, “Hence we must conclude , with Moulton and Thumb, development was independent of the Hebrew.”

    I tried to let Robertson explain how it came about that ‘mia’ a cardinal got to be used as an ordinal instead of ‘prohtos’ the actual (but no longer used) ordinal in seven of the eight instances that reference is being made to “the First Day of the week”—Mark 16:9 the clear exception with clearly identical meaning.

    Robertson explained how it came about that this ‘replacement’ had become the ‘normal’ in the Greek of the New Testament—in my own opinion had become the Idiom, of the New Testament Christian Greek to say, “the First Day of the (Sabbath-)week”.

    So, Robertson admits,
    “the Koineh development was independent of the Hebrew.”

    And so in all incidences where ‘mia’ has been used in close connection with the Greek Hebraism, ‘sabbatou’ / ‘sabbatohn’ and the former (the cardinal ‘mia’) replaced the latter (the ordinal ‘prohtos’), it happened “independent of the Hebrew”, and in spite of the word “Sabbath” being Hebrew and an Old Testament word.
    In other words, both the phrases ‘prohtehi sabbatou’ and ‘miai sabbatohn’ became a resounding victory for the Christian “Sabbath” as for the Christian Faith, for all time and places in the world.

    The forces and influence which gave origin to the universal Idiom, “of the week”, were purely Christian, and purely “of the Sabbath(-week)”.

    Not only the cardinals had ‘won the day’ for the New Testament era ‘-week’; it was the combined effort and success of both the Greek cardinal and the Christian ‘Sabbath Day’.

    My conclusion: ‘tehi miai sabbatohn’ is a Hellenised, New Testament and Christian-Greek expression / idiom for “the First Day-of-the-(Sabbath’s)-week”.
     

Share This Page

Loading...