Is the Phrase "First Day of the Week" Properly Translated in the New Testament?

Author's website ^ | Unknown | Todd Derstine

[Daniel Gregg]

 

 

  Both years IIRC permit Friday crucifixion and a doubled sabbath (Passover concurrent with weekly sabbath).

John (19:31) calls the annual Passover Sabbath on Thursday that year “the great Sabbath” (μεηαλη…εκεινου του σαββατου) which is in Hebrew is: ha-shabbat ha-gadol. The official church explanation for this designation is that it was used when a Jewish feast day chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath.  This begs the question, though, as to the reason why the annual Passover Sabbath, which was the greatest and most important feast day of the Biblical calendar would only be called "great" if itֹonly chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath!  In the fourth century, the Church innovated to always call the Sabbath between Good Friday and Easter "the great Sabbath", contradicting the explanation of John 19:31.  Well after John, the Synagogue innovated to call the Sabbath before Passover "the great Sabbath".  Some explain the 10^th of Nisan made that Sabbath "great" in the Exodus year—a very lame excuse, and lamer still since Seder Olam contradicts it.

Interesting point I'll have to review further. Nehemiah identifies the month as Nisan (2:1) corresponding to March 5, 444 BC. I would suspect that he would discern the difference.

   If you check out your Parker and Duberstein, you'll see that it doesn't work.  3/5/444 also puts the full moon before the spring equinox -- that that doesn't even agree with the Catholic tradition which they got from the Jewish tradition of intercalation.

While you may argue the prophetic use is invalid, if you use the AD 32 as the end of the sabbatical year - you still end up with AD 33. Now according to number / calendar crunchers more anial than I, this method from Mar 1, 444BC yields a termination on Nisan 10, AD 33, the date of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

 Problem is that the sabbatical was AD 32/33 and not 31/32.   Rabbi Yose Halaphta (Seder Olam, ca. 140 AD) puts the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69 and the seventh year is 67/68.   You'll see that the Torah was read by Ezra at the end of the 445/444 sabbath year per Deut. 31:10, and that the debt release was made by Nehemiah at that time.   Your 31/32 Sabbath year is an error based on Maimonides correction of the destruction date to AD 70 long after the Jews forgot when the seventh year was.   Also Donald Blosser pointed out that the Caligula incident in Jospehus totally invalidates the Zuckermann cycle.

Issue then becomes synchronizing the passover and weekly sabbaths to match the gospel accounts which is impossible for an AD 34 Friday cruxifiction.

   A Friday Crucifixion is not parsimonious with the evidence  (re: Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31) nor Lev. 23:15 nor any of the first of the sabbath passages.

Or the term can refer as Lightfoot and other scholars of Jewish history and literature of the period point out that the phrase is a hebraism and possibly a reference to the first week of seven interveining between Passover and Pentecost - not necessarly refering to the weekly sabbath.

The earliest use of

אחד בשבת

is Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua.  And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath".  The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.

You can plead variant interpretations all you want.  But they won't help you construct a consistent chronology.  Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says.  It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.

     

 

 

 

Interesting point I'll have to review further. Nehemiah identifies the month as Nisan (2:1) corresponding to March 5, 444 BC. I would suspect that he would discern the difference.

While you may argue the prophetic use is invalid, if you use the AD 32 as the end of the sabbatical year - you still end up with AD 33. Now according to number / calendar crunchers more anial than I, this method from Mar 1, 444BC yields a termination on Nisan 10, AD 33, the date of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

 Problem is that the sabbatical was AD 32/33 and not 31/32.   Rabbi Yose Halaphta (Seder Olam, ca. 140 AD) puts the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69 and the seventh year is 67/68.   You'll see that the Torah was read by Ezra at the end of the 445/444 sabbath year per Deut. 31:10, and that the debt release was made by Nehemiah at that time.   Your 31/32 Sabbath year is an error based on Maimonides correction of the destruction date to AD 70 long after the Jews forgot when the seventh year was.   Also Donald Blosser pointed out that the Caligula incident in Jospehus totally invalidates the Zuckermann cycle.

Issue then becomes synchronizing the passover and weekly sabbaths to match the gospel accounts which is impossible for an AD 34 Friday cruxifiction.

   A Friday Crucifixion is not parsimonious with the evidence  (re: Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31) nor Lev. 23:15 nor any of the first of the sabbath passages.

Or the term can refer as Lightfoot and other scholars of Jewish history and literature of the period point out that the phrase is a hebraism and possibly a reference to the first week of seven interveining between Passover and Pentecost - not necessarly refering to the weekly sabbath.

The earliest use of

אחד בשבת

is Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua.  And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath".  The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.

You can plead variant interpretations all you want.  But they won't help you construct a consistent chronology.  Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says.  It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.

     

Issue then becomes synchronizing the passover and weekly sabbaths to match the gospel accounts which is impossible for an AD 34 Friday cruxifiction.

Or the term can refer as Lightfoot and other scholars of Jewish history and literature of the period point out that the phrase is a hebraism and possibly a reference to the first week of seven interveining between Passover and Pentecost - not necessarly refering to the weekly sabbath.

The earliest use of

אחד בשבת

is Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua.  And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath".  The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.

You can plead variant interpretations all you want.  But they won't help you construct a consistent chronology.  Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says.  It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.

     

[Godzilla]

The gospel accounts are consistent on when Jesus was crucified - it was the day before passover. Passover of 34 AD fell on a Tuesday, which means he would have to been crucified on Monday. This would have his resurrection on Wednesday.

[Godzilla]

John (19:31) calls the annual Passover Sabbath on Thursday that year

Though I just cited it, passover in AD 34 was on a tuesday, with AD 30 on a Thursday. You appear to be citing some other material in your post. Please cite your sources, thanks.

This begs the question, though, as to the reason why the annual Passover Sabbath, which was the greatest and most important feast day of the Biblical calendar would only be called "great" if itֹonly chanced to fall on the weekly Sabbath!

It doesn't beg the question if one considers the audience of John - primarily gentiles who would be familiar with the general term and use of sabbath but less familiar with the reference to Passover as a high day. Thus from John, we see him explaining the custom and the need for those crucified to be taken down with haste. Therefore you have the understanding backward, the weekly sabbath was also a "high" sabbath because they occurred that year on the same day.

If you check out your Parker and Duberstein, you'll see that it doesn't work. 3/5/444 also puts the full moon before the spring equinox -- that that doesn't even agree with the Catholic tradition which they got from the Jewish tradition of intercalation.

I have found that the intercalcalatory month was present before Nisan in 444 BC. However, as noted earlier, this places Passover in AD 32 on a Monday or AD 34 on a Tuesday. The chronology of the gospels does not support a crucifixion on either days - the weekly sabbath would have been evident in the narrative - and it is glaringly absent.

Since you mention Hoehner, he differs in that he states Nehemiah was using a Tishri-to-Tishri (IIRC used by the kings of judah) year dating method rather than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. Along with other challenges such as when Artaxerxes' twentieth year and when the beginning of his rule argue for 444BC. Neither of us can declare an iron-clad case on this point alone.

A Friday Crucifixion is not parsimonious with the evidence (re: Matthew 12:40, Mark 8:31, 9:31) nor Lev. 23:15 nor any of the first of the sabbath passages.

On this point your interpretation is stretched to the point that it is a leap that Evil Knievel would not have taken. Fact - - the crucifixion occurred the day of preparation before Passover. AD 32 Passover would have been Monday. This would require crucifixion to have occurred on Sunday. This would also place a weekly sabbath before Passover - and there is no evidence of this sabbath from the gospel accounts. Your scripture citations only reference the metaphor of Jonah.

Seder Olam (ca. AD 140), a work written by a Rabbi who set out to confuse and disprove that Daniel 9 applied to Messiah Yeshua. And that phrase is just pious usage for "one in respect to the Sabbath". . . . The earliest use in the Greek is in the Didache, all outside the provenance of the first century, and all written by apostates.

Sorry wasn't talking about One Saturday (אחד בשבת ) I don't think you understand the point I was getting at - the phrase "mia sabbathw" (one of the sabbaths - plural) is shown in jewish writings (as well as in the NT) of the era to be a hebraism used at the time to identify the day of their week as well as to identify the week between passover and pentecost. The Didache is dated by many to be approximately 70 AD, though most would place it late first century, its current redaction is mid second century.

Your explanation of John 19:31 makes no sense, nor Daniel 9, nor is your proposed sabbath year 31/32 valid, nor is your "first day of the week" what the literal text says. It all relies on tradition and pays no attention to usage or linguistics nor proper chronology.

Well, neither do your 'explanations' hold water either. The gospel narrative for the last week of Jesus' life do not have a weekly sabbath occurring the day before his crucifixion. Your narrative does not even come close to explaining these

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Well, I found one of the books I was looking for.

HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY by JACK FINEGAN. Published by Princeton University Press, 1964.

The author is of the position that the Crucifiction was on a Friday and resurection on a Sunday. Otherwise he does not seem to have any special ax to grind.

I will enclose two tables from his work and let you all sort it out.

From page 297...Tertullian states that Christ was crucified ...."under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eight day before the kalends of April, on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even." (an answer to the jews)

Augustine gives the same date. "Now Christ died when the Gemini were consuls, on the eighth day before the kalends of April. (The City of God)

The problem is, it does not correspond to either Nisan 14 or 15 in the Jewish calender.

[Daniel Gregg]

 

Though I just cited it, passover in AD 34 was on a tuesday, with AD 30 on a Thursday. You appear to be citing some other material in your post. Please cite your sources, thanks.

 

I should be asking you to cite your sources, because both of your assertions here are false statements.  I hope it was not intentional.   If you consult Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Edition, 1998, page 363, Table 179, you will see a chart of Fotheringham's calculations for Nisan 14  in the years 27-34 AD:

 

AD  Nisan 14

30    April 7 Fri      [Not here]

31    Mar 27 Tue

32    Apr 14 Mon

33    Apr 3 Fri        [And not here]

34    Mar 24 Wed   [Here is when the crucifixion was]

 

    Now I figure you are looking for the magic bullet to exclude AD 34.  I feel your angst at the lack of an easy out.  But your "citations" aren't going to work.   I did cite my sources already because that is just what Parker and Duberstein represent.   I fully realize that successful apologists for the Friday-Sunday tradition have to bluff their way to victory with wool but now days you've got Daniel 12:4 foiling such attempts.  I hope that's not your methodology.  Otherwise, this discussion won't be the challenge I hope for.

 

It doesn't beg the question if one considers the audience of John - primarily gentiles who would be familiar with the general term and use of sabbath but less familiar with the reference to Passover as a high day. Thus from John, we see him explaining the custom and the need for those crucified to be taken down with haste. Therefore you have the understanding backward, the weekly sabbath was also a "high" sabbath because they occurred that year on the same day.

    You can't make logic go away so simply.  The 15th of Nisan annual Sabbath was made greater by all accounts than the weekly Sabbath due to Israel's Exodus on that day.  The weekly Sabbath was never called great by itself (except by religious revisionists), so it is ludicrous to apply great to the annual Sabbath only when it lands on the weekly Sabbath.   Since the Gentiles in Asia Minor were still observing Passover by the Jewish Calendar, and not by the Roman Easter innovation, they would know the importance of this annual Sabbath.   But I suppose one has to actually observe it to understand why it is great.

    Since the only chronology that explains the facts adequately puts the annual Sabbath on Thursday, Nisan 15, it deductively follows that your argument from silence and against common sense for the meaning of "great" is error.  It also deductively follows from the Wednesday-Sabbath chronology that explains all the facts, that Nisan 15 was called "great" regardless of the day of the week it fell upon.

 

• I have found that the intercalcalatory month was present before Nisan in 444 BC. However, as noted earlier, this places Passover in AD 32 on a Monday or AD 34 on a Tuesday. The chronology of the gospels does not support a crucifixion on either days - the weekly sabbath would have been evident in the narrative - and it is glaringly absent.

 

    You are not making any sense now.  Only two theories of a 360 day year and Daniel 9 are proposed,  445-32 (Sir Robert Anderson), and 444-33 (Harold Hoehner, et al).   I can confirm for you that Nisan 14 in AD 32 was on Monday, but the only value of this is that it destroys Anderson's theory.   The data you give for AD 34 is a false statement—the truth be that it squarely and fairly puts Nisan 14 on Wednesday.   Now the Addaru II you correctly discovered before the correct Nisan in 444 destroys the 444-33 AD Daniel 9 explanation.

 

• Since you mention Hoehner, he differs in that he states Nehemiah was using a Tishri-to-Tishri (IIRC used by the kings of judah) year dating method rather than the Persian Nisan-to-Nisan method. Along with other challenges such as when Artaxerxes' twentieth year and when the beginning of his rule argue for 444BC. Neither of us can declare an iron-clad case on this point alone.

 

      Yes, the a Tishri year is being used, but irrelevant to the invalidity Hoehner's 360 day/year theory.   As for the date of Neh. 2:1 being in 444 BC there is no doubt.  VAT 5047 in the 11th year (454) of Artaxerxes I takes care of that.   And I should remedy an oversight from your last post.  You suggested that the sabbatical year be 31/32 AD, and that 33 AD be the terminal year.  However that would imply that 446/445 BC would be the sabbath year.   Since the walls were rebuilt in 444, that reduces the count to 68 instead of the required 69 (7 + 62 = 69).   So plainly AD 33 does not work with ANY proposed Sabbatical year.   But like I said the correct Sabbatical year is 32/33.   BC 445/444 was the first and AD 32/33 the 69th.

 

• On this point your interpretation is stretched to the point that it is a leap that Evil Knievel would not have taken. Fact - - the crucifixion occurred the day of preparation before Passover. AD 32 Passover would have been Monday. This would require crucifixion to have occurred on Sunday. This would also place a weekly sabbath before Passover - and there is no evidence of this sabbath from the gospel accounts. Your scripture citations only reference the metaphor of Jonah.

       From where I stand the whole traditional chronology is an absurd apostasy from the biblical truth, which declares plainly that the resurrection was on the Sabbath after Passover, i.e.  μια των σαββατων, the "first of the sabbaths" (cf. Lev. 23:15).   So far you've lost every point we've contended over.   It doesn't take a leap to see that your side seriously violates Okcham's Razor.

     The rest of your statement above makes no sense.  AD 32 is not relevant.  I feel like you just want to cheapen the debate with nonsense so that no one will read it.  I would hope that was not the case, yet your reasoning is incompetent, so I don't know what to think.   In AD 34 the preparation of the Passover was on Nisan 14, a Wednesday.  That is all that is required.

       It cited Mark 8:31 and 9:31, so your last sentence above is misrepresentation of what I said.   Mark 8:31 says "after three days" he would rise, a fact that fits Wednesday to Sabbath, but cannot fit Friday to Sunday.  I already posted a chart showing as much.

 

• Sorry wasn't talking about One Saturday (אחד בשבת ) I don't think you understand the point I was getting at - the phrase "mia sabbathw" (one of the sabbaths - plural) is shown in jewish writings (as well as in the NT) of the era to be a hebraism used at the time to identify the day of their week as well as to identify the week between passover and pentecost. The Didache is dated by many to be approximately 70 AD, though most would place it late first century, its current redaction is mid second century.

 

      You probably don't know much Hebrew.  Otherwise you would not have made the gaff you did in the above paragraph.    Remember when Obama said "cinco de cuatro"?  It's about the same. אחד בשבת is used to mean Sunday in Mishnaic Hebrew.   However, the word "Sabbath" does not mean "week".  The proper translation is "one in connection with Sabbath".  It was a pious usage for Jews of the Mishnaic period to refer to the Sabbath when they designated days of the week.   Such usage, however is unattested before ca. AD 140.  AD 70 is an impossibly early date for the Didache.

      What you need to realize is that all your arguments are a form of circular reasoning.   You use a document from an apostate Church to prove your point.  You use the mistranslation "first day of the week" executed by apostate Christianity to prove your point.  All circular reasoning that disagrees with the whole chronology of Passion week and the literal meaning of the words, and totally disagrees with Daniel 9.

[Daniel Gregg]

Thank you Ruy for posting Finegan.
Table 140 is based only on astronomical calculations. (1) As calculated by Fotheringham is the correct Jewish method of intercalation. Column (2) is the Babylonian and Persian Method.

Table 142 is Finegan’s interpretation.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I live in a heavy SDA populated area who wear their Sabbath like a chip on their shoulder. I decided to see what they believed on the subject, so I picked up a book WHAT SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELIEVE...published by the general Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists.

On page 253 they state that “On FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the SIXTH DAY OF THE WEEK, Christ finished his redemptive mission on earth. His last words were ‘It is finished!”

(caps added by me)

[Diego1618]

On page 253 they state that “On FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the SIXTH DAY OF THE WEEK, Christ finished his redemptive mission on earth. His last words were ‘It is finished!”

Well.....I can't cannot speak for Daniel....but I've never seen too much about the SDA that I can agree with.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

It is too easy to read something and run with it.

Here is an example...

Pharasees ate only one meal on saturday, but three or more each day during the week.

Proof.
A pharasee goes to the temple and brags about how he fasts twice on the Sabbath day!

Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week (Sabbath), I give tithes of all that I possess.

The Greek reads Sabbath therefore he only ate one meal that day then proving that Pharasees were well fed the other days.

Which reminds me, I missed two meals Satuday morning and noon but had a cookout yesterday afternoon! Didn’t even think about it till I started to cook. Does that make me special?

[Daniel Gregg]

Here's an article I've had posted on my site for quite some time. It gives some alternatives. I really don't have a firm position on the whole think except that sabbath does not mean "week" since it using the word was clearly a pious usage, and the pious user wanted the use of "sabbath" noticed, not "week".

Does "Sabbaton" in

Luke 18:12 really mean "week"?

 

For the 2nd Edition of the Scroll of Biblical Chronology and Prophecy

       

               Our English translations of Luke 18:12 say, "I fast twice a week".   However, the word for "Sabbath" occurs in the Greek text where the translators have written "week":

 

 

         This text represents the Hebrew .    The genitive definite article before Sabbath is represented by the lamed and the vowel under the lamed.     The original Hebrew uttered by the Pharisee (and Yeshua) is clear enough in that language,  "I fast twice with respect to the Sabbath", which is the same as similar pious usage in other Jewish sources.    See my annotated Chart of the Week for these usages.   The point of reckoning time with reference to the Sabbath was to give a pious notice of the Sabbath.    If Sabbath meant only "week" then there is no reason that such usage would have supplanted the normal usage, "I fast twice a seven" which in Hebrew would be Shavua, a derivative of the number seven meaning "week".  Actually, it still has the sense of "seven".   The before mentioned chart of the week will show that "I fast twice a Shavua" would be the normal mode of expression.

          What remains then is to explain how the Greek text of Luke got the way it did.  Starting from the Hebrew above that is not hard to see.   standing without comprehension of the context of practices of the Pharisees can easily be either, "I fast twice to the sabbath" or "I fast twice the sabbath" i.e. on it.   While we know now that the Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays, this was not a fact known so widely to Gentile scribes.   Luke's first MSS could easily have read "to the sabbath" in the first century i.e. , and then have been altered by some scribe in the second century to thinking that the text meant "I fast twice on the Sabbath".   The scribal practices of Christian scribes were no where near as exacting as Jewish scribes.  In fact, it was regarded as allowable to improve the text in this period.   We have early MSS from the second century when compared with fourth century MSS that show these tendencies.   However, for this section of Luke we have no early MSS.   So the change has gone undetected.   Indeed, the text of the book of Acts is about 10% longer in the Byzantine MSS than in the older MSS.   This is because scribes tended to conflate various readings, which means they put both into the text.   Differences in case endings and spellings were not uncommon either, and here I am only proposing a case ending corruption, and a very easy one to make at that.  "Too" sounds very similar to "toe".

          For the sake of argument, I will mention Acts 15:24 where the late western text adds, "saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:".   These anti-Torah words are not in the earliest MSS, and have been correctly removed from translations like the New American Standard Bible.    However, would anyone in the 1700's know this?   Of course not, since the older MSS were only discovered later.  But since we have no old MSS of Luke, we have no way of knowing for sure.   Could such a change have been motivated by the interpretation of 'week' for 'sabbaton' in the resurrection passages?    How does a mistake in a few MSS get into all of the current MSS?    Well, we say that when the Romans purged most of the MSS that the one with the mistake is the one that survived, and then this one became the exemplar for the MSS that followed.   God knew that corruptions were bound to occur.  It's human nature, so that's why He gave us four gospels and not just one.

        One odd text is not sufficient reason to introduce a new definition to "sabbaton" for the first century period.    A lexical meaning should be established by many witnesses and not just one text.   In fact, three witnesses ought to be required where an immediate contradiction would occur if said meaning did not apply.   However, "I fast twice the sabbath" implies no immediate contradiction.   O.k., it only contradicts the assumption that Yeshua was talking about the Pharisees that fasted on Monday's and Thursdays.   But even if he was, the text does only becomes an anomaly and not definitive proof that "Sabbath" meant week.   If "Sabbath" meant week, plain and simple, then there is no apparent reason for the change from using the common word for week, i.e. seven or Shavua, and there is every reason to think that counting "to" the Sabbath was a pious usage, which exactly fits the character of some Pharisees.   Perhaps there was some unknown class of Essene type Pharisee that skipped two meals on the Sabbath.   There are just too many unknowns to go depending on one witness for the meaning "week" when the meaning "sabbath" gives sense also.

        If it even be admitted that "sabbaton" means "week" in this one passage (and I do not agree that it does), it would be insufficient data to take the phrase "one [day] of the Sabbaths" in the resurrection passages and apply it there.   This is because the construction of the phrase in Greek is based on the normal usage for the Sabbath day, "day of the Sabbaths", except that the word "one" has been tacked on the front, and the word "day" dropped because it is implied by the gender of "one".   This is sufficient from the Greek point of view to prevent from meaning anything but a regular sabbath with the word "one" or "first" tacked on the front, which is explained by Lev. 23:15.   And in fact, the whole phrase is a pure Hebraism for which was used to designate the first Sabbath after Passover as distinct from the first Sabbath in Lev. 23:11, which was called to keep it distinct from the first Sabbath after Passover.

        The rest of the matter is secured by the overall chronology and the many details that only make sense with the resurrection on the Sabbath.

 

Appendix I:  The Syriac Luke 18:12.   In the extraction below from www.peshitta.org the Syriac word below "in a week" is "unto the Sabbath":  "I fast two times on toward the Sabbath".  This shows the pious usage of Sabbath in counting the days of the week.

 

    

[Daniel Gregg]

Don’t take what the General Conference says too seriously as an indication of what all SDA’s believe — espeically foregin SDA’s. The SDA church is as useless for chronology and eschatology as the Roman Catholics, however many of them don’t agree with the party line. The Church is a mixture of good and bad just like any other church. It is a real bummer that Ellen White endorsed a Friday Crucifixion, but then she contradicted herself on the “six days before the Passover” passage. I’ve bounced “first of the Sabbaths off of Desmond Ford and the late Samuuele Bacchiocchi face to face.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

“The first day of the week”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3157

[Diego1618]

Here's the first mistake they make:

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton.

Your own post shows this discrepancy!

en de th mia twn sabbatwn sunhgmenwn twn maqhtwn tou klasai arton o pauloV dielegeto autoiV mellwn exienai th epaurion pareteinen te ton logon mecri mesonuktiou

The word is SABBATWN.....not SABBATON or SABBATOU. As you can see here, the word is different and the singular is SABBATW.

The word SABBATWN also appears in [Matthew 28:1][Mark 16:2][Luke 24:1]and John 20:1].....all the resurrection verses and the phrase means "One (First) of the Sabbaths". SABBATON means Sabbath and SABBATOU is the adjective describing the day as in "Sabbath day".

You folks can call this "First Day of the Week" until you're blue in the face. That still will not change the true meaning.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***You folks can call this “First Day of the Week” until you’re blue in the face. That still will not change the true meaning. ***

I’ll stick with The Learned Men.

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0059.htm

[Diego1618]

No reasonable person imagines that the translators were infallible or that their work was perfect, but no one acquainted with the facts can deny that they were men of outstanding scholarship, well qualified for their important work, or that with God’s blessing they completed their great task with scrupulous care and fidelity.

The above is from your link.

Now.....errors in the works of the learned men: Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26. Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false. Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins. Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. 2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children." Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ." Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws. Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this. Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

And from the New Testament: Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive." Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7. Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts. Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family! John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water. John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV). Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc. 1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish." 1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?" 2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection. 1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ." 1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ." Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents. Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God." Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation." 1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits. Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four. Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously. Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

They also mistranslated the Greek words MIA TWN SABBATWN. It means "One of the Sabbaths". They translated it "First Day of the Week". They did this because most of them had been brought up in an Apostate Church.....and they didn't know any better as it had been crammed into their little heads as children.....much the same as the folks who nowadays believe this nonsense!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The above is from your link.

Now.....errors in the works of the learned men:***

This sounds like a rehash of the reasons given by the Wescott and Hort group to promote the RSV.

Point out the “errors” of the old and play up the new. It is also good for sales.

From the Translators to the Reader...1611 KJV.

1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.

• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

• 3 For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.

• 4 No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

• 5 For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?....

...

• 11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?

• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.

• 2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

[Daniel Gregg]

My reply to that article:

 

 

First of the Sabbaths vs. First Day of the Week

Daniel Gregg vs. Eric Lyons, Master Ministry

       All the resurrection accounts show that Yeshua was raised from the dead on the first Sabbath after Passover (μια των σαββατων; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; cf. vs. 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; cf. Acts 20:7; cf. 1Cor. 16:2).   In 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul tells the faithful to save up a contribution "down from the first of Sabbaths" (κατα μιαν σαββατων) to send to Jerusalem for Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8).  The anniversary of the resurrection always falls right after Passover.   It is marked on the "first of the sabbaths" in Acts 20:7 (Εν δε τη μια των σαββατων), when the disciples met to "break bread", which is a near eastern expression for a common meal.  The next day, a common Sunday morning, Paul departed on his journey.  The expression showing the time of the resurrection appears eight times in the Apostolic Writings.  It designates a special Sabbath (cf. Lev. 23:15) along with the regular Sabbaths.  Even John received his vision on the Sabbath (cf. Rev. 1:10).

       Before the Gentiles fell into the Baalistic apostasy that became the proto-Catholic Church and the various Gnostic movements, faithful Messianic Israelites met and worshiped on the Sabbath day, and observed the Jewish feast days (cf. Col. 2:16; 1Cor 5:8; 1Cor 16:8).  The apostates developed a web of deceit to lay as a foundation for their new religion taken from old Babylonia, and then proceeded to persecute the original faith into near extinction with the zeal of Jezebel.  In this article we will look at the lies, half truths, and admitted truths that can be confirmed in an article published by Eric Lyons for Apologetics Press.  Quotations will be from that article which are sourced at the link under Mr. Lyons name.  He writes:

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton. However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9).

     Lyons can barely tell the truth before starting in on the religious propaganda and lies.   We have to eliminate those Greek scholars from the field that learned to translate μια των σαββατων from others who told them that σαββατον meant "week" based on Church tradition.  That's nearly all of them.  Then we have to bring in those scholars of secular Greek and the few honest believing Greek scholars left that have set aside Church tradition to objectively study the matter from its linguistic basis that have correctly concluded that the phrase simply means "one day of the sabbaths".   Notice that Lyons whole argument here is based on appeal to majority and appeal to tradition.  That's not linguistic science in the least.  It's the one argument repeated by the opposition a thousand ways.  It's the one argument guaranteed to lead one into the apostasy of the majority is the slightest credence is placed on it.

      Even so Lyons sources have holes in them.  The first thing that Christians need to learn is that dictionaries and Lexicons are propaganda pieces.  The famed Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) was edited by Gerhard Kittel (1888-1948), "a German liberal Christian theologian who revealed himself to be a virulent anti-Semite who wrote Nazi-influenced nonsense about Christianity" (conservapedia.com/Gerhard_Kittel).  Kittel wrote the preface to TDNT in July 1933.  In August 1933, Herbert Lowewe, a Cambridge professor wrote:

 

       "It gives me great pain to find that so great an authority and leader of thought should give expression to such views. I have read your previous books with pleasure and profit, and I have learned much from them. ... your present pronouncement is quite incompatible with your previous teaching, and it is as unjust to Christianity as it is to Judaism. ... It is a grievous disillusionment to find that one's idol has feet of clay" (ibid, conservapedia)

 

      One must always keep in mind that human sources may be tainted with primary error or circular reasoning fallacies.  When men come before the throne of God to answer for their sins, the "I was just following orders" defense is not going to work any more than it worked at Nuremburg.  No God will hold them responsible to have done due diligence and have examined primary evidence with taking care to preserve their objectivity in prayerful entreaty to God to show them the truth.

       Perschbacher above is merely a fallacy of the circular reasoning type, his views learned by rumor from the original liar.  However, if we look at a source like Danker (now BDAG, 3rd edition, 2000) we will see that famed Jesuit Scholar Robert North disagrees that Sabbath meant "week", and this linguistic expert attributes it to a mistake by the Church Fathers (BDAG, pg. 910, σαββατον, "The Derivation of 'Sabbath', Biblica 36, '55, 182-201; cf. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Sabbath", © 2003, pg. 458; R. North).  Anyone who goes over the same linguistic evidence as North, S.J., will find the smoking gun behind the lie.

         An examination of Thayer's Lexicon will reveal uncertainty in the linguistic basis for the meaning "week":

 

 

        How does a speculation like Prof. Sophocles get into Thayer's Lexicon where the word "Sabbath" is given the meaning of "Sabbath"?  The reason is that the entire linguistic basis for sabbath meaning "week" is derived from exactly nine NT texts where everyone has been "told" it means week.   These are exactly nine texts that fail to prove the case from any linguistic view point, and professors like Sophocles knew it.   Nowhere else in all of Greek literature of NT provenance can anyone produce an example of Sabbath meaning week that is not traceable back to these texts.  And on an objective basis, to assert so in these nine texts is simply the most unparsimonious view one can take since the resultant chronology is contradictory.  If any other justification existed, it would be at the bottom of the column in Thayer.  In Luke 18:12, the Greek just means "I fast twice the Sabbath", which is sooner explained as an Hebraism than having the unattested meaning of "week": אני צם פעמים בשבת or לשבת,

 

which means "I fast twice in respect to Sabbath". In light of the chronology of Passion week and the Pious usage in the Mishnah and the Talmud, this is evidently the case.

        Lyons says "Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (dis) a week (tou sabbatou)."  What is obvious?  Only that Lyons is redacting his opinion that Sabbath means week back into the first century.  It is not obvious what this hapax (occurring only once) text means.  There could be some obscure Jewish sect of Pharisee that we don't know much about that made a pious point of skipping two meals on Sabbath, probably Friday evening and breakfast, eating only one meal toward the end of Sabbath after the end of their ascetic exercises for the day.  Lyons argument is therefore purely an argument from silence and the main Jewish tradition.

         Every linguist senses, if they do not know it already, that a secondary meaning to a word must be proven by regular and common examples in the language, and that the additional use flows naturally out of the base semantic range of the root word.  With only one supposed enigmatic example, we do not have sufficient basis to be going into the resurrection passages to put a hapax conjecture into texts where the meaning "Sabbath" already makes plain sense.  If one looks at is objectively, one must conclude that the evidence for circular reasoning tomfoolery is overwhelming.

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.” (Lyons).

       The first sentence is a bald faced lie.  The Jews did have a standard way to refer to the week days, and it did not use the word Sabbath.  Only the ignorant can believe it.  The ancient Jews sooner said, "first day," "second day", etc. than ever referring to the Sabbath except when it was Friday, which is "erev Shabbat" (eve of Sabbath) or "Sabbath" itself, and never then does the word mean "week".   William Mead Jones "A Chart of the Week" (annotated) shows the Hebrew Bible counting the days just as above.   [1] The alleged usage only occurs in the Mishnah and Talmud, and even there, it is mixed with the following usage, which is more common.  [2] And sooner than use such forms, the Jewish community said, "one in the seven", "two in the seven", using the Hebrew or Aramaic word for "seven".  This is how the Targums count and even the ancient Syriac after we take Robert North's, S.J. findings into account.

       Now if μια των σαββατων means "first day with reference to the Sabbath" then why don't the translators translate it as such?  Because with such a meaning, μια των σαββατων is not what we expect.  We expect the dative case: μια εν τη σαββατω or accusative μιαν εις το σαββατον.  Another reason they don't do it is that it calls too much attention to the Sabbath.  A pious usage showing recognition of the Sabbath is not something they want to draw attention to on the resurrection day!  No, the phrase μια των σαββατων simply means "one [day] of the sabbaths" in Koine Greek.

After spending years examining Jewish writings in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebraist John Lightfoot wrote A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in which he expounded upon the Hebrew method of counting the days of the week. He noted: “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (1859, 2:375, emp. in orig.). Lightfoot then quoted from two different Talmud tractates. Maccoth alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375, emp. in orig.; Maccoth, Chapter 1). Bava Kama describes ten enactments ordained by a man named Ezra, including the public reading of the law “on the second and fifth days of the sabbath,” and the washing of clothes “on the fifth day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375; Bava Kama, Chapter 7). In Michael Rodkinson’s 1918 translation of Maccoth and Bava Kama, he accurately translated “the second day of the sabbath” as Monday, “the fifth day of the sabbath” as Thursday, and “the first of the sabbath” as Sunday. (Lyons)

       First we should find out who Bishop John Lightfoot was (1602-1675).  He was a clergyman in the Church of England with Presbyterian sympathies (i.e. the Calvinist heresy), son of the vicar of Uttoxeter; he was not Jewish and his native language was not Hebrew or any Semitic language.  He learned his Hebraica from Sir Rowland Cotton.   He rejected the thousand year kingdom reign of Yeshua on earth, and sought for "the repression of current 'blasphemies'" (wiki).  He was allegedly the first Christian to call attention to the Talmud, so it may be assumed that he had no peer review on what he found there.  He also did not know his Hebrew very well or chose to suppress it, because what we find in the Talmud is not "One day (or the first day) of the sabbath".  What Lightfoot tried to translate with the word "of" in English does not correspond to the Hebrew ב found in the Talmud.  Further, one merely needs to remove Lightfoot's parenthesis such that we see "One day of the Sabbath" corresponds to the Greek idiom for the Sabbath, "day of the Sabbath(s)" with the word "first" before it.   Lightfoot is also concealing that the Greek is plural, i.e. "Sabbaths".  To see how deceptive this is consider the variant meanings of "first of the month" and "first of the months".   We see that the mere inclusion of the plural "s" at the end of the word changes from enumerating days of the month to the enumeration of whole months.

       This "Hebrew method" reflected only Talmudic and Mishnaic writings and never the popular spoken usage of Jews either in Aramaic or Hebrew.  Further, all of these examples are derived from the post Christian period, and indeed after the first century.  Finally, the pious usage "one in connection with Sabbath" (אחד בשבת) or (חד בשבתא) is clearly confused with the popular usage "one in the seven" (חד בשבא, in which א and ע are transmuted and the ת omitted). 

 

 

A major problem with citing the Talmud and Mishnah is that it was composed during the time of Jewish and Christian polemics.   It would be self serving of both proto-Catholic heretics and the anti-Messianic Jews to help each other.  The Rabbis would provide the alleged idiom for "first day of the week" to purify Judaism of the Sabbath resurrection and the Church would teach their people that the resurrection was on Sunday to purify Christianity of Judaism.  The Church could then dispense with its Jewish problem, and the Jews with their Gentile problem.  They did not have to consciously implement this.  Help from the otherworld would be sufficient.   However, they did not sow the lie up perfectly neatly.  The Rabbinic usage refused to be introduced into spoken speech, and it still shows traces of the original idiom, "one in the seven," "two in the seven" etc.  The final smoking gun so to speak is the missing ת in the Aramaic idiom for days one to five.  If the word really meant week, then why would they refuse to say שבתא for days one to five?  

 

 

Doubtless, by being forced into the scholarly literature, the usage has crept into some modern usages.  The only way to solve the issue is to seek out the usage of Nazrene Jews contemporary with the Apostolic Writings using objective linguistic tools and judging the matter semantically and chronologically based on the pure probabilities of the matter without the burden of self serving errant post-second Temple traditions.   And even if it were finally shown that some first century Jews counted days of the week after a pious fashion, it would not prove that μια των σαββατων did not mean "one day of the Sabbaths" or "first Sabbth".  It would only prove the possibility, a possibility which is soundly refuted by the fact that the only sound chronology can be built with the resurrection on the first sabbath after Passover, and the fact that only this agrees with the biblical instruction to count seven sabbaths after Passover according to Lev. 23:15.

 

Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays. (Lyons).

       This is exactly where the probability function of the alternatives to "one day of the Sabbaths" collapses.   This is an argument that has no due diligence behind it.  What is due diligence?   It is the duty of the scholar to make reasonable efforts to determine if his or her arguments cannot be easily circumvented by further facts before presenting them as proof of their position.  When due diligence is not performed, we may suspect a would be scholar to either be trying to deceive us or simply being an ignoramus.   Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the Wednesday crucifixion and Sabbath resurrection knows that Thursday that year was the annual Sabbath  (cf. Lev. 23:11, 15).  This is what Mark 16:1 is referring to.  Matthew 28:1 confirms this because it alludes to the annual Sabbath reading: οψε δε σαββατων = Later of [the] Sabbaths.   So also John 19:31, which calls the annual Sabbath "great" on account if its being the greatest annual sabbath feast day of the biblical calendar.

 

Just as second century apologists Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) spoke of Jesus as rising from the dead “on the first day after the Sabbath” (Dialogue..., 41), and equated this day with “Sunday” (“First Apology,” 67), so should 21st century Christians. That Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9), and that Christians gathered to worship on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 67), is an established fact. Sunday is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath—the “first day of the week.” (Lyons).

        Justin was steeped in Greek philosophy and anti-Semitism.  Modern scholars who used his arguments and who painted the Jews the way he did would be better off joining the Nazi party.  No one can read his writings and compare them with the Torah and Prophets without discerning his massively cultic Scripture twisting and his virulent hatred for things Jewish.  Justin is just another heretic created in the crucible of Hadrian's decrees against Judaism in Rome.

__________________________________________________________________________

  email: daniel@torahtimes.org

 

Back to Torah Times Home Page

[Diego1618]

This sounds like a rehash of the reasons given by the Wescott and Hort group to promote the RSV.

It still doesn't change the unalterable fact the Greek does not say "First day of the week".

Revelation 22:13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. /protos (pro'-tos)

Revelation 21:25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. /hemera (hay-mer'-ah)

Since the word "week" appears no where in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, I'll quote from the Septuagint for my authority.

[Daniel 9:27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. /kai dunamwsei diaqhkhn pollois ebdomas mia kai en tw hmisei ths ebdomados arqhsetai mou qusia kai spondh kai epi to ieron bdelugma twn erhmwsewn kai ews sunteleias kairou sunteleia doqhsetai epi thn erhmwsin

The Greek words you are defining as "First day of the week" are "MIA TWN SABBATWN". Can you see that they are not the same....or do you still wish to go with the learned?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

**The Greek words you are defining as “First day of the week” are “MIA TWN SABBATWN”. Can you see that they are not the same....or do you still wish to go with the learned? ***

I’ll also stick with Thayer, Strongs, and Vines and my seven different translations which all say the same thing...”first day of the week”.

Home > Lexicons > Greek > Sabbaton
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong’s Number: 4521 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
savbbaton of Hebrew origin (07676)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Sabbaton 7:1,989
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
sab’-bat-on Noun Neuter

Definition
the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week
a single sabbath, sabbath day
seven days, a week

King James Word Usage - Total: 68
sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9

KJV Verse Count
Matthew 9
Mark 11
Luke 19
John 11
Acts 10
1 Corinthians 1
Colossians 1

---

---

Total 62

http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4521&version=kjv

[Diego1618]

I’ll also stick with Thayer, Strongs, and Vines and my seven different translations which all say the same thing...”first day of the week”.

[Matthew 24:5]

C'est la Vie...............you can have the last word. I'm retiring from this thread.....again.