note61

Shalom Bruce,

Quoting Bruce:

How you "would" count in Greek? What matters is how they DID count in Greek, not our deductions about what it would make sense for them to do. And how they DID express things like "first Sabbath between Passove and Shabbuot" and "first day of the week" are PRECISELY what we want to know. So if we can find examples that attes to how such things were said in Greek we are on much safer ground. Only as a last resort--when we can't find the attestations-- do we appeal to forms that follow the patterns we might expect.

   I always have to keep people coming back to the "norm," the "default," the usual meaning, the literal meaning. It appears to me that you don't know of a way to count sabbaths in Greek, because if it had been different from what I said it was, then you would have used it to refute my position. However, as you admited, no one disputes that Sabbaths were counted. Lev. 23:15-16 is evidence enough for that.
    What matters is the literal sense of the text -- because this is the default sense. It is the norm. When the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense.   The resurrection passages are an example of counting sabbaths. The burden of proof is upon you who want to interpret it otherwise. Even if you find another way of counting sabbaths in Greek, that does not mean that "mia twn sabbatwn" is an invalid way of counting sabbaths.
    As you know, it is the habit of cults to take otherwise literal biblical passages, and put a meaning on them other than the literal one. A good example of a cult that succeeded is the Roman Church. Therefore, we must at once discount all examples of "mia twn sabbatwn" in Ecclesiastical Greek beyond the first century --- where such contexts would require "first day of the week." Just because they would interpret and translate it that way among themselves does not mean that is what it meant before they corrupted the meaning.
    Now about methodology. The norm, the usual approach to the text by translators is to depend on the lexical meanings of the words, and choose the senses that make sense in the context, by trying the most common literal sense first, and if that does not work, then less usual senses. If that does not render the passage intelligible, then we go looking for idioms and examples of the words elsewhere. You would have us start backwards, by supposing the text is an idiom, which is more at risk of error and subjective interpretation. It is not a legitimate procedure to skip over a literal translation that makes sense because you don't like it and to suppose it is some kind of figure of speech. That type of thinking is what leads the cults into all kinds of error -- like the the many absurd (but non literal) arguments they use to deny the deity of Christ.
    In the final analysis all interpretation boils down to selecting the sense of the language that is as normal as possible and makes logical sense of the use. In concluding this section, I will say, that when the literal sense makes good sense, then it is time to stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do not go around hunting for rare and ususual meanings, rare and unusual examples, Church Authority, Ecclesiastical Greek, or whatever to get a novel interpretation out of the text. Sure, finding examples of usages that agree with the literal sense is useful -- after we have made sure that such "examples" are (1) free from corruption, and (2) as literally translated as possible themselves to make good sense. And if an example or two turns out differently, then we still have the question that this is to be regarded as the exception, not the rule, in otherwords, we should contruct our arguments so that we make the fewest assumptions, and as many things remain as close to the norm as possible.
     Now when I said that translators do not look for usages elsewhere, I meant that normally they do not start by hunting around for other texts for clues. What they do is start with a word list (called a lexicon), which lists the common and literal senses first -- as prepared by good linguists. The translator who followed the correct procedure ended up with "three sabbaths" in Acts 17:2, because "sabbath" is the normal meaning of the word. The translators who ended up with "three weeks" (RSV) did not follow normal procedures. They were motivated by theology, not by good translation practice. And doubtless they justified there choice by appealing to the resurrection passages, which had been corrupted by an earlier generation of translators who failed to do exactly what they failed to do. Two wrongs do not make a right.
     It is also a linguistic fact that words can be used in a vastly greater number of combinations than the number of actual phrase idioms (figures of speech) in the language.   And of those idioms, precious few, are actually used in a way where they would literally make good sense.

Quoting Bruce:

Language is NOT just the adding together of several individual words to come up with a sum that seems to make sense. (Sometimes this will yield correct results, sometimes it will not.)

Usually it is. It is not sometimes and sometimes, but the vast majority of the time and sometimes. Bruce, you are not telling us what is usually done, or what should be tried first.

Quoting Bruce:

Translators FREQUENTLY look for parallel uses of words, and the closest parallel uses would be in identical or similar phrases or constructions. In particular IDIOMATIC phrases often canNOT be properly understood by adding together the "literal" meaning of the individual words. (This idea or translation often leads to translations that are wooden and at best misleading. The question is, would or could the original readers have understood anything like this "literal" meaning. If not, it is WRONG!)

Once again, you have used FEQUENTLY in a relative frame. Compared to merely using the lexical meanings of words, what you suggest is infrequent -- and actually only when the passage does not readily yeild sense. And also, a phrase can only be safely judged idiomatic when it is evident that the literal sense does not make any sense. As for whether readers can make sense of a literal translation, I judge that if the translator can make good sense out of the literal rendering, then why should he deprive the readers the same opportunity? And if the text needs a footnote to explain how the literal sense makes sense, then fine. There are many literally correct translations that need some explanation, because neither you nor I grew up in that culture and at that time.

Quoting Bruce:

And how could the occurence of exactly the same expression elsewhere be of no relevance?! That is exactly what you try to do when you look ook to Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 to substantiate your interpretation of Matt 28:1, etc.!! So, let's look at the parallels.

You were the one who first brought up these passages as defining examples -- to challenge the literal rendering. I knew you might even before you did. I think I did mention that the "first of the Sabbaths" passages are only found in context between Passover and Pentecost -- which is a confirmatory fact, not definitive of the meaning of the passages. I also explained, from the literal standpoint, why your objections to the literal translation were invalid, as I will explain more shortly. What is definitive is the common normal literal meaning of the words involved.

Quoting Bruce:

First, I believe you are mistaken that about Greek sabbaton being used as "week." What do you do with Luke 8:12, "I fast twice a week" (dis tou sabbatou) ? (cf. the reference to this practice in Mishnah Taanith 1:4-7 ).

Luke 18:12 you mean. "I fast twice from the sabbath." Note, that Jews do not count days from the sabbath. They counted days to the sabbath. But who said anything about days from the Sabbath here? The very fact that we are talking about two days (Monday and Thursday) shows that we are not counting days from or to the Sabbath. Remember that the Sabbath was the feast day of the week. Fasting was out. Eating was in. Why then the mention of the Sabbath? Perhaps it is because they wished to say that they compensated for having a good time on Sabbath by fasting twice after it (or before it). The idea then is genitive of separation --- I fast twice -- apart from Sabbath, or translated dynamic equivalent: I fast twice, but not on Sabbath. If He had merely wished to say "I fast twice a week," he would have used the word "ebdomados," (Shavuot), which does mean "week." And should you object to a gentive of separation here, I will remind you that, that is one of the ways scholars have tried to get out of the literal sense of "mia twn sabbatwn." (what goes around comes around they say). True, we would expect "apo" or "ek" here to make the separation explicit, but this small gramattically permited departure from the norm is a small price to pay to close the gate on the sabbath equals "week" theory, at a time when "apo" and "ek" were still pushing the genitive of separation out. And even if I am wrong here, and the word translates "week," --- which is itself an equal departure from the norm, does that me we should use it to depart from the norm on the other 8 texts as well? Surely not. It does not mean we can even propose a genitive of separation in the other 8 texts, for that would not minimize the departure from the linguistic norm.
There is no place in either the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament where "shabbat" or "sabbaton" needs to be translated "week" to make sense. As for the LXX, the Church's trans. of "shabbat" into "ebdomados" is probably the beginning of the current deception. Ultimately, however, the Sabbath resurrection does not rest on supposing that the Church corrupted some texts in the LXX. It rests on the literal sense of the scripture.

Quoting Bruce:

Second, this use is supported by Jewish sources. The Hebrew form shabbat, and Aramaic shabta are found several times in the Mishnah, Talmud and Targums with the meaning "week." Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and Midrash lists several examples. Perhaps most pertinent for this discussion is his a note about the distinction between the expression bshbt ('on the Sabbath') and b'ms` shbt ("in the midst of/during the week") Men. 65b and the citation of the expression hd bshbt' "the first day of the week" (Genesis Rabbah s.11, Targum Esther 2.9 and elsewhere). I suggest you check these out. Here's another: (If he says) It will be forbidden for me to taste wine...this Sabbath, he will be bound for all of the week and the week which is (just) passing. (Ned.8:1)

"B'Shbt" may mean either "on Sabbath," or "toward Sabbath." "B'ms*shbat" means "while out of Shabbat" (hence a common weekday), and "hd b'shbt," means "one toward Sabbath." So the citations fail to sustain the meaning "week."

Quoting Bruce:

As for your "eight examples" for this language referring to the Passover-Shabuot interval. Actually, there are essentially THREE examples, and ALL of them refer only to the "FIRST day...." First, of the eight references you mention SIX are in the resurrection accounts!

        The circular reasoning is the Churches. They translated "sabbath" as "week," and then they prove that sabbath means "week" by their mistranslations. The literal sense needs no proof. Let me list the problems and anomolies that were created by this departure of the Church from the literal sense:
    (1) Mt. 28:1 "opse" had to be translated "after," and called an improper preposition, but it actually means "latter" (see BLASS, sec. 164.4).
    (2) Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, "after three days" is unexplainable. Certainly, the Friday-Sunday view cannot explain how the resurrection was "after three days"!
    (3) Mathew 12:40, "three nights" is without explanation. You intimation that there are biblical examples showing that three days and three nights is less than three parts day and three parts night is incorrect.
    (4) Collataral Damage:
            (a) Daniel's Prophecy
            (b) Sabbatical/Jubilee System forgotten
            (c) Jewish Calendar Forgotten
            (d) All of Biblical Chronology thrown into chaos.
            (e) eschatology thrown into chaos.
    (5) Theological Damage:
            (a) Foundation laid for non-literal interpretation of Scripture -- reaches its height in Origin of Alexandria
            (b) Foundation laid for exaltation of Sunday.

Quoting Bruce:

Leviticus 23:16 is little help in determining how the counting was expressed in Greek since the LXX only refers to the morrow after 'the last week' (tes eschatos hebdomados). The Hebrew speaks of the "seventh Sabbath," but this whole discussion is about how the Greek for these things was expressed, and it has no "seventh Sabbath" here.

The LXX is manifestly not an inspired version, since it disagrees in so many places with the Hebrew. Our copies have passed through Origin's and Lucian's hands. So what it says is suspect -- the Pslam titles are not inspired either. On Lev. 23:11, the LXX is just plain wrong. The Hebrew does not say the "first day," it says the "Sabbath" (i.e. the Passover Shabbaton), so the LXX is being interpretive not literal. What this whole discussion is about is the literal interpretation of the inspired texts! Your perception of what this discussion is about is quite mistaken. It is about literal translation of a literal text.
You keep wanting to pin down the precise terminology in tradition. And you seem to think that failure to do so is a problem. The problem is purely acedemic. The literal sense stands on its own.

Quoting Bruce:

As for Luke 6:1, I think the expression sabbato deuteroprotoin some texts is, as Metzger suggests, a vox nulla that arose accidentally through a scribal blunder. But if there is a numbering of Sabbaths here it does not follow the form you are arguing for--it uses the singular 'sabbath' and the ordinal number rather than the cardinal + genitive "(of) the Sabbaths." So, even if this odd word is genuine, and a reference to the 'second of the first Sabbaths, it does not show us that the expressions mia tou sabbatou/mia twn sabbatwn refer to these Sabbaths.

    Only in some texts? Try most of them. Certainly the rule of the "more difficult reading" would demand its inclusion. How such an obvious scribal blunder could suddenly end up in most of the MSS is a good question. It is more likely that it was never a blunder in the first place, and that it was deleted because the scribes either did not like it, or did not understand it. They did not like it, because the Church sides with the Sadducees in the Sunday Pentecost, and the text disproves it.
    The explanation of Metzger and Commitee requires us to believe that the scribes were trying to number the sabbaths in Luke 4:31, 6:1, and 6:6, and that they got the numbers mixed up, and that the reading arose in the end by the conflation of two numbers. This requires the scribes to be pretty dumb, malicious, or interpretive in their practices, and requires us to make complex assumptions about the transmission theory. The Parsimony quotient is very low here.
    Why not just follow the rules of textual criticism, drop the transmission story, and explain the text as the first sabbath after Passover (but the second one of passover week) --- which was called the "first Sabbath" by Jews of the first century C.E. See Johnston M. Cheney. The Life of Christ in Stereo.

Quoting Bruce:

To my knowledge no one disputes that these Sabbaths were counted, nor that we might find terminology for them.

Since there is a command to count Sabbaths, there must be a means of counting them. Funny that no one wants to find it. Again you are insisting that I have to demonstrate from other sources what the literal text already says! Such avering is the game of the eternal skeptic. The issue is whether we are going to be literal or not. Or are we going to sweep it under the rug as an idiom, when the literal sense makes good sense. You must admit, that it straightens out a lot of problems. So it deserves consideration.

Quoting Bruce:

Furthermore, it is likewise true that they counted the days of the week, and did so with respect to the Sabbath. In fact, this usage would be much more common than counting the Sabbaths between Passover and Pentecost. So, how was THIS system of counting expressed?!

Counting days to the sabbath is the way they did count in the time of the talmud's formation, but biblically, it is simply first day, second day, .... seventh day. And in Modern Hebrew, Yom Rishon ... etc. The Greek "mia [hemera] twn sabbatwn" obviously cannot mean "one day to the sabbath" (the plural would contradict it; the usual meaning of "hemara twn sabbatwn" would contradict it). Another point: The usage is simply the usual phrase for the sabbath day with the word first in front of it. And the trans. "to" would requrie either "eis," "pros," or a simple dative.

Quoting Bruce:

You have misunderstood Calvin's meaning.

No I didn't. Calvin is just a good way to illustrate the trans. "one of the sabbaths." He himself waffles on the issue, just like the Anchor Bible does: "But the notes of time in our gospels ... make it hazardous to say whether one of all of them wished us to understand Saturday or Sunday (Mark. 16:2). Don't jump to conclusions about what I think Calvin believed. His comments about John Chrysostom are interesting also.
"A Sabbath" (Acts 20:7) does account for the "mia," (which can be used as an indefinite article in Greek.) "One of the sabbaths" (viz. one of the seven sabbaths annually counted) is arguable, however, in light of the time frame between the Passover and Pentecost.

Quoting Bruce:

ANY one of the Sabbaths? How could that be, when the same expression supposedly has the same sense as "first" in the resurrection narratives?

Easily. If the most literal meaning is "one of the sabbaths," then we must depend on the context to sort out whether it is the first, or an unspecified one of the sabbaths. Also the interchange of "mia/protws," is well known, and reflects the Hebrew usage of "echad" for both "one," and "first." In short, it must have the sense of "first" in the resurrection narratives, because the "first" sabbath after Passover is the only one available that fits the chronology.

Quoting Bruce:

And switching from the Pharisees to Sadducees system of reckoning within the same verse does appear a bit ludicrous. Why would Luke do such a thing? (Perhaps you have similar reasons for not supporting these positions. But if so, how can you count them as viable possibilities?)

The resurrection passages, in context, could only be the first "one of the sabbaths" in the series. It is quite possible, that only the context could separate between the general phrase as "one of the sabbaths," or its specific use as "first of the sabbaths." I already said that I do not support the Sadducean explanation. I count it as a viable possiblity only to tempt you non literalists to take a more literal position, even if it doesn't agree with my own. Why would Luke do such a thing? You can answer that one. How did the Church end up with the Sunday Pentecost, when the Pharisees Pentecost was the one Christ followed (cf. Mt. 23:1-3).

Quoting Bruce:

The preposition meta followed by a temporal expression in the accusative case means "after" in the LXX and N.T. This is quite common and I see no reason to suggest it suddenly means "in the midst of" here. I know you can find such a sense if you go way back to Homer (in temporal expressions?), but there is no such use in the Biblical texts.

    It means only "after" because they say so? But then they deny it in the case of "after three days" (e.g. TDNT, and the Anchor Bible) on Mark 8:31; 9:31; and 10:34, which they argue means "within three days." The Anchor Bible cites states, "In the LXX and in the Hellenistic writers the phrases were identical. The phrase used in Mark may therefore mean a period less than three full days (i.e., less than seventy-two hours) or something akin to "in a very short time" (pg. 346, Mark, C.S. Mann). So the traditionalists have at least three exceptions to the rule that "meta" with the accusative in temporal expressions only means "after" in the NT.   Two approaches arise:
    (1) The rule is to be discarded, and Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34, and Acts 20:6 translated "within" (In this case Friday-Sunday does not have a problem with these passages -- just the literal translations of the resurrection passages Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2.
    (2) The rule is absolute and the readings of the old itala and Codex Bezae in the parallel passages are correct, so that they all read "after three days" and Acts 20:6 is explained as follows in one of four ways: (In this case the Friday-Sunday Chronology is untenable on the basis of Mark alone); [Note that I can legitimately use this argument against the Friday-Sunday view until scholars agree to dump the rule that meta with the accusative only means after in the NT -- and change to the position that the meaning "after" must result from context. In the meantime, the fact that they contradict their own rule on the Mark passages gives me the right to do the same on Acts 20:7. I am required to contradict the rule once, they three times.]
     Option #1 will keep us within all the norms (including textual norms), if we recognize that the meaning "after" for "meta" is a result of context and not of the actual meaning of the word. For example: "with (meta) three days I will rise" has the sense of into the midst of three days, which means that the third day has to be at least in progress (Jewish inclusive counting) before the said even can take place. Likewise "with the days of unleavened bread" will show that the days must at least be in progress before they can set sail. Therefore, I conclude that "meta" with accusative does not mean "after" in the strict English sense. It only means "after" as far into the period indicated in the context. Hence if Luke had said "We set sail with the seven days of unleavened bread" then it would mean after the seventh day. But he omits a numeral, and tells us "we did not consume seven days."
    The text "We did not consume seven days"'s purpose would not be to say that they did not travel during the holydays. Its purpose is to show that they reached Troas before the last day of unleavened bread to hold double holy convocations. My point is the negative in the MSS in front of the phrase is Luke's way of saying that they reached Troas before the end of the feast and the first of the Sabbaths:
     Translation:
            We set sail with the days of unleavened bread from Philippi, and we came to them in Troas within five days --- not we did consume [the] days seven, but on the first of the sabbaths we congregated to break bread [eat a meal] ...

     Now on 1 Cor. 16:2, "Each one of the Sabbaths" will do, not "Each first of the Sabbaths" as you have it. By the way, the MSS I go by read "kata mian sabbatwn," not "sabbatou." Paul is telling them to put something aside for the required Pentecost gift on all of the seven sabbaths, "each one of the sabbaths." I said before that "one of the sabbaths" is the most literal rendition. It is the context that tells us that the resurrection passages are talking about the "first" of these. Why these particular sabbaths. Two reasons. First the law required them to be counted, and second the law required a gift to be given at Pentecost. Paul's instructions are his halakhah on these two laws. As for why there might be collections when he arrived, it would merely because he would be enforcing something that they had failed to do.
    Now on Opse --- Hebrew is adjective poor, and often expresses the idea with the construct state; In Greek this comes out as gentive of quality. So, yes, opse when used with the gentive has adjectival sense! See BLASS 164.4.

Quoting Bruce:

The treatment of Jeremiah's prophecy in Daniel 9 and 2 Chr 36:21-23 is another matter. 2 Chr very specifically cites the 537 decree and declares that it was issued in order to fulfill Jeremiah's prophecy ( 25:11-14, 29:10) about the end of the 70 years. Daniel prays because he sees that the fall of Babylon marks the end of Jeremiah's 70 years and so he is looking for the promised restoration. Thus Daniel shares the Chronicler's viewpoint. Add to that the fact that the chapter is dated just before the 537 decree, there is every reason to believe that the decree with which God's anwer to Daniel begins is the great decree of restoration in 537.

    I always expect biblical narratives to be in sequence as the norm, but as to the amount of time between the sequenced events, we must not jump to conclusions. First, Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 538 b.c.e., not 537 b.c.e. Second, Judah did not come under the yoke of Babylon until fall 605 b.c.e., after Egypt was defeated at Carchemish in May-June 605 b.c.e. If we count part of 605 as the first of the seventy years, then on the fall to fall basis (as the sabbatic system is), the 70th year will be Fall 537 to Fall 536 b.c.e., or non inclusively, fall 536 to fall 535 b.c.e. Either way the first year of Cyrus the Great ends in spring 537 (allowing an accession year from October to Nisan of 538). So unless II Chron. 26:22 is speaking of a later Cyrus, we would have the decree to build the temple and to return before the end of the 70 years, with adequate time to plant the fall crop before the end of the 70th year.
   The first year of Cyrus, then is after Darius the Mede rules three years and dies. Then the cogregency is over and Cyrus starts with year 1 in spring of 535 b.c.e. The decree is thus issued in fall of 535 b.c.e. at the end of the 70th year. But this decree is to allow the people to return and build the temple. The walls and the city are not mentioned. The land is merely relieved of the desolations (or non occupancy).   The Dan. 9:24 prophecy refers to a second decree specifically to rebuild the walls and city, which is fulfilled in Nehemiah 2.
    If we start Daniel's Prophecy in 537 b.c.e., as you suggest, then a massive discontinuity will result in the chronology of Ezra-Nehemiah. Ezra gives us the kings in this order: Cyrus (1:1-2, 7-8; 4:5) Darius (4:5), Ahasuerus (4:6), Artaxerxes (4:7), Darius (4:24; 5:5; 6:1; ), and Artaxerxes (7:1), which correspond to Cyrus (538-530), Darius (522-486), Ahasuerus = Xerxes (486-465), Artaxerxes (465-423), Darius (423-404), and Artaxerxes (404-359), in the exact order that history gives them to us, with the same names. The reason scripture details Nehemiah's rebuilding, and does but give scant mention of the former attempt in Ezra 4:23-24; Neh. 1:3; is because it was Nehemiah's rebuilding that counted prophetically. Furthermore, if we start the prophecy in 537 b.c.e. then it will end long before the death and resurrection of Christ, so that the fulfillment of "after the sixty two sevens Anointed shall be cut off" is not very neat. Furthermore, the seven sevens (seven sabbaticals) terminate early in the reign of Xerxes, but it was turned into a pile of rubble just before his succesors 20th year (Neh. 1:3ff). So the seven sevens have no explanation either.

Quoting Bruce:

One last point. At several points in your writings you level some very serious charges against the Church. You speak of the church choosing to supress the Sabbath, elsewhere you speak of the LIE of the first day resurrection. In light of the things I have pointed out I think that accusation is altogether inappropriate. You may believe the Church largely mistaken on this point and present your best evidence. But I see nothing to justify accusations of deliberately misleading, or conspiring to hide the truth. And I hope I've provided some evidence that your interpretation is not so compelling after all.

     I would now submit, that the things you have pointed out have been sufficiently explained, and so I reassert my "accusation" against the Church that it has suppressed the literal translation of these passages in order to teach a Sunday resurrection. As for the decpetions of the Church, this can be established on multiple grounds, not on just the resurrection chronology:
        (1) Suppression of the divine name in the Law and Prophets (7000 times).
        (2) Teaching that "baptizw" means "sprinkling" or "pouring."
        (3) The translation of "ekklesia" as "church."
        (4) The translation of "passover" as "Easter"
        (5) The making of the Roman Saturnalia and Babylonian Solstice into a feast day (Christmas), when the best evidence says that Christ was born in the fall.

The Protestant reformation was but a gut level recoil from the gross idolatry and unbiblical traditions of the Church, but it was never finished. There is more. Much much more.

Thanks for the rebuttal. I expect you to do nothing less than your best to poke as many holes in my arguments as you can.

Daniel