Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae

[daq]

In Luke 6:5 there is an intriguing variant found in Codex Bezae, (D).
The Greek text, (in lower case modern Greek) reads as follows.

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις μακαριος ει ει δε μη οιδας επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου (!)

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae%2DGreek.xml#B02K16

My reading:

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 In the same day, having seen someone working in the Shabbat, he said to him, O man, if indeed you know what you do, blessed are you: but if you know not what you do, accursed you are, and a transgressor of the Torah!

It seems highly unlikely that a church scribe would take it upon himself to simply add this into the text, (for what reason would anyone do so? especially with such a difficult statement to comprehend) and rather, it appears to be a remnant-artifact held over from an older slightly different version of the passage, (Luke 6:1-11).

Observation: In this statement the Master upholds the Shabbat, in no uncertain terms, but his understanding of Shabbat observance does not appear to be the same as the interpretations of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes.

Question: What could be the most likely meaning of this statement in its context?

 

[BobRyan]

My reading:

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 In the same day, having seen someone working in the Shabbat, he said to him, O man, if indeed you know what you do, blessed are you: but if you know not what you do, accursed you are, and a transgressor of the Torah!

It seems highly unlikely that a church scribe would take it upon himself to simply add this into the text, (for what reason would anyone do so?

Indeed - why does interpolation happen at all. That is a good question.

Luke 6:1 Now it happened that Jesus was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath, and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus, answering them, said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, 4 how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?” 5 And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

The details in the more commonly accepted manuscripts show that this is not "seeing someone working on the Sabbath".

Rather it is the Acts 11 case where Peter said "it is not lawful for a man who is a Jew to enter the house of a Gentile".

Neither picking up a grain of wheat while walking, nor entering the house of a gentile was "not lawful" if the the "law" one is concerned with - is the "law of God" recorded in scripture. Rather both cases are talking about "additions to God's Law made by Jews over time" -- ie "tradition" taken as if it were scripture.

 

[oikonomia]

In Luke 6:5 there is an intriguing variant found in Codex Bezae, (D).
The Greek text, (in lower case modern Greek) reads as follows.

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις μακαριος ει ει δε μη οιδας επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου (!)

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae%2DGreek.xml#B02K16

My reading:

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 In the same day, having seen someone working in the Shabbat, he said to him, O man, if indeed you know what you do, blessed are you: but if you know not what you do, accursed you are, and a transgressor of the Torah!

It seems highly unlikely that a church scribe would take it upon himself to simply add this into the text, (for what reason would anyone do so? especially with such a difficult statement to comprehend) and rather, it appears to be a remnant-artifact held over from an older slightly different version of the passage, (Luke 6:1-11).

It doesn't sound right to me. It kind of sounds like someone putting words into the mouth of Mohammed in the Quran.
But I am willing to find out more about this Codex Bezae.

 

[daq]

Indeed - why does interpolation happen at all. That is a good question.

Luke 6:1 Now it happened that Jesus was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath, and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus, answering them, said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, 4 how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?” 5 And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

The details in the more commonly accepted manuscripts show that this is not "seeing someone working on the Sabbath".

Rather it is the Acts 11 case where Peter said "it is not lawful for a man who is a Jew to enter the house of a Gentile".

Neither picking up a grain of wheat while walking, nor entering the house of a gentile was "not lawful" if the the "law" one is concerned with - is the "law of God" recorded in scripture. Rather both cases are talking about "additions to God's Law made by Jews over time" -- ie "tradition" taken as if it were scripture.

Regarding variants there is a rule of thumb in textual criticism, "the more difficult reading is preferred", (lectio difficilior lectio potior). However, although the NKJV which you quoted from is following the T/R, (Textus Receptus), it departs from that text in Luke 6:1, which contains the word deuteroprotos, in favor of what is found in the majority texts. Deuteroprotos, taken simply for what the compound word means, would be something like second first, second foremost, or second primary, and the KJV reads the phrase εγενετο δε εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω as And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first. So although the KJV took some liberty by inserting the word after into the compound word deuteroprotos, at least they had and rendered the more difficult reading.

If we stick with the T/R in Luke 6:1, and we read deuteroprotos as the second primary (Shabbat), then the variant which follows in Luke 6:5 becomes more intelligible. The Bezae variant in Luke 6:5 immediately follows the occasion of what has preceeded it in Luke 6:1-4, it is in/on the same day, but is not the same occasion. If we count the current statement in Luke 6:5 as part of Luke 6:4, since it is indeed the closing statement for Luke 6:1-4, we may then count Luke 6:5 as Luke 6:5a and the Bezae variant as Luke 6:5b simply for reasons of clarification and a plain straightforward reading of the text.

Luke 6:1-6 KJV+Bezae 6:5 (w/corrected reading of deuteroprotos in Luke 6:1)
1 And it came to pass on the second primary Shabbat that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
5a And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
5b In the same day, having seen someone working in the Shabbat, he said to him, O man, if indeed you know what you do, blessed are you: but if you know not what you do, accursed you are, and a transgressor of the Torah! [Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)]
6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

The Bezae variant occurs in the same day as the occasion which preceded it commencing in Luke 6:1.

 

[daq]

It doesn't sound right to me. It kind of sounds like someone putting words into the mouth of Mohammed in the Quran.
But I am willing to find out more about this Codex Bezae.

When you look into it you will find that Codex Bezae (D) is one of the four or five most important codices to Christianity, and originally it was even more so, but with the codices Alexandrinus, Sinaticus, and Vaticanus it began to take more of a back seat. It is older than the others, which of course includes the more recent Erasmus text, which became the Textus Receptus, (KJV, YLT, etc., etc.,).

 

[DamianWarS]

Luke 6:1-6 KJV+Bezae 6:5 (w/corrected reading of deuteroprotos in Luke 6:1)
1 And it came to pass on the second primary Shabbat that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
5a And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
5b In the same day, having seen someone working in the Shabbat, he said to him, O man, if indeed you know what you do, blessed are you: but if you know not what you do, accursed you are, and a transgressor of the Torah! [Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)]
6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

you've made a hybrid reading. it's either 5a or 5b.

in the interest of comparison with your own reading, I found another translation of the verse in question here (quoted below)

"On the same day, having seen one working on the Sabbath, he said to him, O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the law."

this exchange of v5 does add another layer to the context, this tension with the Pharisees after picking the grains of wheat (v2), then this incident where Jesus stumbles upon someone working on the sabbath (v5 Bezae) and finally this healing on the sabbath (v10). This appeals to a general rule of "threes" that seems to be common in the gospels, especially with parables (like lost coin, lost sheep, lost son, etc...) if you read it this way my interests would be how v9 adds to the conclusions

v9: I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”

this can be paralleled with Matthew 12:12 saying "...it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath"

so if "doing good" or "saving life" is the correct interpretation/focus can this be retrofitted into the witnessed actions of v5 (Bezae) and v1-2? What was the man working on when Jesus encountered him? it seems it's not the "what" that's important but rather the "why". if it's to "save life" then his work is redeemed, if to destroy, his work is cursed.

so if all is looked at as "saving life" all is redeemed, if it has a counter-focus all is cursed. Christ's example in Mat 12:11 is about saving sheep, and lost sheep are a huge arrow to a spiritual state not a physical. if our focus is a spiritual focus regarding saving life, then actions that come with them, even if they look like work, are implicitly good and thus lawful. eg, someone trying to reach the lost on the Sabbath may engage in work if said work has a focus on saving

the elephant in the room to me is, why reserve "doing good" only on the Sabbath? should this not always be our focus? and if it is always our focus then is not all actions we do implicitly lawful through Christ? Of course in practice this isn't 100% but should this not be the goal? whatever manner of pushing, pulling sweating, carrying, lifting, etc... that you do to lift that sheep out of the pit is lawful. So what is the spiritual version of that focus to save the lost?

 

[daq]

you've made a hybrid reading. it's either 5a or 5b.

in the interest of comparison with your own reading, I found another translation of the verse in question here (quoted below)

"On the same day, having seen one working on the Sabbath, he said to him, O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and art a transgressor of the law."

this exchange of v5 does add another layer to the context, this tension with the Pharisees after picking the grains of wheat (v2), then this incident where Jesus stumbles upon someone working on the sabbath (v5 Bezae) and finally this healing on the sabbath (v10). This appeals to a general rule of "threes" that seems to be common in the gospels, especially with parables (like lost coin, lost sheep, lost son, etc...) if you read it this way my interests would be how v9 adds to the conclusions

v9: I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”

this can be paralleled with Matthew 12:12 saying "...it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath"

so if "doing good" or "saving life" is the correct interpretation/focus can this be retrofitted into the witnessed actions of v5 (Bezae) and v1-2? What was the man working on when Jesus encountered him? it seems it's not the "what" that's important but rather the "why". if it's to "save life" then his work is redeemed, if to destroy, his work is cursed.

so if all is looked at as "saving life" all is redeemed, if it has a counter-focus all is cursed. Christ's example in Mat 12:11 is about saving sheep, and lost sheep are a huge arrow to a spiritual state not a physical. if our focus is a spiritual focus regarding saving life, then actions that come with them, even if they look like work, are implicitly good and thus lawful. eg, someone trying to reach the lost on the Sabbath may engage in work if said work has a focus on saving

the elephant in the room to me is, why reserve "doing good" only on the Sabbath? should this not always be our focus? and if it is always our focus then is not all actions we do implicitly lawful through Christ? Of course in practice this isn't 100% but should this not be the goal? whatever manner of pushing, pulling sweating, carrying, lifting, etc... that you do to lift that sheep out of the pit is lawful. So what is the spiritual version of that focus to save the lost?

Just before these things in the previous chapter, which appears to be a continuation of the same passage but speaking of the next day in Luke 6:1, we find another curious phrase at the beginning of Luke 5:17.

Luke 5:17a
17a και εγενετο εν μια των ημερων

μια των ημερων is in the same masculine plural form as μια των σαββατων in Luke 24:1, (also Jhn 20:1, Jhn 20:19, and Acts 20:7), which is heis and generally put for the ordinal, (one, first), for example, as they typically render mia twn sabbatwn in Luke 24:1 and the other places where that phrase appears. However that in this case would mean something like the first of the days, which is not what is typically rendered in most of the translations I have seen for Luke 5:17. What gives with that? Why is there a problem? Why would translators divert from the norm? Well, it seems there aren't enough clues in the text for them, (as well as it appears they have mangled the reading of mia twn sabbatwn as well).

Anyhow we have more likely therefore And it came to pass in the first of the days, (μια των ημερων), in Luke 5:17a, then we find Moreover it came to pass in the second primary Shabbat, (εγενετο δε εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω), in Luke 6:1a, and that is seemingly without any contextual passage break.

What do you suppose the first of the days means? could this possibly mean the first of the days of the week? if indeed that is how the statement is intended is to be read? And if that is how it is supposed to be read then what does the curious phrase the second primary Shabbat in Luke 6:1 mean, seeing how by the context is appears to be the following day?

As I have mentioned before in our discussions: there is a Shabbat hour in every day of the week, the seventh hour of the sacred calendar day, based on the seven yamim in the yom wherein Elohim made Earth and Heavens.

And of course the Shabbat hour of the opening creation account would be the primary Shabbat. The weekly Shabbat is simply a greater increment of time based on the pattern of the primary meaning in the creation account, just as the 7th thousand year Shabbat is based on the pattern of the primary Shabbat in the creation account and is simply a greater increment of time. Yom is light, (Gen 1:5, Elohim calls the light, Yom), and therefore yom as an increment of time may be any increment of time depending on context.

If a yom can be a day, and a year can be for a day, (as with the spies, Num 14:34), and a day can be for a year, (Eze 4:5-6), and one day is as a thousand years with the Master, and a thousand years are as one day, and also in Psalm 90, a thousand years are as yesterday when it is passed in the eyes of the Most High, and as a watch in the night which is a mere three hours of the night: then surely a yom can be an hour, and that is the base increment of time with the sight exceptions of the several (sparingly) used words for a moment, an instant, the blink of an eye, etc., etc. And the pattern is the same throughout all the increments when it comes to weeks: the sacred calendar day of the Kohanim is a week of hours. The week of full days is seven days of twelve hour days and twelve hour nights (24-hour days). The seven thousand year cycle is a week of thousand-year days.

 

[Leaf473]

In Luke 6:5 there is an intriguing variant found in Codex Bezae, (D).
The Greek text, (in lower case modern Greek) reads as follows.

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις μακαριος ει ει δε μη οιδας επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου (!)

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1663/1/Bezae%2DGreek.xml#B02K16

My reading:

Luke 6:5 Codex Bezae (D)
5 In the same day, having seen someone working in the Shabbat, he said to him, O man, if indeed you know what you do, blessed are you: but if you know not what you do, accursed you are, and a transgressor of the Torah!

It seems highly unlikely that a church scribe would take it upon himself to simply add this into the text, (for what reason would anyone do so? especially with such a difficult statement to comprehend)...

That's interesting It struck me as highly likely that a person would write that down in their "Bible", maybe as a kind of sermon note or something.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 17:18 - New American Standard Bible

“Now it shall come about, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests.

www.biblegateway.com

...and rather, it appears to be a remnant-artifact held over from an older slightly different version of the passage, (Luke 6:1-11).

Observation: In this statement the Master upholds the Shabbat, in no uncertain terms, but his understanding of Shabbat observance does not appear to be the same as the interpretations of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes.

Question: What could be the most likely meaning of this statement in its context?

 

[daq]

That's interesting It struck me as highly likely that a person would write that down in their "Bible", maybe as a kind of sermon note or something.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 17:18 - New American Standard Bible

“Now it shall come about, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests.

www.biblegateway.com

From the lack of information I suppose that's also a possibility.

 

[DamianWarS]

Just before these things in the previous chapter, which appears to be a continuation of the same passage but speaking of the next day in Luke 6:1, we find another curious phrase at the beginning of Luke 5:17.

Luke 5:17a
17a και εγενετο εν μια των ημερων

μια των ημερων is in the same masculine plural form as μια των σαββατων in Luke 24:1, (also Jhn 20:1, Jhn 20:19, and Acts 20:7), which is heis and generally put for the ordinal, (one, first), for example, as they typically render mia twn sabbatwn in Luke 24:1 and the other places where that phrase appears. However that in this case would mean something like the first of the days, which is not what is typically rendered in most of the translations I have seen for Luke 5:17. What gives with that? Why is there a problem? Why would translators divert from the norm? Well, it seems there aren't enough clues in the text for them, (as well as it appears they have mangled the reading of mia twn sabbatwn as well).

as a disclaimer, I don't read greek so I don't claim to be an expert, I just understand some broad rules and research what I don't know on the fly. With that said, from what I can find ημερων (hemeron) is not masculine it is feminine. on top of that σαββατων (sabbaton) is also not masculine either it is a neuter. adjectives agree with their head nouns, in this case masculine, feminine, neuter all have the same article "των" The form of the Greek article "o" is the same for masculine, plural and neuter agreeing with a plural genitive noun regardless of gender. With 5:17 and 24:1 both are in plural gentives so the article is "των" regardless of gender.

I'm not sure how that effects your understanding of the text

nyhow we have more likely therefore And it came to pass in the first of the days, (μια των ημερων), in Luke 5:17a, then we find Moreover it came to pass in the second primary Shabbat, (εγενετο δε εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω), in Luke 6:1a, and that is seemingly without any contextual passage break.

What do you suppose the first of the days means? could this possibly mean the first of the days of the week? if indeed that is how the statement is intended is to be read? And if that is how it is supposed to be read then what does the curious phrase the second primary Shabbat in Luke 6:1 mean, seeing how by the context is appears to be the following day?

μια (mia) stands alone. it modifies an implicit noun that isn't days or sabbaths because mia doesn't agree with these nouns as it is a singular and in the dative case. so it agrees with an implict feminine singular dative noun that is left out. I'm thinking this noun is "day" since it already agrees with the gender and makes sense in the context. 1 Cor 10:8 we see "μια ημερα" (mia hemera) or "in one day" and here the article agrees with case, number and gender. Since sabbaton is a neuter mia does not agree with it so it is not a contender as a head noun. John 20:1 also uses this "the first [day]" where "day" is the implict noun.

assuming "day" the reading would be:
5:17 μια [ημερα] των ημερων

6:1 μια [ημερα] των σαββατων

the translation would be "in-one [day] of the days.... or "in-one [day] of the sabbaths" or as in ordinal "in the first [day] of the days" or "in the first [day] of the sabbaths"

it seems this is based on a Hebrew idiom "first of the Sabbaths" ( John 20:1, 19; Luke 24:1, Mark 16:2, Mat. 28:1) meaning the first day of the week, like sabbath-1, (sunday) sabbath-2 (monday), sabbath-3 (tuesday) etc...

I want to say "σαββατων" and "ημερων" are used synomously as "week" and both mean the same things "the first of the week" or Sunday

δευτεροπρωτω is in the majority texts not in the minority. not sure how this uniquely modifies the account. since it is similar to διαπορεύεσθαι and they are juxtaposed together could this be an error? it would read something like "the second of the first sabbaths" and is translated like "second sabbath after the first" I guess because "second-first" groups it as 2 joining sabbaths but doesn't "second" alread carry this meaning alone? it seems redundant and awkward in the text.

if you're leaning towards the codex bezae texts it favours the majority text saying "Και εγενετο αυτον εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω δια πορευεσθαι" δευτεροπρωτω is separated into 2 words but the same idea. again I think the two side-by-side may have been the result of an error which could go both ways, either dropped or added (admittingly it probably make more sense it was dropped than added) but δευτεροπρωτω is redundant, why say second-first then you can just say second? (if there is a second there must be a first)

As I have mentioned before in our discussions: there is a Shabbat hour in every day of the week, the seventh hour of the sacred calendar day, based on the seven yamim in the yom wherein Elohim made Earth and Heavens.

And of course the Shabbat hour of the opening creation account would be the primary Shabbat. The weekly Shabbat is simply a greater increment of time based on the pattern of the primary meaning in the creation account, just as the 7th thousand year Shabbat is based on the pattern of the primary Shabbat in the creation account and is simply a greater increment of time. Yom is light, (Gen 1:5, Elohim calls the light, Yom), and therefore yom as an increment of time may be any increment of time depending on context.

If a yom can be a day, and a year can be for a day, (as with the spies, Num 14:34), and a day can be for a year, (Eze 4:5-6), and one day is as a thousand years with the Master, and a thousand years are as one day, and also in Psalm 90, a thousand years are as yesterday when it is passed in the eyes of the Most High, and as a watch in the night which is a mere three hours of the night: then surely a yom can be an hour, and that is the base increment of time with the sight exceptions of the several (sparingly) used words for a moment, an instant, the blink of an eye, etc., etc. And the pattern is the same throughout all the increments when it comes to weeks: the sacred calendar day of the Kohanim is a week of hours. The week of full days is seven days of twelve hour days and twelve hour nights (24-hour days). The seven thousand year cycle is a week of thousand-year days.

I suppose yom could contextually mean an hour but I think is unlikely and probably irresponsible without the context being specific. if we turn yom into an abstract meaning any duration then it loses its meaning. sabbath is always upon us and never upon us at the same time (and who knows maybe that has some strange wisdom in it). I tend not to subscribe to these deep dives into numerology, they may exist but are too speculative, often based on very specific readings, and have been used for the wrong motives. I'm also not sure your net value of what you're saying here.

 

[daq]

as a disclaimer, I don't read greek so I don't claim to be an expert, I just understand some broad rules and research what I don't know on the fly. With that said, from what I can find ημερων (hemeron) is not masculine it is feminine. on top of that σαββατων (sabbaton) is also not masculine either it is a neuter. adjectives agree with their head nouns, in this case masculine, feminine, neuter all have the same article "των" The form of the Greek article "o" is the same for masculine, plural and neuter agreeing with a plural genitive noun regardless of gender. With 5:17 and 24:1 both are in plural gentives so the article is "των" regardless of gender.
I'm not sure how that effects your understanding of the text μια (mia) stands alone. it modifies an implicit noun that isn't days or sabbaths because mia doesn't agree with these nouns as it is a singular and in the dative case. so it agrees with an implict feminine singular dative noun that is left out. I'm thinking this noun is "day" since it already agrees with the gender and makes sense in the context. 1 Cor 10:8 we see "μια ημερα" (mia hemera) or "in one day" and here the article agrees with case, number and gender. Since sabbaton is a neuter mia does not agree with it so it is not a contender as a head noun. John 20:1 also uses this "the first [day]" where "day" is the implict noun.

It doesn't have an effect on what I said, but you are correct, I should have simply said plural forms.

assuming "day" the reading would be:
5:17 μια [ημερα] των ημερων

6:1 μια [ημερα] των σαββατων

the translation would be "in-one [day] of the days.... or "in-one [day] of the sabbaths" or as in ordinal "in the first [day] of the days" or "in the first [day] of the sabbaths"

Or day one of the days, (of the week).

it seems this is based on a Hebrew idiom "first of the Sabbaths" ( John 20:1, 19; Luke 24:1, Mark 16:2, Mat. 28:1) meaning the first day of the week, like sabbath-1, (sunday) sabbath-2 (monday), sabbath-3 (tuesday) etc...

I want to say "σαββατων" and "ημερων" are used synomously as "week" and both mean the same things "the first of the week" or Sunday

In the LXX the weekly Shabbat is always in a plural form even though it is a single (full) day.

Example:

Exodus 20:8 OG LXX
8 μνησθητι την ημεραν των σαββατων αγιαζειν αυτην

Exodus 20:8 Brenton LXX Translation
8 Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.

So it literally says Remember the day of the Sabbaths (plural), and likewise the Apostles of the Master bring this understanding into their writings also, as in the following example.

Luke 4:16 N/A-W/H
16 και ηλθεν εις ναζαρα ου ην τεθραμμενος και εισηλθεν κατα το ειωθος αυτω εν τη ημερα των σαββατων εις την συναγωγην και ανεστη αναγνωναι

So then, ...in the day of the Sabbaths... he went into the synagogue.

Therefore the weekly full day Shabbat is full of mini Shabbat hours because every hour of the weekly Shabbat is a portion of the weekly day of the Shabbat, and a yom may either be a full day or an hour, and the seventh hour of the sacred calendar is the daily Shabbat hour.

δευτεροπρωτω is in the majority texts not in the minority. not sure how this uniquely modifies the account. since it is similar to διαπορεύεσθαι and they are juxtaposed together could this be an error? it would read something like "the second of the first sabbaths" and is translated like "second sabbath after the first" I guess because "second-first" groups it as 2 joining sabbaths but doesn't "second" alread carry this meaning alone? it seems redundant and awkward in the text.

if you're leaning towards the codex bezae texts it favours the majority text saying "Και εγενετο αυτον εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω δια πορευεσθαι" δευτεροπρωτω is separated into 2 words but the same idea. again I think the two side-by-side may have been the result of an error which could go both ways, either dropped or added (admittingly it probably make more sense it was dropped than added) but δευτεροπρωτω is redundant, why say second-first then you can just say second? (if there is a second there must be a first)

It was no longer redundant once I came to understand that the Shabbat of the opening creation account is the seventh hour of the sacred calendar day and therefore the primary Shabbat. Thus I see the primary Shabbat, called the protos, then the second of the primary Shabbat, called the deuteroprotos, then the third of the primary Shabbat, called the tritoprotos, and so on and so on through the remainder of the week.

Leviticus 23:11 KJV
11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

Leviticus 23:11 Brenton LXX Translation
11 and he shall lift up the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you. On the morrow of the first day the priest shall lift it up.

Leviticus 23:11 OG LXX
11 και ανοισει το δραγμα εναντι κυριου δεκτον υμιν τη επαυριον της πρωτης ανοισει αυτο ο ιερευς

The word for a day isn't in the OG LXX, it simply says the protes, meaning they read the word Shabbat here as the protos-primary Shabbat. This is not the same as what most imagine: they are pinpointing an hour, the Shabbat hour of the day of the Shabbat, a Shabbat in its Shabbat.

I suppose yom could contextually mean an hour but I think is unlikely and probably irresponsible without the context being specific. if we turn yom into an abstract meaning any duration then it loses its meaning. sabbath is always upon us and never upon us at the same time (and who knows maybe that has some strange wisdom in it). I tend not to subscribe to these deep dives into numerology, they may exist but are too speculative, often based on very specific readings, and have been used for the wrong motives. I'm also not sure your net value of what you're saying here.

There is no other word for an hour in the Hebrew text. Modern secular Hebrew uses sha'ah but that is actually according to its Aramaic counterpart, and this may be seen in the Aramaic portions of Daniel where it is rendered as an hour, yet in Biblical Hebrew that is not what it means, (it is always employed for something like a look or glance, to either show regard, respect, or not, etc., see for example Gen 4:4).

 

[DamianWarS]

It was no longer redundant once I came to understand that the Shabbat of the opening creation account is the seventh hour of the sacred calendar day and therefore the primary Shabbat. Thus I see the primary Shabbat, called the protos, then the second of the primary Shabbat, called the deuteroprotos, then the third of the primary Shabbat, called the tritoprotos, and so on and so on through the remainder of the week.

This is a lot for one word that isn't in all texts and it seems translators can't agree fully on. Is there more than just this word that supports this view? Also what is the net gain of knowing this? How is one motivated differently in the primary, secondary, etc... Sabbath?

 

[daq]

This is a lot for one word that isn't in all texts and it seems translators can't agree fully on. Is there more than just this word that supports this view? Also what is the net gain of knowing this? How is one motivated differently in the primary, secondary, etc... Sabbath?

Yes, it is of critical importance in the understanding of other critically important things, such as even the resurrection. Look at the following statement from the Gospel of Mark regarding the timing of the resurrection.

Mark 16:9 KJV
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Mark 16:9 ASV
9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Nearly all English translations render this passage in pretty much the same manner: but have you looked at what is actually found in the Greek texts? Where is there any precedent for rendering a singular form of sabbaton as a week? Is that not simply rather so that their readings of the plural form in other texts regarding the resurrection accounts do not contradict? What if their assumptions concerning the plural form sabbatwn in the resurrection accounts, (which ignore the LXX), are incorrect assumptions? (see Reply #11, and specifically the section regarding Luke 4:16).

Mark 16:9 T/R-BYZ (Byzantine Text Family)
9 αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη αφ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια

Mark 16:9 N/A-W/H
9 [[αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη παρ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια

πρωι ~ dawn, dawning, (in this context).
πρωτη σαββατου ~ prote sabbatou (re: Lev 23:11 OG LXX).

Moreover, for those who choose to believe that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to this Gospel account, the above goes a long way toward proving that at least the first statement of that final section, Mark 16:9, is indeed original.

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, it is of critical importance in the understanding of other critically important things, such as even the resurrection. Look at the following statement from the Gospel of Mark regarding the timing of the resurrection.

Mark 16:9 KJV
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Mark 16:9 ASV
9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Nearly all English translations render this passage in pretty much the same manner: but have you looked at what is actually found in the Greek texts?

Where is there any precedent for rendering a singular form of sabbaton as a week?

I'm not saying this is the case, but translators may be seeing precedents in extra-biblical writings, including the early church fathers

People living close to that time who were native Greek speakers may have used that wording to mean the first day of the week

Is that not simply rather so that their readings of the plural form in other texts regarding the resurrection accounts do not contradict? What if their assumptions concerning the plural form sabbatwn in the resurrection accounts, (which ignore the LXX), are incorrect assumptions? (see Reply #11, and specifically the section regarding Luke 4:16).

Mark 16:9 T/R-BYZ (Byzantine Text Family)
9 αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη αφ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια

Mark 16:9 N/A-W/H
9 [[αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου εφανη πρωτον μαρια τη μαγδαληνη παρ ης εκβεβληκει επτα δαιμονια

πρωι ~ dawn, dawning, (in this context).
πρωτη σαββατου ~ prote sabbatou (re: Lev 23:11 OG LXX).

Moreover, for those who choose to believe that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to this Gospel account, the above goes a long way toward proving that at least the first statement of that final section, Mark 16:9, is indeed original.

 

[daq]

I'm not saying this is the case, but translators may be seeing precedents in extra-biblical writings, including the early church fathers

People living close to that time who were native Greek speakers may have used that wording to mean the first day of the week

The Apostles are not breaking from the precedent set for them in the OG LXX which they quote from extensively. The weekly Shabbat is always in a plural form throughout the Torah in the OG LXX and never means a week.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Apostles are not breaking from the precedent set for them in the OG LXX which they quote from extensively. The weekly Shabbat is always in a plural form throughout the Torah in the OG LXX and never means a week.

I'm still confused about what value you're trying to champion. How does this knowledge affect our Christian living?

Mark 16:9 KJV
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

I speak another language that is fairly concrete. the word for Sunday is the same word for Week and isolated would be ambiguous. Only through context or helper words can you figure out what the reference is so it's no issue for me to see a statement that references the name of a day as the name of a week and number the days based on that reference

Modern Greek uses deuteros as the 2nd day, triti as the 3rd, tetarti as the 4th, pemti as the 5th. friday is paraskevi or preparation, Sabato (Sabbath) for Saturday and Kiriaki for Sunday or The Lord's day. The reference for 2nd, 3rd, etc... is counting since Sabbath and Kiriaki is a post-christian reference.

so to see "prote [root: protos] sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 as Sunday is not difficult for me (I'm not exactly sure if you're protesting this or not). contextually didn't Jesus rise on the third day starting on preparation day as the count? So preparation day (1) Sabbath (2) and "prote sabbatou" (3) which is the day after Sabbath or base on the western calendar Sunday, this certainly is most accepted day for the placement of the resurrection. The Romans used names of gods in their names of the days of the week, as Christianity spread the Greek-speaking east changed to ordinal names based on the sabbath as the count which forms the modern system. post-Christian spread Sunday is called Kiriaki but these biblical references are pre-resurrection and it would make sense to oppose a Roman system and revert to an ordinal system with Sunday being named Protos instead of the Roman counterpart which I believe was hemera Heliou (lit. "Sun day")

 

[Leaf473]

The Apostles are not breaking from the precedent set for them in the OG LXX which they quote from extensively. The weekly Shabbat is always in a plural form throughout the Torah in the OG LXX and never means a week.

If you are viewing the biblical documents in isolation, then you have a valid point

Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 24:3-4 - Easy-to-Read Version

— 20 — - Good homes are built on wisdom and understanding. Knowledge fills the rooms with rare and beautiful treasures.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[daq]

I'm still confused about what value you're trying to champion. How does this knowledge affect our Christian living?



I speak another language that is fairly concrete. the word for Sunday is the same word for Week and isolated would be ambiguous. Only through context or helper words can you figure out what the reference is so it's no issue for me to see a statement that references the name of a day as the name of a week and number the days based on that reference

Modern Greek uses deuteros as the 2nd day, triti as the 3rd, tetarti as the 4th, pemti as the 5th. friday is paraskevi or preparation, Sabato (Sabbath) for Saturday and Kiriaki for Sunday or The Lord's day. The reference for 2nd, 3rd, etc... is counting since Sabbath and Kiriaki is a post-christian reference.

so to see "prote [root: protos] sabbatou" in Mark 16:9 as Sunday is not difficult for me (I'm not exactly sure if you're protesting this or not). contextually didn't Jesus rise on the third day starting on preparation day as the count? So preparation day (1) Sabbath (2) and "prote sabbatou" (3) which is the day after Sabbath or base on the western calendar Sunday, this certainly is most accepted day for the placement of the resurrection. The Romans used names of gods in their names of the days of the week, as Christianity spread the Greek-speaking east changed to ordinal names based on the sabbath as the count which forms the modern system. post-Christian spread Sunday is called Kiriaki but these biblical references are pre-resurrection and it would make sense to oppose a Roman system and revert to an ordinal system with Sunday being named Protos instead of the Roman counterpart which I believe was hemera Heliou (lit. "Sun day")

The answer to most of this depends on when the Biblical day begins.
The opening creation account teaches that an evening and a morning are a yom.

 

[DamianWarS]

The answer to most of this depends on when the Biblical day begins.
The opening creation account teaches that an evening and a morning are a yom.

you're being too vague with your point. What exactly are you trying to say? I get biblical days under a Hebrew context are sunset to sunset, or evening to evening. Christ dies before sunset on preparation day, is in the grave for the length of the sabbath, and rises during the early hours of the new day, thus 3 days which was foretold.

The logic of the Sabbath points to your beating heart and every breath you take, although not a written requirement there is a demand that goes beyond the word to be careful of every step you take so as not to be guilty of unnecessarily exerting energy that may be construed as work. Christ rests in the ground fully during the sabbath, with no beating heart or breath and can fully satisfy this demand. I don't see this as random, and Christ is in the grave over the sabbath by design, thusly day 1 is placed before the sabbath day 3 after the sabbath which is also the traditional view. But I can't tell if you agree with this or not so please just be clear with what you have to say.

 

[daq]

you're being too vague with your point. What exactly are you trying to say? I get biblical days under a Hebrew context are sunset to sunset, or evening to evening. Christ dies before sunset on preparation day, is in the grave for the length of the sabbath, and rises during the early hours of the new day, thus 3 days which was foretold.

Psalms 55:16-17 KJV
16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, [tzohorim] will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.

King David says he prays three times daily: evening (oblation), morning (oblation), and at the tzohorim-midday hour. Daniel the Prophet likewise does the same.

Daniel 6:10 KJV
10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

Peter likewise does the same:

Acts 3:1 KJV
1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

Acts 10:9 KJV
9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

The sixth hour of the twelve-hour civil calendar day is the midday hour, the tzohorim hour, which means double light or the two lights, and that is because it is the hour of division between morning light and evening light.

The woman of Samaria at the well of Yakob comes to draw water at about the sixth hour:

John 4:5-7 KJV
5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

Where is this first mentioned in the Torah and what does it say about the time of evening?