Late in the Sabbath – opse sabbatohn
Refer article, A. T. Robertson Mark 16:2.
The idea of severance is
exactly opposite the Ablative’s functional
meaning. “Like father like son” is Ablative – not “to differ like day by
night”. Ablative indicates connection
– like “derivation” of effluent from source. Not repelling “removal” – like between the positive and
positive of magnets. So in Mt28:1 the time of day –“Sabbath’s”– and the day
–“Sabbath”– is like father like son, “Sabbath’s Day”— Ablative and still,
Genitive. Tyndale sensed this perfectly when he
translated Mt.28:1, ‘opse sabbatohn’, “In the end of
the Sabbath”!
The Ablative “conceives of the whole –“Sabbath”– as the source from which the part –“sabbath’s”– the “late-part” or “end-part”, ‘opse’, “is
taken” or is “derived”.
The concept, or, “sense of “after” ”, implies
disconnectedness, separation and unrelatedness. But in the Ablative, “That which is named in the noun is modified” by it, and “owes its existence in some way to that which
is denoted in the Ablative” – in Mt.28:1 in the form (declension) of the
Genitive – “Sabbath’s”. That which – the time, “late”, ‘opse’– is named in the noun modified by the Ablative; and it owes its existence to that which is denoted
in the Ablative –the Sabbath– ‘sabbatohn’! The Ablative gives time in, on,
during and of the Sabbath Day; not time in, on, during or of the First Day AFTER,
the Sabbath!
Says Dana and Mantey’s Grammar, “To emphasize derivation or source the Ablative with a preposition
exactly serves the purpose; to emphasize definition or character would require
the use of the Genitive, since the Ablative has no such significance. Therefore
we had best regard the partitive construction without the preposition as
a Genitive.” In
Mt.28:1 both the purposes of derivation
or source and definition or character
interplay; therefore we had best regard
the partitive construction without the preposition in Mt.28:1 as a Genitive.
According to the Collins
Dictionary, opse in Mt.28:1 should by definition of the Ablative “indicate the instrument, manner, or place of
the action described by the verb”. (“Ablative
of means”, Dana and Mantey.) The
idea of “after” is quite irreconcilable with such a meaning in Matthew 28:1. On
the contrary, considered as an Ablative the word “Sabbath’s” functions as the “instrument” or “manner” in the sentence, “By being Sabbath’s-time late being-after-noon(light) towards the
First Day came Mary … was there a great earthquake … descended an angel”. The “manner” and “place of the action
described by the verb” are implied and indicated
by the Ablative, “Sabbath’s”. A locative though is hardly the case in Mt.28:1.
Opse is said to mean “after
a long time”, “at length”. Follet series Classic Greek Dictionary This Dictionary gives no examples of
opse
with such usage. This Dictionary
also supplies examples of “late” Greek usage of opse – some of those
usually referred to by scholars.
Nevertheless the phrases mentioned here mean nothing but “After a long time” … within
the period intended, be it after a long time within one or several days or only
within an hour or several hours or within one year or several years. Whatever happened, happened “at
length while being the current period”. It simply was “late” in or on or during the relative time.
5.3.2.2.3.4.
Opse in “Late” Greek
“Unfortunately”, says Bacchiocchi, TCR 52b “some
translations, such as the Revised Version, have ignored the late Greek usage of
opse and thus they have translated
Matthew 28:1 as “now late on the
Sabbath day”. This translation would mean that the women came to the tomb late
on a Saturday. This might be the
sense of the Greek words used in the classics, but, as R.C.H. Lenski perceptively points out, “in the koine opse is used as a preposition and means
“after”, B.-P. 958; B.-D. 164; Stellhorn, “long after
something”; Zahn, erst nach; R. 517. Mark agrees, “when the Sabbath was
past”.” (Presumably Lenski’s abbreviations stand for Bauer page 958, Blass
and Debrunner paragraph 164 and Robertson page 517 respectively.)
Philostratus,
Dionysius and Modern Lexicons
Dionysius
(d. 265) uses the word opse several times every time with the
meaning of “late in”. (e.g. De
Ausurio 15,6, opse tou kairou; 1,18, hohste
opse pote epi tohn kladohn idohn methallomenehn autehn. He tries to explain opse
in Mt.28:1 with this meaning.
(Par.5.3.2.2.3.4.1.) Dionysius also wrote a treatise against the Life of Apollonius by Philostratus (d.
217). Philostratus’ alleged usage
with the meaning of “after” never occurred to Dionysius? Not even in his attempt to
explain its meaning in Mt.28:1?
Obviously not! Then why does opse’s
use with the meaning of “after” so conspicuously increase in Commentaries and
Dictionaries of the twentieth century?
Dionysius
“The word opse is used by
late Greek writers as a preposition meaning “after”. Standard Greek lexicons
and modern translations recognize that this is the sense in which the word is
used in Matthew 28:1”, says Bacchiocchi, TCR p. 58c.
Dionysius of
“Dionysius to Basilides ..... Now this phrase “in the end” (opse) ..... denotes slowness and length of time. ..... then when they reach the LAST two days, viz., the
preparation and the SABBATH fast
.... THROUGH THE TIME .....”.
From the above quotation (TCR 52b) it is clear that the scholars
referred to accept the notion that Philostratus wrote “koine” Greek, and
because the New Testament is written in “koine” Greek, it also uses the term opse
with the meaning it, allegedly, has in Philostratus’ writings, namely, “after”.
In Mt.28:1 it would translate, “After the Sabbath at dawn on the First Day”.
Use of opse in the “koine” accordingly would differ in meaning from its
use in the “classics”, where, as the scholars admit, opse would be found to mean “late”. It is questionable though whether
the “koine” Greek employed by Philostratus, can be identified with the “koine”
Greek employed in Matthew. Of the
“koine” Greek written by Philostratus, it can be said, and must be said, that
it was “late Greek”. That can not be said, and may not be said, of New
Testament Greek. Of the “koine”
Greek written by Matthew, it can be said, and must be said, that it was
“Hellenistic Greek”. That can not be said, and may not be said, of the Greek
Philostratus wrote. Despite its
close(r) resemblance with “late” Greek, Hellenistic Greek is determined by
“classic” Greek of about six centuries’ establishment. The Greek Philostratus used developed over two centuries after the composition of the New
Testament. If a precedent for the meaning of opse during the first century should
be found, it has to be found from
the Greek of preceding times and not
from the Greek of later times. The
total appeal of scores of scholars who use “examples”
of opse’s use with the meaning of “after” from “later Greek” in order to justify their interpretation of this word
in Mt.28:1, should be ignored. It is an invalid argument. We shall
nevertheless pay more attention to it.
The quote above reflects
(1) scholars’ total dependence on one another when it comes to this
crucial point in the interpretation of the term opse for its
understanding in Mt.28:1 where it is (2) CLAIMED to mean “after (the Sabbath)”. It also reflects their
mutual dependence on (3) one writer
specifically, “Flavius Philostratus of
Lemnos, representative of the Second Sophistic School, author of “The Life of
Appolonius of Tyana” and “Heroicus”, edited in 1870 by C.L. Kayser”. Kittel
It reflects, most importantly, the
scholars’ dependence on (4) a few
references from a single Greek author of (5) another and later era. They treat
the relevancy of “later Greek” to the problem of the meaning of opse
in Mt.28:1 in such a way as to (6) completely minimise the significance contemporary
and earlier Greek must have had for the meaning of opse in Mt.28:1. Refer authoritative Lexicons like
Sophocles’ Gr. Lex. Of the Roman and
Byzantine Period, 1914 (Harvard Cambridge) and Liddell and Scott, Gr. Eng. Lex,
Schmidt also compares Plutarch who died AD 120, opse
tohn basileohs chronohn – “after the times of the king”. Refer New Testament Studies, Matthew,
Chapter 28, p. 309. The reference has
bearing on the rule of various kings (plural) and must pertain to the later stages during monarchical
“times”. Despite Schmidt, this Commentary concludes, “But it rather means here, literally, late in the Sabbath, that is, at
its close; though by strict Jewish reckoning, it ended the evening before”.
These scholars do not (8)
present the isolated “examples” of their case from Philostratus in context because they merely copy one
another. (9) These modern
researchers and commentators and translators get their exemplary phrases of
Philostratus’ use of opse from Walter Bauer’s “Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament” and make it the
norm for the meaning of “after” for opse in Mt.28:1. (10) Even Bauer refers to
Philostratus and the others by way of these excerpts only, while he in turn depends on Kayser who only edited Philostratus’ works. (11) The first consideration of these
excerpts with reference to Mt.28:1 were made by scholars like Blass,
Bauer, and Moulton. That indicates
that the argument from “later Greek” for the meaning of “after” for opse
is recent and is raised because of
its fashionableness rather than for
its scientific value.
5.3.2.2.3.4.3.
Scholars’
Views
5.3.2.2.3.4.3.1.
Stellhorn,
Beckwith, Goodspeed, Bacchiocchi
“The two phrases in M.28:1, (opse sabbatohn and tehi epifohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn), “Late in the
Sabbath” and “at dawn on Sunday”, constitute “what many scholars view as two apparently contradictory statements”,
according to Samuele Bacchiocchi. “The contradiction lies in the fact that the
end of the Sabbath at sunset does not mark the dawning of the first day, since
the two events are about 12 hours apart.”
TCR 49b (On
page 52 par. b Bacchiocchi quotes R.C.H. Lenski who refers to Stellhorn, who describes opse
as meaning, “long after something”.
The Old Afrikaans Translation has “Late after the Sabbath at dawn on the First Day” in Mt.28:1.)
The source of the idea of “long after the Sabbath” comes from the
extract from Philostratus, opse trohikohn, interpreted as “long
after the Trojan War”. Follet Classic Dictionary “Long after” the war would imply months
or years after. Such an
interpretation of opse supposes a marked
interval between detached periods.
See Par. 5.3.2.2.5 p. 248-249. “Long after the Sabbath”
– supposing a complete break in connection – cannot be immediately after the Sabbath and just as Sunday started. Surmising like this is the result
obtained for taking extra Biblical, secular, and much later sources as basis for interpreting opse in Mt.28:1
while ignoring the Bible’s own use and earlier or contemporary use of the term
– just to accommodate the traditional concept of a Sunday resurrection.
If the day were reckoned
from sunset to sunset, “long” after the Sabbath, or, “late after” the Sabbath,
must be late on Sunday which
contradicts the idea that the resurrection occurred early on Sunday. The
whole issue thus becomes more confused.
The number of hours between the two times of day indicated by the phrases (“about 12 hours” according to
Bacchiocchi) do not determine their contradictory nature. The ascent as the decline of the sun – or day or “light” for that
matter – lasts for twelve hours respectively. Twelve hours can thus
separate the beginning and the end of either the morning or the afternoon while
it still is either morning or afternoon. (Compare the Genesis story, “It
was evening and it was morning the first day”. Only these two divisions
constituted the whole day.) The end
of day, measured against the earth’s rotation in relation to the sun begins at
noon while the dawning of the day can be as late as about seven o’clock
(depending on season and degree of latitude). If the day is reckoned from sunrise to sunrise it in fact “could be in the end of the Sabbath and
morning at the same time” while the number of hours in between could be
even more than twelve. But the phrases
under consideration are irreconcilable because one, momentary event can not
happen on different days. If the day
is reckoned from sunset to sunset the resurrection could not occur “in the end
of the Sabbath” which is “on the
Sabbath” and “at dawn” which would
be “on the First Day”. “According to one interpretation, the verse
(Mt.28:1) states that the women
came to the Lord’s tomb “late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward
the first day of the week”. If this is right (and opse with the Genitive certainly can mean “late on ...”), what Josephus says implicitly of
the Passover is here said explicitly of the Sabbath, that it ends at daybreak”.
Roger T. Beckwith quoted in TCR 85a
“By suggesting the possibility” 85b Roger T. Beckwith acknowledges no more than
that “late” may be an alternative
for “after”. It “can mean” “late” but
actually, according to him, means “after”
in Mt.28:1. “Late” is also just
“one”, “interpretation”. There should be the other, and correct
interpretation, the real meaning being, “after” the Sabbath – and “daybreak”
Sunday! Beckwith’s conclusion rests on a supposition merely: “If this is right” (that Matthew uses the sunrise reckoning of the day
with the inference that opse would mean “after”), it “is here said
explicitly of the Sabbath”! What logic is this? For this supposition,
Bacchiocchi says, “Beckwith finds in
Matthew indications for the sunset reckoning, and thus concludes by suggesting
the possibility that the two reckonings were not in rivalry ... but co-existed.” Based on these
suggested possibilities – and they indeed are nothing but suggested possibilities of “indications”,
Beckwith “concludes” “an explicit endorsement” of the sunrise
reckoning” 84d in Matthew 28:1 – and consequently of the meaning of “after” for opse. This truly is amazing reasoning and even Bacchiocchi finds it “astonishing”. 85c
“Edgar J. Goodspeed, another
renowned Greek scholar ... explains
“the adverb opse is sometimes used
in the sense of “late”, with a Genitive of time ... which would mean “late on the Sabbath (in Mt.28:1). ... But opse has another sense;
it is also used by late Greek writers [he mentions none] ... as a preposition meaning “after”, followed
by the Genitive ... This is the
sense of the word in Mt.28:1 and (it) at once clears up any difficulty ...
The plain sense of the passage is:
“After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning”.” Quoted
in TCR p. 51c
Goodspeed uses the same
technique as Beckwith to mention the meaning “late” in such a way as to make it
only the improbable alternative: “Late” does occur as the meaning for opse,
yes, but, only “sometimes”. “The plain sense of the passage is: “After” ... This is the sense of the word in Mt.28:1 ... (that) at once clears up any
difficulty”. The identical subtle technique of understatement and
overstatement is employed in Bacchiocchi’s reference above to R.C.H. Lenski, “(“Late”) might be the sense of the Greek words used
in the classics”. But, “perceptively”, “in the koine opse is used as
a preposition and means “after” ”.
Bacchiocchi in this passage refers to Blass and Debrunner in connection with
the use of “after” in Philostratus.
But he seemingly deliberately keeps silent on their conclusion that
Philostratus “also uses opse with the meaning of “late on”.” (Robertson)
See below under “Walter Bauer”. Or Bacchiocchi never took the trouble to look
up the reference.
One thing is clear,
however, opse shall in each instance where it is found translated “late”, be from the classic or Hellenistic Greek,
and its occurrence shall always be in the sense of “late on / in” – never in the sense of “after”. When
claimed to “also mean”, “after”, the occurrence of opse
in “late Greek” particularly Philostratus is meant. To say that opse “is sometimes used in the sense of “late” ”, is misleading. Goodspeed “explains” nothing at all.
Bacchiocchi takes advantage
of Goodspeed’s insinuating reasoning.
On Goodspeed’s remark that “After the
Sabbath”, “is the plain sense of the
passage”, Bacchiocchi immediately continues, “The same explanation (for the meaning of opse in Mt.28:1)
is given in several standard Greek lexicons of the New Testament.” 51d That creates the
impression that “several” “Greek lexicons” that set the “standard” beyond doubt, give the “same explanation” that “the plain sense” of opse in Mt.28:1
is “after (the Sabbath)”. Putting it
this way provides impressively persuasive style, but no content.
The present research as an
exegetical attempt at solving the question of opse’s meaning in Mt.28:1
confirms that the old scholars were correct.
Translators and commentators like Tyndale and Wycliffe, the committee for the
translation of the Authorised Version, the committee for the translation of the
Revised Version, Lightfoot with his translation, Young and Webster, are all in
the same company. The “host of scholars” who favour a rendering
of opse in Mt.28:1 with “late on” need not retreat one
bit for Bacchiocchi’s “host of scholars”
favouring the “after” meaning.
Before the second world war
a debate was started in certain circles on the meaning of the word opse
in Mt.28:1. At that time Dr. Young (His Concordance was first
published 1879) and Dr Knoch’s translation of Mt.28:1 formed the core of
contention. Blass was the authority
called upon for support for the meaning of “after” for opse . Walter Bauer’s Wörterbuch was
published in 1958. It instantly was regarded “a standard Greek lexicon” and
was extensively used. Bauer’s work
became the “classic” work of
reference also in this ongoing debate.
W.E. Howell, in an article
that “appeared in the Review and Herald” of August 1939, (quoted from Answers to Objection by Francis D. Nichol, 1952, p.798) wrote, “This
interpretation (“after the Sabbath”) is
further supported by Friedrich Blass, Ph.D., Th.D. Litt.D.,
in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, in which he says on page 97: “Opse sabbaton Matthew 28:1, but not “late on the Sabbath”,
since the next clause and Mark 16:1
show that the meaning must be “after the Sabbath”.” In his appendix, Dr. Blass cites two instances in the Life
of Apollonius, by Philostratus, a philosopher of Roman Imperial Period (A.D.
193–211. Sic.), in which opse with the Genitive has the meaning “after”; namely,
opse musterion, “not till after the mysteries”, and opse touton, “after these”.
“From these ...
considerations” says Powell, “we must
conclude, either – 1. To follow
blindly the literal and usual meaning of opse, that it denotes the last part of
the Sabbath, and therefor make the passage mean that the Sabbath continued till
daylight on the first day of the week, which view would be absurd; or, 2. To interpret opse in the light of its
context and of the confirming testimony of three other Gospel writers, and give
it the obvious meaning of “after the sabbath” ... which is entirely rational.”
“Confirming testimony of three other Gospel writers” … We would like
to see this claim substantiated!
“To follow the literal and usual meaning of opse” is no “blind” act but sound hermeneutic
principle and “entirely rational”. Opse
“denoting the last part of the Sabbath”,
does not “make the passage mean that the Sabbath continued till daybreak on the first day of the week”. It is of
course “absurd”, “that the Sabbath would continue on the first
day”. The idea as such is entirely irrational and results, not from the
concept that opse should mean “late”, but from the concept that it should mean
“after”. Therefore Mt.28:1 should read “Late the Sabbath’s
afternoon against the First Day”.
“Daybreak” is irrelevant and arbitrarily involved. Opse in Mt.28:1 implies the “Sabbath’s” “late” part
– not daybreak the morrow following.
Blass chooses for “after”
as the meaning of opse in the case of Mt.28:1. “After” is not what Blass supports as
its predominant meaning. Blass chooses for “after” as the meaning of opse
in the case of Mt.28:1 not because
“after” is the real meaning of opse, but,
as he says, “Since the next clause (“at
dawn on Sunday”) and Mark 16:1 (“when the Sabbath has
passed”) show that the meaning must
be “after the Sabbath””.
Blass’s reason is nothing but inference from a preconceived meaning of “the
next clause”, tehi epifohskousehi, and an abstract association
between the women’s “going to look at the grave” (of Mt.28:1) and their
purchase of spices (according to Mk.16:1).
It is “shown”, Blass alleges, “that the meaning must be “after the Sabbath”.” It is only to accommodate tradition and a biased personal conviction that
it “must
be” “after the Sabbath” when
the angel descended from heaven to open the grave. Only tradition further
demands that it “must” not only be “after the Sabbath”, but
also “at dawn on Sunday”. By saying
it “must be”, Blass reveals the same
biased preconception betrayed by Bauer’s remark, “our literature”.
Blass, as Bauer, decides as
traditionalist Christian for the
meaning of “after” for opse in Mt.28:1.
Mk.16:1 should not be associated with Mt.28:1 at all. The subject matter differs completely. The meaning of the “next clause” tehi epifohskousehi is
the object of investigation here and has already been shown not to mean “at dawn”, but “afternoon”. (See further
discussed below, 5.3.2.4.) Blass’s depending on “the next clause” and Mk.16:1
is meaningless. Mark 16:1 would not “show” that opse “must” mean “after” even
if Sunday was not presupposed to be
the day of Jesus’ resurrection because Mk.16:1 has
nothing to do with the resurrection
or its time. Blass further uses the two quoted phrases from Philostratus to
illustrate the meaning he attaches
to opse in Mt.28:1.
These are those phrases from two centuries after
Matthew was written. Why could
Howell – who completely depends on Blass for both his argument and information
– not remind his readers of the myriad of occurrences of the use of opse
with the meaning of simply “late” before
and during the time Matthew was written? Why is Mark compared with Matthew
while he does not even use the term in connection with the women’s alleged
visit to the grave in 16:1? Why is
no reference made to Mark where he does
use the term opse? Obviously because Mark uses it with no other meaning than
“late”. But the most important reason for quoting Howell here is to illustrate
the fact that after 60 years nothing
has changed but the length of the list of scholars who depend on the
grandiosity of the array of their references. See further under “Walter Bauer”.
Howell, in his conclusion,
point 2, also claims that “the obvious
meaning of “after the sabbath”, (is) supported by the Modern Greek translation,
by
a Greek, from the original New Testament Greek”. (Emphasis CGE) Howell does
not quote the scholar who did this “Modern
Greek translation”. We hope to have had the same version available. The version here quoted in Mt.28:1
reads, Argha de kata tehn nukta tehn hohran pou ecsemerohmen. Literally translated: “Light (being) about / almost /
against night the hour somehow outgoing day”. This is a description that fits
the afternoon like a glove. Whether
afternoon or dawn, this time specification in any case limits the event – the
resurrection – to the day that was running “out”, the Sabbath. It
does not place the event on the incoming
day, Sunday, like:
When explaining the meaning
of opsia as a “Substantive”
(noun), Bauer unhesitatingly defines it, “Der
Abend”. But when he explains opse in the phrases es opse, mechris opse
and heohs
opse,
no time at dawn or before sunrise is implied, but time “before evening” – “bis zum
Abend” = “till evening”. Opse
as complement of an incomplete predication (“als Prädikat”), e.g. in
hotan opse egeneto, is
explained as “wenn es Abend geworden war”.
This phrase is ambiguous and means – just as the English, “when it became
evening”. The meaning can be before, or
after it had become evening. Where simply an adverb, opse
means “spät” (“late”): opse tehs hohran, “spät an der
Stunde” (“a late hour”). When it
is opse ousehs tehs hohras (literally, “late being the
hour”), Bauer gives “wenn es Abend
geworden war” – “when it became / had become evening”! It is obvious that
Bauer’s use of the noun, “evening” is out of place unless the phrase is taken to mean still late afternoon “while becoming evening”. Bauer’s explanation thus is in
agreement with the “late” meaning of opse. His interpretation “am (an dem) Abend” for opse in Mk.13:35 should also be
understood in the sense of “before evening”
(taking “evening” as from sunset on).
In the LXX opse in Gn.24:11 indicates the late of day, afternoon “towards the evening”.Bauer’s expression
very closely resembles the English “toward
evening”. Bauer clarifies: “spät am Tag, das heist, am Abend” – “late in day, that is, against / toward / at evening”. Young translates opse in Mt.28:1
with, “In the eve of the sabbaths”. “Eve” is defined, “The period immediately before an event” Collins “Eve” is the archaic term for “evening”.
“Evening” is defined, “The latter part of
the day, especially from late afternoon until nightfall”. In
this respect Bauer’s “Abend” for opse is in full agreement with the
equivalent English usage of the word
“evening” as an equivalent of the archaic “eve”: After-sunset-time is
excluded.
What Bauer thinks opse should mean is definitely not
what almost every scholar who refers to his Wörterbuch for the purpose of this
debate wishes. Like Bacchiocchi, who
writes, “The same explanation”,
namely “The plain sense of the passage …
“After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning”, 51c
“is given in several standard Greek lexicons of the New Testament. Walter Bauer’s lexicon, for example,
points out that opse is “used as an
improper preposition with Genitive [meaning] after, (opse sabbaton) after the Sabbath (Matthew 28:1)”. Bauer gives several examples of
this usage (“after”) including one of Polyaemus (sic) where the following phrase occurs:
“later (opse) than the hour
decided upon”.” 51d / 52a (Emphasis Bacchiocchi’s.)
How could “later (opse) than the hour decided upon” mean “after”? it simply means later than
the hour originally decided upon, or, “still later”! “After the
Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning” is the plain sense of tradition!
The phrase, “Later than the hour decided upon”,
cannot be “included” under the
category of phrases that mean “after”
because “after the hour of the relevant period decided upon” is still “later
than the hour decided upon” within the relevant period. No fixed
hour is inferred in relation to which the time could be compared, to say
“after” that hour. The phrase
intends to say only that it got “later
than the hour estimated” within the implied period. It could
have been “later than the originally planned hour” on the same day. “It
was later than (we) thought”.
Ironically Bauer translates this phrase using the word “later” and not “after” – “später als die [ausgemachte] Stunde”. “After” is not even mentioned as an
alternative by Bauer. But
Bacchiocchi claims “Bauer gives several
examples of this usage (“after”) including one of Polyaemus (sic) where the following phrase occurs: “later (opse) than the hour decided upon”.
Bacchiocchi – even worse –
while calling on Bauer’s explanation alleges the dawn for the time “after
the Sabbath”! Bauer in no wise associates the idea of “after the Sabbath” with Sunday morning”!
Blass and Debrunner define
“the phrase” simply as “zu später Stunde”
(comparative) which is nothing but saying “late”. The German comparative or no
comparative, the Greek does not have the
comparative. Blass and Debrunner’s use
of the comparative, however, limits
the word opse’s meaning to that of an adverb
and excludes a prepositional meaning.
The idea of “after” is completely foreign and definitely is not suggested by
Bauer or Blass and Debrunner as a possible meaning for opse in this phrase which Bacchiocchi claims Bauer uses with the
meaning “after”. Bacchiocchi totally
relies on this statement in support
of the meaning of “after” for opse also in Mt.28:1. Of course Bacchiocchi is not the only scholar who
follows this method of hermeneutics.
Scholars like Bacchiocchi
assume more than what Bauer ever claimed.
Bauer never thought of opse to indicate the early morning – not in Mt.28:1
or anywhere! Bauer would still think
of “after the Sabbath” as the “evening” which to him is a “late hour of day” even if he
reckoned opse meant “after” in Mt.28:1.
Bauer never defines opse the early morning and if he had the early morning in mind as its meaning he is mistaken as anyone else that is led by
traditional thinking. The only incidence of opse for which Bauer employs the word “after”
(“nach”), is Mt.28:1. No other! And then he does not come near to equalising
this time “after” the Sabbath, with Sunday morning!
Bauer notices the
occurrence of opse “Since Homer, (in)
Papyri, (the) LXX, Philo, Josephus and the Sibyline Oracles”, as an “Adverb”, meaning, “Late, with Genitive” (“Spät mit
Genitiv”). Philo (one) died about the time the first documents of the New
Testament began to appear. Josephus’ (two) life perfectly
overlapped the time of the New Testament’s origin. The LXX (three) was most influential to the
Greek of the New Testament, while the classic
literature (four) formed the basis
of the “Hellinistic” or “Koine” Greek of the New Testament. In this Greek of before the Greek of the New Testament and of the first century – the use of opse is with its meaning
of “late” – without exeption. Its
use in Mt.28:1 should also be
understood as with the sense of “late”. It would not only be the natural way to
interpret this word, but the correct way.
Nowhere in the vast etymological
Bacchiocchi claims “several
examples where opse
(allegedly, according to Bauer) means “after” .” These “examples”
are misquotes because Bauer only in
the case of Mt.28:1 unequivocally states that opse, there – in Mt.28:1 – means “after”.
Bauer also, for the incidence of opse
used as an “(improper) preposition with
the Genitive, meaning “after” ”, refers to one instance only, Mt.28:1.
And the “several examples”
claimed by Bacchiocchi – “examples”
that Bauer gives as examples of the use of opse as an “improper preposition with the
Genitive”– and not, “meaning “after” ” – actually “include” but four phrases meaning “late”! This must be emphasised because Bauer with the usual phrases “quoted” from him is always called upon
with fanfare to support the meaning of “after” for opse.
Bauer says of opse
under point “-3.” “As (unreal) preposition used with the
Genitive “after” opse sabbatohn “after the Sabbath” – “als
(uneigentliche) Präposition mit dem Genitiv gebraucht, “nach” …” He subsequently
brackets the remainder of the
instances of opse’s occurrence used “as preposition with the Genitive” under this point –3. From Aelianus, (Claudius, 175-235 A.D, of “second Sophistic
school” – Kittel) edited in 1864 by R. Hercher and Polyaenus, (of
The fact that Bauer groups other references to opse
with Mt.28:1 under point –3.
should not be interpreted as that he saw identical
meanings, “after”, in all of
them. The only thing identical between the excerpts of this classification is their composition – they all consist of the presumed
“preposition with Genitive”. See
Par. 5.3.2.2.4.1. When it comes
to “meaning
“after” “, Bauer mentions but one “example” – Mt.28:1! To
explain his immediately following references Bauer uses this sign: “=”. That means he defines Aelianus
and Polyaenus’ use of opse as “later”: “= später als …”. Again
immediately after reference to Aelianus and Polyaenus, Bauer refers to Philostratus’ use of the word. Bauer gives no “meaning” but refers
to two other authors, “E. Tobac and J. Maiworm” without quoting anything from them. I can just imagine that these authors
have nothing different to say than Bauer.
The usual explanation of a late
time within the period concerned is given by Bauer and / or by Blass and
Debrunner for every of the “several examples” that Bacchiocchi
quotes but one, opse toutohn – “after these
(things)”. This is the one – and
only – instance which Robertson sees
as a case of the ablative.
Blass and Debrunner do not
give their own explanation of the
phrase opse mustehriohn. Like Zahn’s statement, “erst nach” – “only after”, theirs, reflects a common interpretation. But see Par. 5.3.2.2.5.1.1,
p. 51.
Bauer refers to Flavius
Philostratus, second to third century, TCR
51c Life of Apollonius 4, 18
for the phrase opse mustehriohn; Ref. Par. 5.3.2.2.5.1.1,
p. 54 To 6,10, for the phrase opse toutohn; Ref. Par. 5.3.2.2.5.1.2,
p. 56 And to Heroicus
12, p. 190, 10, for the phrase opse
tehs machehs. Ref. Par. 5.3.2.2.5.2.2.
p. 59 He categorises
these phrases under the type of opse being used “with the Genitive”, bracketed
under “point” “-3”. Bauer gives no interpretation or
explanation of his own. He does however supply reference to
Blass and Debrunner and
their paragraph 164. Blass and
Debrunner in their par. 164.1 say of the excerpts opse
tohn trohikohn, and opse
tohn Olumpiadohn: Ref. Par. 5.3.2.2.5.2.3. p.
59 “but [in contrast with the meaning of “after”] surely
partitive (Genitive), late in the Trojan war” – “aber sicher partitiv, spät im troianischen
Krieg”. Ref. Par. 5.3.2.2.5.2.1.
p. 58 (“Surely” then, it should
be “late in the Olympic (games)” as
well!) There seems to be no
difference between opse tehs machehs and opse tohn trohikohn. Both phrases
relate a late time during a war. “And likewise”,
that is, “surely late in”, says their Grammar, does the phrase opse
tehs hohras in the Letter to the
Philomelians, mean, “at a late hour” – “zu später
Stunde”. See Par. 5.3.2.2.3.1,
p. 25, 5.3.2.2.5, 5.3.2.4.6.1.1.2.
Bauer cannot allow opse
to mean “late” in Mt.28:1 because,
for him, it should indicate the Sabbath as the day of resurrection and not
Sunday. Bauer does not state this
supposition in so many words, but it without doubt forms the background against
which he interprets opse in Mt.28:1. Bauer derives the conclusion that opse
means “after” not from Philostratus,
not from the ancient writers, not from Matthew 28:1, and not from its use with a Genitive. He forms his opinion of Mt.28:1 on the basis of the traditional belief that Jesus’
resurrection took place “after the Sabbath, on the First Day”. He specifies
this Scripture as “our literature”, thus
revealing the biased position of traditionalist Christian from which he
ascribes the meaning of “after” to opse in Mt.28:1. “Our
literature” is traditional Christian literature. Scholars and translations that depend on Bauer’s interpretations,
also accept a priori a Sunday
resurrection indicated in Mt.28:1.
Bauer – unlike some dependants – was never involved in a debate to
determine the validity of his assumption of a Sunday resurrection when he
investigated the various incidences
of the use of the term opse. Bauer did not give the word its meaning – he only researched its occurrence. A Sunday resurrection was accepted without question. Bauer does the same. Appeal made to Bauer by scholars to confirm the meaning “after (the
Sabbath)” in Mt.28:1 does injustice to Bauer. It results in an incorrect
understanding of Bauer’s explanations of opse generally and usually but for Mt.28:1. They make Bauer say what they want him to say. The way Bauer is inappropriately
applied, are Blass and “Blass Debrunner” misapplied.)
In Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi’s
document The Times of the Crucifixion and
Resurrection whatever he fails to prove with evidence or argument as it
pertains the meaning of opse, he transforms into “fact” by presumption or conclusion. “The
existence of these time approximations in the Gospels” – the allegedly different times given by the Gospels for the
women’s “visit to the sepulchre”-
says he, “suggests the possibility that
Matthew also may have used opse
loosely, simply to indicate that the women went to the sepulchre after the
Sabbath was over and as the first day was dawning.” 50 / 51 “The fact that “opse” could mean not only the
late hours of the day [Mk.11:19], but also the early hours of the
new day, suggests the possibility that Matthew have used the term as an
approximate time reference simply to indicate that the Sabbath was over when
the women went to the sepulchre.”
50b
Bacchiocchi had at his
disposal nothing but a “suggested
possibility” for arguing that Matthew “also”
used opse “loosely” as an “approximate time reference”. But he
through pure assumption, precludes
that it is a “fact”. He starts page
87, Times of the Crucifixion and
Resurrection, with the heading, “Conclusion”.
The 4th paragraph of this “conclusion”
reads,
“... we have shown in chapter 4
that even if Matthew used the sunset reckoning consistently, it is not
necessary to place the Resurrection and the visit of the women to the sepulchre
on Saturday afternoon, in order to do justice to Matthew 28:1, since the term opse
is used in the New Testament and in
contemporary Greek literature as meaning not only “late” but also “after” ”.
(Emphasis CGE).
In the above considerations
on each and every incidence of opse “in the New Testament” (only in Mark 11:11, 19; 13:35) and “in contemporary Greek” it was found that opse is used exclusively as the opposite of prohi – “morning”. It is used for the “late”
part of day or afternoon “on” any given day, or, for the “late” part within any
given period. In no “contemporary
Greek” – Greek of the first century A.D. – is opse “also” to be found with the meaning of “after”. Such a use is – also but allegedly – to be found only in the “late Greek” of two centuries after the writing of the New Testament,
and only in the Life of Apollonius written by Philostratus. Bacchiocchi’s “conclusion”
is lauded with startling nonchalance but (using his own words), it merely is an
“ignoble and baseless” claim that “lacks both Biblical and historical support”
and which “the cumulative witness of the Gospels and of
history clearly supports”(60d) not and clearly contradicts.
It “does
no justice to Mt.28:1”!
How does Bacchiocchi arrive
at the “conclusion” that opse
is used in the New Testament with “also”
the meaning of “after”? He says
Matthew “also may have used opse loosely”. Saying “also”, implies that opse is used by other writers of the New Testament, “loosely”. But only Mark “also” uses opse. And he uses the term with exact
meaning, in fact, Mark applies the word as the exclusive opposite of “dawn”. (See
Par. 5.3.2.2.2.) Saying that Matthew “also
may have used opse loosely”,
implies that Matthew used opse
more than once without
discriminating between its alleged “dual
meaning” of “after” or “late”.
This implication makes Bacchiocchi’s assumption unfounded because Matthew uses opse
but once in Mt.28:1.
Sitz im
Leben
“In an age of quarts watches, when even seconds count, we expect the
same accuracy from Bible writers, who had only the sun at their disposal to
measure time”.50c
Being dependent on one
another and on astrological indications for living with time, man of earlier
times developed an acute intimacy socially and with nature for communicating
time. Words and custom meant
something, not anything or nothing.
A greater awareness and accuracy of time perception even to the half of an hour
pervades the literature of early ages.
Cf. Dionysius 5.3.2.2.3.4.1.
Those people did not “loosely” go about time and the observance or recording of time. Unambiguous
use of language during these eras was essential
for indicating and recording time. Only the sun served as “watch”. The very etymology of the
term “watch” illustrates the relevancy of this observation. Basic logic of time
perception has also not changed in the least. “Early” still is a relative concept while “dawn” never was a “time approximation” of “late”!
“Late” remains a relative concept that is never mistaken for “dawn”. Neither
would the Gospels use “late” – opse, for “glow of dayspring”.
Bacchiocchi mentions an
example of how careless the writers of the New Testament allegedly went about
with time indication. “The concern of Bible writers however, seems
to have been more with reporting the actual events than with the precise time
of their occurrence. Mark, for
example, says that Jesus was crucified approximately three hours earlier (“it
was the third hour” – Mk.15:25) than John (“it was about the sixth hour” – Jn.19:16).” See Par. 5.2.1.1. “Similarly”,
says Bacchiocchi, “the visit to the
sepulchre occurred “while it was still dark” according to John (20:1) and “when the sun had risen”
according to Mark (16:2). The existence of these time approximations
in the Gospels suggests the possibility that Matthew also may have used opse loosely, simply to indicate that
the women went to the sepulchre after the Sabbath was over and as the first day
was dawning.” 50/51 The question should be allowed: While the Gospels go about “loosely” with “time approximations”, why not use opse “simply to indicate that the women went to
see the sepulchre” “late Sabbath’s in the light being
toward the First Day”? The answer is audible: Because opse means “after”, and not “late”. In
other words, when not suiting tradition, these time indications are no “approximations” but specific indicators. And if they are specific and precise,
then the differences in time concerning the crucifixion and resurrection used
to illustrate the “loose” use of the
term opse, become irrefutable contradictions. Emil Brunner’s observation that Christianity is dishonest in the way it tries to
reconcile the contradictions must come to mind as long as the traditional
explanations are maintained and refused to be demolished by a suitable
alternative. These very “contradictions” in the records of
Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection are the foremost “evidence” which atheists
organisationally use for propagating
not only the denial of the truth of the Bible but of God himself.
Opse is not a preposition because it occurs with the Genitive.
Bauer also does not say that. That opse
is a preposition is not found in the text
like the Genitive is. If “use with the Genitive” is the needed
formula to catalyst opse into changing from an adverb into
a preposition, then it would as a rule
have meant “after” because it is used with the Genitive regularly. Opse normally occurs with the Genitive while acting as an adverb – which it “properly” is – and
as a rule means “late (in)”. Being an adverb, the comparative and superlative, opsiateros,
opsiatata,
are derived from opse. Were opse
a preposition a comparative and superlative would have been impossible.
Opse is not a preposition because it occurs with a nomen
either. It functions adverbially
while in relation to a noun. The
word prohi, for example, is applied without other syntactical
correlation with a noun, acting as an adverb. E.g., “Early (in the morning) the First
Day” – prohi miai tohn sabbatohn. As with prohi, opse acts also as adverb
to the main verb. In Mk.16:2
it is, “early the First Day came (the women)” – prohi miai erchontai; In Mt.28:1–2 it is “late Sabbath’s came an
earthquake” – opse sabbatohn seismos egeneto. Bauer states that opse,
“since Homer”, acted as an “adverb with the Genitive” – of the noun. (In par. 5.3.2.2.5.2
opse
toutohn as substantivised
phrase.)
A preposition is implied
as in the phrase “late (on) the
day”, “late (in) the season”. Opse
as an adverb will pertain to this
preposition. No verb need be active, given or implied. Opse is not attributive –
pertaining to the noun like a preposition does. An adverb – opse – does not describe direct relation to the noun, like, e.g.,
the preposition “after”, would:
“After the day”, but it directly relates to the implied or given preposition: “Late on the First Day”, “Late in
the season”, “Late in time”. In the
Greek this supposed prepositions are presented in the case–inflexion: prohi miai, opse kairou, opse tehs hohras. They “rule” the verb and the time of the occurrence of the verb
and thereby they rule an implied dative of time (or accusative of status). On such constructions a verb will follow which indicates the
event that occurred “on the day”. In Mk.16:1 the women “came (erchontai) on the First Day”; In Mt.28:1f
an earthquake “came (egeneto) in the end of the Sabbath”.
Refer Par.
5.1.2.1.
Bauer calls opse
an “improper preposition” in Mt.28:1,
(“ein uneigentliche Präposition”) “with
the Genitive”, (meaning) “after”.
An “improper” preposition is an unreal preposition, and can not be
substantiated with as much as one “real” example. Mt.28:1 does not support Bauer’s idea. It has already been referred to above
that the use of opse “with the Genitive” does not make it a
preposition, even if it were an “improper
preposition”. (Neither does Robertson.) Just by assuming another meaning
for the word its nature is changed. Thinking of opse as meaning “after” requires it to function as a
preposition. Thinking of opse as meaning “late” requires it to
function as an adverb. Grammatically everything stays as it is. One’s approach makes the difference, right
or wrong.
The Genitive results from
the ellipsis, “day”, in the phrase, “Late on the day of the Sabbath” – Opse hehmerai (tohn) sabbatohn. The same happens in the phrase
“against the First Day of the week”,
Accusative – eis mian hehmeran (tohn) sabbatohn. The Genitive from this point of view is of kind, “the week’s first
day”, (Mk.16:2) “the week’s (making, finishing day)” (the seventh or last day). (Mt.28:1) This inference implies that a dative (or accusative) is supposed in
such cases. “Late in the (seventh) day of the Sabbath” – opse
tehi (hebdomehi) sabbatohn; “Early on the First Day of
the week” – prohi tehi miai (hehmerai) tohn sabbatohn. (“Against the
First Day of the week” – eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn,
a preposition ruling the status of the day pending and the accusative.) These adverbs as “improper prepositions” do not directly rule the Genitive.
Opse is an adverb and is used with the Genitive as an
adverb in Mt.28:1–4. It could be viewed
as a substantivised adverb: “It
became / had become the late of Sabbath’s time” – Egeneto
opse sabbatohn. But opse
remains an adverb – even if no verb
is used. The verb is ever–present, mentioned or as an ellipsis. Such is the case in Mt.28:1,
“It was late Sabbath’s time” – Ehn opse
sabbatohn. One could even suppose Esabbatisen
opse sabbatohn – “Being late
Sabbath’s’ time”. But opse’s first function as an adverb in Mt.28:1–4 concerns the main verb or predicate of
the sentence. Is that not just natural? It is, and it “at once clears up any difficulty” : “Late ... there was a great earthquake on the Sabbath!”
Only one Way
To say “After the Sabbath on Sunday morning” is
a waste of words. The First Day automatically follows on the Sabbath. Cf. Mk.16:1.
No one would think to instruct
anybody on the subject. Why mention the Sabbath at all if the
idea is to say that the resurrection took place “on the First Day”? Just “on
the First Day” would have said it all – as
in the case of the women’s visits to the grave “on the First Day”. Then why repeat with “after the Sabbath”
that it had happened “on the First Day”?
Matthew, if he wanted to
say “after the Sabbath”, could (very unlikely) have said, “Outside the Sabbath” using the Genitive. But then he would have used the word ecs. He could have said
“Through the Sabbath”, using the
Genitive. But then he would have
used the word dia. He could have
meant, “Upon the Sabbath”, but would
not have said epi sabbatohn – using
the Genitive. He would have used the
accusative. Matthew could have
meant, “Beyond the Sabbath”, using huper,
but he would have used the accusative, huper sabbaton.
Matthew could have meant, “Past the Sabbath”, but would have said apo
sabbatohn. The construction with the preposition apo, whether used
inclusively or exclusively with regard to relative time, always concerns some
period of long or short duration.
“After the sixth hour there was darkness”.
“Hereafter you will see the Son of
man sit”. In Mt.28:1 no event in progress follows. A sudden and momentary incident “late the Sabbath” occurs like
lightning – nothing keeps on happening
“after the Sabbath”.
Matthew could very aptly
have said (heohs) opisoh tou sabbatou – “(Till) after
the Sabbath’s (had ended)” – adverb and ellipsis, like in Nh.13:19. Or he could effectively have used dieleusetai
ta sabbata – “the Sabbath having
gone through” – nominative subject, like in Am.8:5.
Had Matthew used meta
with the Genitive instead of opse,
it would have meant, “With / being / the
Sabbath”. To have meant “after
the Sabbath”, meta with the accusative
could probably have been employed.
Matthew uses this construction more than
a hundred times. In nearby 27:62
he employed meta to say “after (preparations’ time)”. Why didn’t Matthew use
it in Mt.28:1? See also 2Macc.8:20,
meta
to sabbaton, 2Macc.12:32,
1Macc.10:34, “After Pentecost”, “after the Feast”. Matthew uses opse
but this once. If he precisely
wanted to have said “after”, he
without doubt would have used meta with the accusative. He specifically uses opse
with the Genitive because he wanted to precisely say “late” – “on the Sabbath”!
Philostratus’ Use of Opse
Even without having the contexts
of Bauer’s references available, they can be interpreted on face value to mean “late”. Opse tehs hohras (in Aelianus and Polyaenus) need to mean nothing but what
the same phrase means in the Martyrdom of Polycarp or what opse means in the
Gospels, e.g. in Mk.13:35 = 6:35, where it stands for the “opposite of prohi”. Cf. The
Classic Series Dictionary, Follet Publishing Company “early (morning)”,
Philomelians, see above. Philostratus’
phrases of opse mustehriohn (Apollonius
4, 18, Kayser part I page 138, 8) and opse toutohn
(Kayser part 1 page 213, 24) should mean nothing but “late in the
mysteries” / “late in events”, or, “during the late(r) mysteries” / “the
late(r) events”. Opse tehs machehs need
not mean anything else than “late(r) in battle”. But to put the seal on the
whole matter the contexts of these
references should be investigated from their texts and not from the strain of
borrowings.
5.3.2.2.5.1.
5.3.2.2.5.1.1.
Opse
Mustehriohn
Loeb Classical Library p. 384-387, renders this passage as follows,
“It was then the day of the Epidaurian festival, at which it is still
customary for the Athenians to hold the initiation at a second sacrifice after
both proclamation and victims have been offered; and this custom was instituted
in honour of Asclepius because they still initiated him when on one occasion he
arrived from Epidaurus too late for the mysteries.”
In this translation (by the
respected Samuel Taylor Coleridge, for whom “the Bible shon in its own light, or rather with the light of divine
revelation”, - Alec Vidler) nothing suggests the idea of “after
the mysteries”. Asclepius “arrived too late for the mysteries”. Simply a matter of “too late” it was! Nevertheless, opse is here translated “late”and not “after”.
So here’s my own attempt,
It was then the day of the
Epidaurian festival
Ehn men deh Epidauriohn hehmera.
On this festival, after
announcements as well as
ta de Epidauria
meta prorrusin te
rites – to the present –
comes initiation
kai iereia
deuro muein
by the Athenian fathers, with
a second sacrifice.
Athehnaiois
patrion epi thusiai deuterai,
This custom was instituted in
honour of Asclepius,
touti de enomisan Asklehpiou
who, once when they initiated
him,
heneka hoti deh emuehsan auton
arrived from
hehkonta Epidaurothen opse mystehriohn.
Initiation “with / during the
second sacrifice” – epi
thusiai deuterai (“with / during afternoon” – epi-fohs-k-ousehi, Mt.28:1), became customary “after both proclamation and rites” = iereia. That implies that “sacrifice” – thusia, and “rites”, are not identical. Iereia
should not be rendered “victims offered”. Initiation came “after” – meta, “proclamation and rites”. Philostratus
expresses chronological order with meta. He expresses the reletavity of a “late” time, with opse.
The original chronological order of the festival was “initiation with sacrifice”, and
then, “proclamation and rites”. Asclepius arrived at
No sequential order of one period or event
preceded or followed by another
appears here. What happened – “initiation”, did not happen “after” a first and “on”
a second occasion of “mysteries”,
but after the first sacrifice in
stead of “with” the first
sacrifice, during the one occasion of “mysteries”. On this occasion “initiation”
happened “with the second sacrifice” and “after
(meta) proclamation as well as
rites”, “during” the same “mysteries”. Opse mystehriohn here can mean but “late
during” the single event “of the mysteries”. That means that opse is used as an adverb telling when Asclepius “arrived” in
5.3.2.2.5.1.2.
Opse
Toutohn
The contents of the passage explains
the true meaning of the words, opse toutohn,
which, as in the case of opse mustehriohn, has not the
remotest semblance of “evening after” or of “dawn after”.
Meeting Appolonius, “Thespesion led a group of philosophers who
“followed him in procession just as the jury of the athletic sports at
Thespesion first confirms
Appolonius’ familiarity with the two festivals, because his discourse assumes
knowledge of both.
“Now those”, Thespesion
continues, “who come to the Pythian festival are, they say,
escorted with sound of pipe and song and lyre, and are honoured with shows of
comedies and tragedies; and then last of
all (opse toutohn) they are presented with an exhibition of
games and races run by naked athletes.
At the Olympic festival, however, these superfluities are omitted as inappropriate
and unworthy of the place; and those who go to the festival are only provided with the show of naked athletes originally
instituted by Heracles. You may see
the same contrast between the wisdom of the Indians and our own. For
they, like those who invite others to the Pythian festival, appeal to the crowd with all sorts of
charms and wizardry; but we, like
the athletes of
No literal games are supposed. A debate on philosophy is waged and the different games are used as paradigms of these schools of thought and different approaches to life. The concept of time
contained in the word “late” is used figuratively.
Chronological time-sequence is nowhere of concern.
Thespesion argues for the supremacy of his “wisdom”-cult,
which obviously is more ascetic and earthly than the “Indian” types of wisdom.
The great difference between them
lies in the paraphernalia and gaudiness of the latter. Thespesion’s “sect”, after the example of
the Olympic games, “goes naked” – gumnoi, and “natural” – ta kata
fusin. “In contrast with ours”, the Indian wisdom, to the analogy of the Pythian games, “appeal to the crowd with all sorts of charm and wizardry”. For the
true wisdom of Thespesion’s “sect”, “the sound of pipe and song and lyre …
comedies and tragedies” – the main
dish at the Pythian games – represent nothing but pretense and sophistry, “superfluity” and “inappropriateness”. In contrarst, in the Indian types of
“wisdom”,
as in the Pythian games, the genuine, the “pure”
or “naked” and “natural”, are the
superfluous and inappropriate – “these
last things” – opse toutohn. The disciplines “originally instituted by Heracles” are reduced to a scanty after-dish
– opse
toutohn (= epiforehma).
“Those who come to the Pythian games are escorted with sound of pipe and
song and lyre and honoured with shows of comedies and tragedies, and then last of all – eita, they
are presented with an exhibition of games and races run by naked athletes last of all” – opse toutohn. Opse toutohn
will not be the mere duplication of
“and then” – eita. Giving opse
toutohn the meaning “last of all”, makes for nonsensical repetition. The passage
intends to say, “Those who come to the
Pythian games are escorted with sound of pipe and song and lyre and honoured
with shows of comedies and tragedies, and
then last of all (eita), they
are presented with an exhibition of games and races run by naked athletes as mere superfluities (opse toutohn).”
The naked games came “after”,
the bands and comedies of the Pythian games, true. But it came “last of these things”, that is, “late” within the single occasion of the Pythian games, and not “after”
it on a following occasion. Exactly
similarly does the “afternoon”, in Mt.28:1, come “after” the noon, but “late”
within the same day of the Sabbath, and not “after” it on the following day of
the First day of the week.
5.3.2.2.5.2.
Hehrohikos
5.3.2.2.5.2.1.
Opse
tohn Trohikohn
Refer Par. 5.3.2.2.3.4.3.5, p 61
Philoktehtehs de ho Poiantos estrateuse men
opse tohn Trohikohn, arista de anthrohpohn etocseuen, Hehrakleous,
phasi, tou Alkmehnehs mathohn auto, kai klehronomehsai legetai tohn tocsohn, hopote Hehraklehs apiohn tehs anthrohpeias phuseohs auton te parestehsato kai to en tehi Oitehi
pyhr.
“Philoktetes strategised
late in the Troyan war …”.
There’s no sense in strategising when the war is over. Philostratus uses opse
just like he uses it elsewhere, namely to describe the end-phase of a greater event. So Tyndale and the Authorised Version
translated the word in Mt.28:1, “in the
end of the Sabbath” – not “after”
it. Opse consequently and consistently with Philostratus means “in the
end of …” = “late during …”. In the instance here yet another, be it a last exercise of war. What the outcome
was, is not of importance for finding the meaning of the phrase of interest to
us, except that what happened, happened not “after the Troyan war”, but “late
during” it. We may confidently echoe Blass and Debrunner, “Well surely late in the Troyan war”! Where the Classic Greek
Dictionary “Prepared by George Ricker
5.3.2.2.5.2.2.
Opse
tehs Machehs
Kayser II, X11, p. 190 line 10
Refer Par.
5.3.2.2.3.4.3.5, p 61
…
alla karterohs agohnisamenon
kai monon tohn Trohohn katameinanta ecsoh tou teixous pesein opse tehs machehs, apothanonta de helchthehnai men
anehrtehmenon tou harmatos, apodothehnai de, hohs Homehrohi
eirehtai. “…staying outside the wall to fall late during the battle hung behind the chariot being dragged to die
as it had been told Homerus”.
This happened not “after the battle”; this happened
“in the battle’s end”— which is the
precise meaning of an Ablative!
5.3.2.2.5.3.
Gumnastikohs
Opse
tohn Olympiadohn
Kayser II, XIII, p. 268 line 21
Damaretos
de kata tehn hecsehcostehn pemptehn prohtos hoplitou legetai tuchein Hehraieus, oimai, ohn. hekatostehi
kai tessapakostehi kai pemptehi Olympiadi paida pankratiastehn enegrapsan ouk oida ecs hotou bradeohs auton ennoehsantes eudokimounta ehdeh par” heterois – opse gar tohn Olympiadohn
Aigyptou ehdeh stephanoumenehs ehrcsato, kakeineh de heh nikeh
Aigyptiou Phaidimou.
As in any games the laurels
are given and the conquest celebrated after
the contest but still during the
games. It is part thereof and
constitutes “the Games’ ending” –
here, “in the end of the Olympics”.
This is typical of Philostratus’ use
of the adverb, opse – which he uses not once as “an improper preposition”. (Bauer)
5.3.2.2.6.
Some
Understandable Questions
Professor
Bacchiocchi Might Recognise
Not Too
Strange to Answer
I
include here, questions on just this point – the point of Jesus’ resurrection
from the dead “in Sabbath’s time”
(Matthew). The reader will find it is a continuation of my discussion with SK
in Part 1 / 2, Par. 5.2.2.5.
(Professor Bacchiocchi is acquainted with my views and criticisms – well
enough to say he cannot understand me. I limit my questions to what Professor
Bacchiocchi had time for to write books about and what he understands well
enough to apply in confutation of men like Tyndale, Webster, Lightfoot, Young
and Knoch, Coleridge – and centuries before them, Dionysius.)
Professor Bacchiocchi, I today have some questions for you on your
interpretation of the phrase in Mt.28:1, “In
the end of the Sabbath”. (We all
know what happened in the end of the
Sabbath although, it seems to me, we do not all believe it.)
First Question: Professor Bacchiocchi,
How can you claim “numerous evidences”
(The Time of the Crucifixion and
Resurrection, p. 49, 84 et al.)
that Matthew uses the sunrise
day-reckoning and not the sunset day-reckoning in chapter 28:1 while you fail
to present a single example of his
use of the sunrise reckoning – but 28:1 itself?
(Professor
Bacchiocchi most probably will explain with reference to the Greek word opse
which in most translations of
Mt.28:1 is rendered “after”.)
(((
At this point my Roman Catholic friend, SK, asks, “Without Greek, I would argue that if the word (opse) is best translated “dawn” or “sunrise” then that must be the
case. If it was always read this way by its readers, then that must also be the
case. So we are left with explaining why the Sabbath is even mentioned … surely
the fact that Matthew wanted to emphasise the time-line (Prep day … Sabbath …
Third day) is
sufficient? He could
even have wanted to emphasise that the Sabbath events of the priests (see vv
62-66 of chapter 27) were now over, and he did that by ending the Sabbath in
verse 1 of the next chapter?”
Dear SK, please explain to me how you
come to conclude that “If it was always
read this way by its readers, then that must also be the case … that if the
word (opse) is best translated
“dawn” or “sunrise” ”? Maybe the
strong traditional predisposition of a Roman Catholic may find it not too
strange to fathom. However, it was NOT
always read this way by its readers, which must be deduced from opse’s
use during ages of Greek before and
during the first century wherein it had the exclusive meaning of “late”. Even the modern Greek
translation of Mt.28:1 says “About outgoing day before the First Day”. Ref. P. 42,
5.3.2.2.3.4.3.4, p. 83, 5.3.2.4.6.1.1.2.
)))
My
Second Question is: Professor Bacchiocchi, You claim the Greek word opse
in Mt.28:1 should be understood to mean “after”, and not “in
the end of the Sabbath” as in
the King James Version or “late on the
Sabbath” as others explain it. In The
Time of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, your statement reads as if A.T.
Robertson is saying, “ Later
Greek authors, like Philostratus, use the word
in the sense of “after”, like opse
toutohn “after these things” ”.
Mark the quotation marks – the emphasis and underlining are mine. But the
quotation marks are Bacchiocchi’s!
The question is, 1, Does A.T. Robertson simply
say that “Philostratus shows examples
where opse has the sense of “after”,
like opse toutohn – “after these things” ” – as you, Professor Bacchiocchi, assert he does? (Robertson says, “Philostratus shows examples where opse with
the ablative has the sense of “after”, like opse toutohn – “after these
things” ”. Bacchiocchi keeps Robertson’s consideration of the Ablative, mum. If the use of opse in Mt.28:1 is regarded as a case
of the Ablative, the KJV supplies the perfect example, “In the end of the Sabbath”!)
(((
Tuesday
my son had his birthday party. After the party all enjoyed watching as he
opened his presents. That is the meaning of the Ablative. “After” in fact is
still part and parcel of the party. The example given from Philostratus, “after
these things”, contextually has the meaning of “superfluities” (Coleridge) that should come after the games but
were made such a fuss of one might think they are the games! (Refer Part 2,
Par. 5.3.2.2.5.1.2, p. 56) Bacchiocchi’s
interpretation IS UNacceptable and
opse’s use in Mt.28:1 means “in the end of the Sabbath” = “Late-
Sabbath’s
time”! )))
The
question further is, 2, Does A.T. Robertson say, “later Greek authors, like Philostratus” – as you, Professor
Bacchiocchi, assert he does? Does A.T. Robertson use the plural?
(Robertson
says, “Philostratus shows examples”,
“Philostratus uses it (the word opse)
also in the sense of …”. Robertson
speaks of no other author than Philostratus.)
The
question further is, 3, Does A.T. Robertson say, “Philostratus use(s) the word “in the sense of “after” ” – as you,
Professor Bacchiocchi, assert he does?
(Robertson’s
exact words are, “Philostratus uses it
(opse) also in the sense of late on” – directly the opposite of what
Bacciocchi pretends Robertson says!)
(((
SK
obviously misses the point that Robertson says Philostratus uses the word opse
“with
the Ablative in the sense of
“after” ” – which Bacchiocchi omits
to say – and also, that “Philostratus uses it also in the sense of late on” (supposing a use with the
Genitive) which Bacchiocchi also keeps
silent! I bet Bacchiocchi never himself looked at Philostratus or at Robertson.
And if he did, his reference to either is dishonest! )))
My Third Question is: Professor Bacchiocchi, In your 4th
paragraph on page 87 of The Time of the
Crucifixion and Resurrection, you state, “...the term opse is used in the
New Testament and in contemporary
Greek literature as meaning not only “late” but also “after” ”. (Emphasis
as I supplied it.) I take it you mean with “contemporary
Greek literature”, first century “Greek
literature” – that is, “Greek literature” “contemporary” with “New
Testament” “Greek”.
Now, Professor Bacchiocchi,
please supply us with just one example
from THIS Greek of the incidence of the “use”, of opse, with the “meaning …(of) “after”? Will it be Mt.28:1, perhaps?
(((
Dear SK, I mean that
Bacchiocchi certainly will present
Mt.28:1 for his example, and no
other. )))
Then, Professor
Bacchiocchi, please explain to us how you “…
have … (done) justice to Matthew 28:1” by applying to the word opse in Mt.28:1, your, alleged meaning
from Philostratus of two centuries later
than the time of the New Testament’s composition?
Then, Professor
Bacchiocchi, please explain to us how your “conclusion”
is lauded with such startling nonchalance, that, 1, To say that opse means
“late in / on the Sabbath” in
Mt.28:1, is an “ignoble and baseless
attempt” that “lacks both Biblical
and historical support”, and, 2,
that your meaning for opse, “after”, (60d TCR) is “clearly support(ed)” by “the
cumulative witness of the Gospels and of history”?
(((
My
fourth question for you, Professor
Bacchiocchi, today is on your use of Walter
Bauer’s interpretation of the phrase “In
the end of the Sabbath” in Mt.28:1.
In
The Times of the Crucifixion and
Resurrection, p. 51-52, you assert, “The
same explanation … “after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was
dawning”, is given in several standard Greek lexicons of the New Testament.
Walter Bauer’s lexicon, for example, points out that opse is “used as an improper preposition with Genitive [meaning]
after, (opse sabbaton) after the
Sabbath … Bauer gives several examples of this usage (“after”) including one …
where the following phrase occurs: “later than the hour decided upon”.”
The question in the
first
place must obviously be, Professor Bacchiocchi, How can you say Walter Bauer “gives several examples of this usage “after” ”, when the phrase that
occurs in the very example you quote from him, reads, “later than the hour decided upon”?
But,
the question in the second place,
Professor Bacchiocchi, for any person who has not checked your references, is
less obvious. It is this: How can
you say Walter Bauer “gives several examples of this usage “after”
”, when he gives but four examples,
and all four of opse meaning “late”,
and none but Mt.28:1 itself as an example of opse
meaning
“after”?
The question in the
third
place, Professor Bacchiocchi, is:
Where does Bauer ever state or imply that opse means “after … as … day … was dawning”?
(While Bauer favours “after the Sabbath” in Matthew 28:1, he would think of opse with regard to
Mt.28:1 as representing the “evening”. He defines opse,
a “late hour of day”. Bauer never defines opse in terms or concept
of the early morning “dawning”! Neither does A.T.
Robertson, or any “Greek author” of any period of history!)
(((
Dear SK, you have said it here. You
explain exactly why and how Tradition gets a foothold and retains it in general
opinion. I cannot think of a better or more recent instance that came to the
fore of such Tradition-determined understanding of the direct opposite meaning of words’ actual meaning than Mark
15:42 and Mt.27:57! What made me
aware of it at first was no pre-conceived ideas – I believed the traditional
way! – but the very changes new
Versions make to the older translations. Nobody ever made an issue of the fact
that evening had come before Joseph asked Jesus’ body of Pilate. Everybody –
like I – just never noticed. Despite the very words they read – that “evening had come” – people through the
centuries read these verses while seeing in their minds how it all happened before sunset. Then came the new Translations and all of a sudden there’s reason
to ask, But why do these new Translations no longer say “when evening had
come”, but “as evening approached” or “late noon”? )))
My last question, Professor Bacchiocchi,
on Mt.28:1, is: Kindly tell us Robertson’s final conclusion on this matter?
( “It is a point for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide.
If Matthew has in mind just before
sunset, “late on” would be his
idea; if he means after sunset, then
“after” is correct.” Robertson allows the “morning” or “dawn” no consideration!
The time of day involved revolves around sunset, according to Robertson! )
Then,
Professor Bacchiocchi, in your End-Time
Issue No. 73, you claim, I quote, “… were the Gospels’ writers alive today, I
have reason to believe that they would appreciate help in correcting some of
their inaccuracies. Incidentally, some of the inaccuracies are very glaring.
For example, the Synoptic Gospels place Christ’s crucifixion on the day after
Passover (Nisan 15), while John on the actual Passover day (Nisan 14). It would
be nice if we could ask them to reconcile their differences and give us the
exact date of the Crucifixion.”
Dear Prof. Bacchiocchi, you say John places Christ’s
crucifixion “on the actual Passover day”
(that is, on the actual Feast Day), which is plainly untrue, because John says
“it was the Preparation of
Passover”. This day, you say, “the
Synoptic Gospels place on the day after
Passover” – while they say it was the
very day “the passover should be slaughtered”!
I
wrote on my book, The Lord’s Day in the
Covenant of Grace, over twenty five years. I had the arguments of
Paragraphs such as 5.3.2.3.2.1 p. 60, 5.3.2.5.3, page 102, 5.3.3.4.3.2, p. 155
of Part Two, etc., fully formulated when for the first time only I took
Justin’s reference to Mt.28:1 under scrutiny in the original. I as it were anticipated what I discovered,
that the grammatical and syntactical factors of the text are exactly switched
about in order to arrive at Justin’s desired meanings essential for a
Sunday-resurrection. Modern “versions” of Mt.28:1 do no different, like The New
Authorised Version and this modern Greek translation,
5.3.2.3.
“Sabbath’s”
5.3.2.3.1.
The “Second
Time Element”?
“Further support for the meaning of opse
sabbaton as “after the Sabbath” rather than “late on the Sabbath”, is
provided by the second time element given by Matthew to date the visit of the
women to the sepulchre , namely, “toward the dawn of the first day of the week
(Mt.28:1).” 52c
(Refer Par 5.3.3.)
To
regard the phrase “toward the dawn of the
first day” as “the second time
element”, implies that the Greek for “dawn”
is taken with the Greek for “the
First Day” as one. As presented by
this “translation”, the Greek would have required nothing but a Genitive or dative, “of / in the First Day” – mias / miai sabbatohn. And it would have required the preposition to govern the accusative of
the word for “dawn”: “toward” – eis, “the dawn” – tehn epifohskonta. Because, if the morning broke into
the light of day, Mt.28:1 would have read, not, “with being light” – tehi epifohskousehi: participle in
dative, and, “toward the First Day” – eis
mian sabbatohn: substantive in
accusative, but, “in the First Day –
tehi miai sabbatohn:
dative, and, “toward the being light” – eis
(epi)fohskonta: accusative. Also “the Sabbath” would
have been in the accusative because
the meaning would have been “after
the Sabbath” (meta plus accusative Lk.1:24, Mk.14:1) and not
Genitive, Sabbath’s (time)”!
5.3.2.3.2.1.
Case and
Coincidence
What is found in the Greek
though, is no Genitive of the First Day, but of the Sabbath – sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi, and no preposition to govern the accusative of the word
for “dawn”, but the preposition that governs the accusative of the word for “the First Day” – eis mian sabbatohn! To regard the phrase “toward the dawn of the first day” as “the second time element”, implies that
the word for the Sabbath be completely ignored as if it were no time element of
itself. But “Sabbath’s” – sabbatohn
(in the phrase sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi)
is as definitely an element of time as the word tehi epifohskousehi
(here translated “toward dawn”) is. To regard the phrase “toward the dawn of the first day” as “the second time element”, implies that
the time phrase “toward the First Day”
– eis mian sabbatohn also,
will be
completely ignored as if it
were no time element of itself. The
actual “second time element” is “Sabbath’s” – sabbatohn, so that tehi
epifohskousehi in fact
constitutes the most important “time element” of the comprehensive
adverbial time clause of Mt.28:1.
5.3.2.3.2.1.
The Sabbath
Distinctly!
The plain
meaning of the noun in the Genitive, “Sabbath’s” – sabbatohn, implies time of the Sabbath – “Sabbath’s
(time)” – or time on or in the Sabbath – Genitive of Time. Expressed
by the absence of the definite article, “Sabbath’s” denotes quality.
It was real Sabbath’s time. The
Genitive of the noun “Sabbath’s” – sabbatohn, occurs not as result of the ruling of a preposition (“after” – opse). The Genitive as in Mt.28:1 in sabbatohn, “Sabbath’s”,
is intrinsic, and indicates source,
possession, presence, attribute, kind. The time was of the Sabbath. It was the Sabbath’s time. The time was Sabbath’s. It was Sabbathly time – Genitive of
Reference – “to refer (its) qualifying force to certain definite limits”.
“The adverbial force is obvious” – it
was time of Sabbath-keeping, it was Sabbath. (One could think Dana and Mantey comment on Mt.28:1!) Matthew says, “Sabbath’s time late by the afternoon
towards the First Day” – Adverbial
Genitive – it modifies the verbal idea, Christ’s resurrection’s as verbal idea is Sabbath’s action.
Opse forms part of the concept represented by the phrase sabbatohn
– “Sabbath’s”: “It was the Sabbath’s time late”. The phrase tehi epifohskousehi also forms part of the concept represented by the phrase sabbatohn
– “Sabbath’s”: “It was the Sabbath’s afternoon” – sabbatohn
tehi epifohskousehi. To interpret opse with “after”, the kind of time must change. Now there should be separation and discontinuity. The time
now is away from “Sabbath’s” time. It now is on another, in its own right, time – on, the First Day. The significance of the Genitive must be
destroyed.
The adverbial function of opse in Mt.28:1–4
means that the Genitive noun, “Sabbath’s” – sabbatohn, also acts independently as an adverbial phrase: “Sabbath’s … there
was a great earthquake”. The phrases also function in unison, forming a single
adverbial clause of indicating time:
“Late on the Sabbath afternoon / Late Sabbath’s time with afternoon … there was
a great earthquake”. Opse may even be taken for being substantivised: “Late (day)”, Refer Par. 5.3.1.1.1 –2 “while–Sabbath”, and Sabbatohn may be taken for a Genitive participle – “being Sabbath’s”:
“Sabbath’s–keeping with light being
declining towards the First Day … came an earthquake”. The participle acts as
adverbial time clause: “Sabbath’s late … there suddenly was a
great earthquake”.
To convey the idea of “after” nothing but the accusative
will do unless used with the preposition apo – in which case the Genitive or
rather the Ablative would have
applied. (“In Modern Greek the use of apo
is the regular partitive construction.”)
“Yet the very fact that the Koiné (of
Mt.28:1) had ready at hand a construction
for the exact expression of the idea of source makes it all the more probable
that (he) used the Genitive to stress
character rather than source” – to borrow Dana and Manty’s words. Opse
simply cannot be used with the Genitive with the meaning “after”. The meaning “after” as well as “toward””
necessitates the accusative. This is
no peculiarity of the Greek language.
It is an attribute of logical expression of concepts of time and of
time-relation in any tongue.
Inflection is no prerequisite to create an accusative or Genitive or whatever
form of speech. Although no inflection may reveal the fact the idea of separation and discontinuity also in English
accompanies an accusative, while the idea of source, possession or attribute
accompanies a Genitive or Ablative.
“After Sabbath” is Accusative – NOT Ablative! “Late Sabbath’s” is Genitive
– of function! In the Greek there is added the inflection to the
underlying logic of expression so that no chance of misunderstanding exists. The inflection in the case of Mt.28:1
mirrors the logic of the Genitive –
it was “late Sabbath’s (sabbatohn) afternoon”. The inflection in the case
of Mt.28:1 also mirrors the
logic of the accusative: It was not, “after Sabbath”, sabbaton, accusative. But before the “First Day”, mian
sabbatohn.
The Genitive in Mt.28:1
is “surely
partitive”. (Blass
Debrunner on opse Trohikohn) Opse – “late”, forms
part of the time–unit or “source” it is connected with by the Genitive. “It
is of Sabbath’s late time”; not, “It is the First Day – after the
Sabbath”. Not, ““It is of the First Day’s, early time”! Tehi
epifohskousehi – “in the being
after light”, also forms part of the time–unit or “source” it is connected with by the Genitive. “Sabbath’s afternoon” – sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi.
The Genitive’s use with the
adverb opse and the adverbial phrase tehi
epifohskousehi accordingly
produces nothing out of the ordinary.
It does not change the nature of the word from an adverb to a preposition, and
it does not change its meaning from “late” to “after”. It doesn’t make of a
proper adverb an improper preposition.
Every possible grammatical and syntactical prerequisite is satisfied in the
most regular and plain fashion while opse “with the Genitive” simply means
“late”. Every impossible grammaticality as well as historical impossibility get
implied if opse were to mean “after”.