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:
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, 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199, p. 83, 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.
on my book, The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace, over twenty five
years. I had the arguments of Paragraphs such as 220.127.116.11.2.1 p. 60, 18.104.22.168.3,
page 102, 22.214.171.124.3.2, 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,
I am for thirty years trying to find people to
discuss some serious problems with the Church’s keeping of Sunday instead of
the Sabbath; and found but few! Of course the first ‘problem’ when discussing
these problems is the Scriptures itself. Actually, consider that the Scriptures
but very recently got available for the ordinary Christian. All Bibles in all
translations of four centuries from the invention of printing had been but a
small fraction of copies printed by a single Bible Society in just one year.
And since then till about the turn of the twentieth century, the number of
Bibles printed, again was but a fraction of what followed soon after. The most
interesting aspect of these sudden increases is that they coincide, first, with
missionary activity, and, second, with Roman Catholic predominance! These two
phases reveal another and most important fact, namely, that almost every
translation – no, each and every translation of the mission-phase, virtually
was made from the old “Reformation Translations” like the KJV and Luther’s. If
and when the Greek was used, it was the TR. But since the Roman Catholic
involvement with Bible Societies, translations soared and took on a different
character! The Nida Commission in
“The Mithraic-Christian synchretism that was already gnawing at the vitals of the Roman church”
Before I come to that: The phrase mia tohn sabbatohn occurs in the New Testament only for the-First-Day-of-the-week. The words making up the name, cut out and then isolated from being constituent and contextual elements of the unitary “technical” New Testament name for the day of Sunday, cannot be extrapolated – cannot be given extended and different meanings. Bacchiocchi (The Sabbath in the New Testament, depending on Liddell and Scott), depends on this misconception for his explanation of Galatians 4:10 and as a result fails to convince.
back to the reference above: Striking to me are your remarks, “already”, and “Imported from
Paul’s reference to the “observation of days etc,” is then a reference to PAGAN “days”, and Justin refers to the chief of these, “The Sun’s Day”. BY TWISTING CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES he actually INTRODUCES PAGAN MYTH INTO IT to justify Christianity in the eyes of the emperor. Today the same method is still used to convince gullible Christians of the (heathen and secret) foundation of the observance of Sunday. Sunday originally gained its foot hold in the Christian Church for exactly the same reason and by the very same instrument it has held on to that foot hold ever since – the MANIPULATION OF THE SCRIPTURES and the simple faith of good people! But verily for the Protestant spirit of Calvinism such fraud could not go on undiscovered for ever. Calvin himself tried to put together the four Gospels – but had to give up because he could not reconcile the many discrepancies in the Gospels that are the direct result of the Sunday-resurrection presupposition! That is a fact little realised for its importance for the course the Reformation took. Barth viewed Calvin as the only real maker of the new beginning that was the Reformation. (Letzte Zeugnisse, EVZ-Verlag, Zürich, 1969, p. 67, “Das Charisma gyberneseos, die ‘Gnadengabe der Leitung’ macht sich dann (in dem Aufbrechen) geltend. In den alttestamentlichen Auszugs-geschichten war der sagenumwitterte Mose, in der Reformationszeit war Calvin (im Unterschied zu Luther und zu Zwingli) ein klassischer Träger dieses Charismas (von einem mehr oder weniger disziplinierten Geschehen (des Aufbrechen der Kirche).”) And I fully agree. Could Calvin have discerned these implications he would also have been the leader of the exodus from Sunday into the new land of the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Bible and consequently of Christianity.
An interesting and meaningful fact is this, that I wrote on my book over twenty five years when for the first time I took Justin under scrutiny in the original, and also the modern Greek. Long before, I formulated the arguments of Paragraphs such as 126.96.36.199.2.1 p. 60, 188.8.131.52.3, page 102, 184.108.40.206.3.2, p. 155 of Part Two, etc. Not because I am clever, but by force of all true facts and implications, I as it were anticipated what I discovered in these two “versions” of Mt.28:1 – that the grammatical and syntactical factors of the text were switched about in order to arrive at the desired meanings essential for a Sunday-resurrection. This is, as Emil Brunner would have said, dishonest! To call the rejection of such methods and the insistence on only correct translation and interpretation, “hair-splitting”, does not solve the problem. Dear Mr de Kock, I plead with you to come to grips with these questions with the courage of your Christian conviction.
Dear Professor Bacchiocchi,
read: “I tried to read what you wrote but it is so garbled that I cannot figure
out what you are trying to say. Thank you for making an effort to share
your comments, though they are incomprehensible to me.
If you believe in the Wednesday Crucifixion, feel free to read my book on THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION.”)
You say: “I cannot figure out what you are trying to say. ... your comments ... are incomprehensible to me”. Nevertheless you are able to assert: “what you wrote ... is ... garbled”.
Collins English Dictionary explains the meaning of the word “garble”: “to jumble; to distort the meaning of (an account, text, etc.), as by making misleading omissions; (to) corrupt”.
Now I shall give you an example of what it is to ‘garble’:
It is to take the text of Mt.28:1 the phrase, opsé sabbátohn, meaning, “Late Sabbath’s-time”, and to make it metá sábbaton, meaning, “after the Sabbath”. Then, to take the second clausal phrase, epifohskóúsehi, meaning, “in the being of after-light” / “afternoon”, and to make it mean, “dawn” / “up-coming light”, (or, to ignore it totally). Then, to take the phrase, mían (hehméran) sábbaton, meaning, “before / towards the First Day of the week”, and to make it, tou hehlíou hehméran ... tehi autéhi hehmérai, meaning, “on the Day of the Sun(Lord)”. (Justin)
Here you have every element required for a procedure to be ‘garbled’: You have the jumbling, the distortion, the omissions, the misleading and the corruption – all of Matthew’s text and account.
I have told you many times before, I don’t “believe in the Wednesday Crucifixion”, but in the only, “Sabbath’s”-resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Feel free to read The Book that informs the believer on THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION of Jesus.
God’s sincerest blessing on your study of this topic that supplies the basis and essence of Christian Faith and Sabbath keeping!