Acts 20:7, ‘They assembled’, or,

‘They being assembling still’?

(Book 3 Part 2)

Yehushuan wrote:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “Yehushuan, let's hear what our one eyed genius amongst the dumb, deaf and blind, has to say!”

Calling me out eh? You’d better duck.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: Acts 20:7 does in fact imply, the Lord's Supper, with what is called the Infinitive of Noun Force. But the sentence uses no Indicative finite verb that says, "They assembled for Holy Communion" like one would have done on any normal Day of Christian Worship. No, it uses a Perfect Participle which actually means its very literal and precise rendering with, "After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them."”

GE:

Luke says, “synehgmenohn”— “Because they before had had been assembling and on the First Day of the week were being gathering together still, Paul addressed them,

Therefore, let us discuss,

YS:

“First, it should be agreed upon that you’re not very good at getting your ideas across, but I’ll ascribe that to the difficulty one normally has with a second language.”

GE:

I don’t believe you. You received my idea across easily enough; that, your words, “Calling me out eh?” proved.

But I don’t deny; I do have difficulty expressing myself in English. So, your sympathies with my language skills to me are in bad taste. (My unassuming ways must be due to my German lineage and heroes, like Karl Barth, who had better and more knowledge and insight in the nail of his left small toe than you have in your big, thick skull.)

YS:

“At least we are in agreement that the gathering

they held would validly comprise a Christian Church Service as can be seen here: Acts 2:42 ....”

GE:

Objection! We not in the least “are in agreement .... as can be seen here: Acts 2:42”!

“That the gathering they held would validly comprise a Christian Church Service” I maintain, ‘can be seen’, and must be seen, here: Acts 20:7, and the words, “synehgmenohn hehmoon klasai arton”. It’s not I who am ‘not very good at getting my ideas across’; it’s you who are not able at all to get Luke’s ideas! Deal with the text under consideration; which is Acts 20:7 and context; not the text of eighteen chapters back in Acts!

YS:

“KJV And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And described here:

1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

GE:

I have not denied the Holy Communion was the purpose for and the substance of the service IMPLIED in Acts 20:7. In fact, I am the only one who showed how the Lord’s Supper is meant in Acts 20:7 being mentioned in the word ‘synehgmenohn’. I saw, while you clearly missed to see it and still miss to see it; even after you have read my explanation. (I must take for granted, wrongly, obviously, that you have read; how could you have read what I wrote and not have noticed my explanation for the Holy Communion in Acts 20:7? For that was, what I had written!)

In any case, what’s the point in ‘proving’ the Lord’s Supper in these other texts, here, now? I am the one that must tell you to go back to Acts 20:7 to discover the Lord’s Supper, right in there; not you tell me how to find it somewhere else!

YS:

“You just seemed to be concerned about the time line, having decided that they actually held communion on the Sabbath, and then just decided to hang around afterwards to speak with Paul, no?”

GE:

Again it is quite obvious the ease and clarity with which

I come across in my ‘second language’, English, you having caught my idea I concerned myself “about the time line” quite easily enough. No, surely, you did read! But you knew not what you read, obviously. Or no, you must have understood; you’re saying it --- exactly what I meant, “the time line”. Only problem is, you do not want to see! You won’t budge no inch; because it would mean you must admit you were wrong, and Luke was right. Not that I was right, because I am just telling you what Luke said; just, only, and literally and idiomatically, strictly according to the linguistics of the Greek words used, what Luke said. Do I bring my ideas across clearly enough for you to understand?

Nevertheless, don’t think I cannot perceive your smooth fraudulence. I nowhere and no how ‘concerned’ myself with showing “(they) having decided that they actually held communion on the Sabbath, and then just decided to hang around afterwards to speak with Paul”. I somewhere used the word, ‘accidental’; you make me sound if I said ‘intentional’. These things here stated are your statements of untruths; not mine. I made no statement of an untruth; if I did, quote me, and not yourself!

YS:

“So let’s drill into this verse, Acts 20:7 a bit more where we read (since you used the Westcott Hort text…):
Acts 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου”

GE:

I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?

I referred to one word only in the Greek text “συνηγμενων”, and one phrase only, “συνηγμενων ημων κλασαι αρτον” --- which appears just like this in all known ‘texts’ without any variant; as a Participle and an Infinitive of Noun Force! If you cannot get the idea from this phrase, Paul and company observed the Lord’s Supper on the Sabbath before --- mark the quotation marks and the perfect translation of Luke’s phrase: “They on the First Day of the week being together still as having been gathering before for Holy Communion”, don’t try to intimidate me with a few lines of the Greek language you obviously have no clue about! This very instance of your ineptness with the language is a wise warning to you to stick to your own first language, English, my friend!

Mark too, that I say, “phrase”; and not “clause”. Therefore observe, that I do not use a single Indicative Verb, but Participles, only! Why? Because Luke did exactly and unwavering, just, that! Ja, look at the sentences ---- the only and single, one clause you are here quoting, literally as well as by implication, means, “And on the First Day of the week being together (‘in the Present’ still), having been gathering together for to eat the Lord’s Supper (in the Past already), Paul dealt with them (the individuals of 20:4, on matters of concern).” The next, proper, clausal ‘sentence’, is, “Μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.” Meaning:- “Paul, ready in the morning to depart (on his further journey, verses 1-3; 13-17), continued his discussion until midnight.”

YS:

“Now you’ve provided a partial translation, stating that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:" After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them."

But there are few problems here.”

GE:

Indeed there are --- gross and immoral ‘problems’, to say the least! You, word for word, misquote me, with the view to mislead and persuade your readers away from what I have said, after what you hold for your own opinion.

I ask you here before all our readers, to quote me where I was “stating”, quoting YOU supposedly quoting ME, “that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering””!!!

Everything I ever said was to show that NO ‘Verb’ ‘assembled’ exists in Acts 20:7! Are you blind? No, you are not blind; that we have seen already. So you must be mischievous. In fact, where you will be able to quote me, it will be seen by anyone willing to see, that I was stating --- emphatically --- that the verb “assembled”, in fact, IS, an absolute incorrect and false, ‘rendering’ of the Greek word, ‘synehgmenohn’, because, I, “Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:" After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them."” I challenge you to prove my phrase, “After having had assembled .... having-been-assembled-still,” is a clause; in other words, that I say, ‘synehgmenohn’, is --- what you stated it is --- “the verb “assembled””!

YS:

“First, the word “after” is not in the text. If the author wanted to indicate a time after the stated action (this gathering together) he would have written “μετα δε …” as can be seen in this example: “μετα δε το εγερθηναι με” “but, after my having risen,” (Matthew 26:32 Young’s).”

GE:

Must I really react to this shear nonsense that would make you miserably fail first semester Greek – which betrays competence in Greek you would have scored a round zero for at whichever stage of your education? Compare apples with apples, and not Participles with Infinitives of Noun Force; and not Perfect Participles with Infinitives of Future Noun Force.

If the author wanted to indicate a time --- a present time --- after the stated action (this gathering together --- in the past ---) he would not have written, “μετα δε …” as can be seen in this very implementing of his in Acts 20:7 where he, Luke, used the best of Greek tools, the Perfect Participle, for stating just this idea of a present time, after the stated action of this gathering together in the past!

YS:

“But the author did not write “μετα δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων,” rather, he wrote “εν δε τη μια των σαββατων …” and hence you cannot add in the word ‘after.’ (Please recall it was you who complained about others adding in words. Best you don’t do that yourself. Yes?)”

GE:

First, where “complained (I) about others adding in words”? It’s impossible to translate without sometimes adding in words, as everyone knows. But too often the lazy or shrewd ‘translators’ would add in words only to propagate their hidden agenda.

Then sure, “the author did not write “μετα δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων,” rather, he wrote “εν δε τη μια των σαββατων …””, because if he did, he would have said the silly thing that ‘After the First Day of the week we being together still having been assembling for Holy communion before Paul addressed them.’ Now what would that, have meant for Sunday-holiness! Reckon, then, the Sundaydarians’ claim of a First Day Lord’s Supper incidence

would have been absolutely waterproof!

Poor Yehushuan! Alas, Luke did not employ that added in word, ‘after’!

YS:

“Second, the prepositional phrase “for Holy Communion” is also NOT in the text. Since you desire a “very literal and precise” translation, you must realize that the author actually penned an infinitive form of the verb “to break” {bread} and did NOT write the noun “Communion. (Don’t demand precision from others if you’re going to be sloppy yourself.)”

GE:

I have explained to you this before, so need not to repeat myself. And also this is so sloppy, it deserves no answer. Nevertheless, I could have stressed the relation between the Participle and the Infinitive of Noun Force a little more:

“On the First Day of the week being together (still after) having been gathering together for The To Break Bread (of Holy Communion before on the Sabbath), Paul dialogued with them.”

Yes, the “having gathered together” for this holy purpose, is what makes it beyond a doubt Luke here is speaking of the Lord’s Supper. Like this was no ordinary “breaking of bread”, this also was no ordinary “assembling together”. And in this, I can confidently call on about every good Christian scholar for support.

YS:

“Looking more closely at this verse, then we see a gathering taking place TO break bread.”

GE:

Yehushuan, why do you go on and on to display your hopeless insight, and zero mastery of the Greek language? We don’t “see a gathering taking place to break bread”; we see the present result of that past gathering to break bread, that had taken place. We see it in the Perfect Participle, ‘synehgmenohn’.

YS:

“Acts 20:7 YLT And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight.”

GE:

Yes! Young gives a ‘literal’ translation. Asked you him whether he would say this meant the Lord’s Supper, what do you think would he have answered you? I have no doubt what his answer as a believing Christian would have been.

However, Young, despite he called his translation, ‘literal’, is not translating literally whatsoever.

“the disciples”, are ‘added in’ words;

“having been gathered together to break bread,” is omitting half of the full ‘literal’ meaning of ‘synehgmenohn’;

“was discoursing” would have been ‘literal’ if of a Verb in the Present; it is not ‘literal’ of the Verb in the Imperfect. The KJV, “Paul continued his speech”, is a great improvement in literalness on Young’s.

The word “also” is also an ‘added in’ word, totally unnecessary, that destroys the ‘literal’ clausal construction of the separate sentences, fusing them into a single un-literal, sentence.

Which all --- unintentionally or intentionally, unawares or awares --- is meant and aimed at creating the idea of a Sunday-case of Christian worship by Young, and, sorry to say, which all is a false motive that resulted in a false ‘translation’ altogether.

“The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination (not its beginning, as according to you and your ‘exampling’) and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses.” To render this linguistic principle or peculiarity in any other language, inevitably shall involve the use of explanatory ‘added in’ words and even added in phrases and clauses. Professor!

YS:

“Unfortunately, it absolutely is impossible to say that they already HAD broken bread. If I am going TO do something, I cannot be said to HAVE done it. If you read the text closely, you will see they celebrated communion only once, in verse 11. Verse seven declares the intent of the gathering – TO break bread - it can give no indication whether the breaking of bread had

or had not actually occurred.”

GE:

It is not “impossible to say that they already HAD broken bread” because it is implied in the Perfect Participle in combination with the Infinitive of Noun Force --- which you, confuse for a Present Indicative, finite Verb and Infinitive of Intent. The two things are two different things.

If (as you put it) ‘the gathering .... actually occurred’, with “the intent .... TO break bread”, ‘if you read the text closely, you will’ ask, if it was their intention in the first place, why would they wait until after midnight to begin with the Lord’s Supper?

And why would only Paul ‘eat’ (or just ‘taste’), if it was the Lord’s Supper in verse 11?

In verse 7 the ‘breaking of the bread’, was for everyone of “us”, the Participle being in the Plural first person. Is Holy Communion for “them” or for him, Paul? How does one person only ‘break bread’ and keep Holy Communion? That’s how the Roman Catholics do Mass; not how Christians observe the Lord’s Supper.

But strangest of all if the Lord’s Supper is meant on this Saturday night of the First Day of the week, is, Why no word of Paul’s supposed fervent and prolonged ‘sermon’ is mentioned? No word of his ‘sermon’ and no word from the liturgy of the sacrament; not even an indirect reference to it? It’s simply untenable a notion, and ridiculous.

In verse 7 Luke used the words, “to break bread” in the sense of to keep the Lord’s Supper. In verse 11 he added the word ‘geysamenos’ which means Paul ate his fill, something he himself forbid should be done with the bread of the Lord’s Supper.

And nowhere is wine mentioned, which was as prescribed course of the Lord’s Supper as was the bread, the prayers, the song, and the washing of feet. None of these things mentioned, means none of them was part of Paul’s after midnight early breakfast.

‘Verse seven’, does not only “declare the intent of the gathering – TO break bread”; it’s completely your faulty notion. Verse seven, by the use of the Perfect Participle in conjunction with the Infinitive of Noun Force— in the Plural , ‘declares’ the fact the Lord’s Supper had been observed: the Perfect; no Infinitive per se or Future Participle or even Present Participle or whatever --- “If I am going TO do something, I cannot be said to HAVE done it.” In verse seven something, the Lord’s Supper, is “said to HAVE” been, “done”; it is not said they were “going TO do something”. You don’t understand an Infinitive of Noun Force; and you have no idea of how great a characteristic of the Greek language and idiom it is. It is obvious you have never even heard of it.

YS:

“But we do see a verse which speaks about the action of breaking bread. Acts 20:11 YLT and having come up {from finding out about the dead guy}, and having broken bread, and having tasted, for a long time also having talked--till daylight, so he went forth.”

GE:

The more you quote ‘Young’s’, the more evident it becomes how un-literally --- and incorrectly --- he ‘translated’; if I must accept you are quoting Young’s in this instance.

Because where does Luke state that ‘the guy’ was “dead”? Rubbish, man!

Where does Luke make mention of bread being “tasted” or of Paul “having tasted”?

Where does Luke say Paul “talked--till daylight”? ‘Homilehsas’ does not mean to speak; it means to interact with others, for which interaction talking need not be important even.

YS:

“Rather than speculating that communion took place twice, it is clear that the intention of their gathering was TO perform-communion, and that such took place when mentioned in verse 11.”

GE:

It’s you who are arguing from the supposition “that communion took place”, on the First Day; not me. I contend the Lord’s Supper not at all “took place” ‘on the First Day’; but that it had taken place according to the Perfect Participle --- according to which it had had occurred before while ‘they (were) being gathered in the Present (still) on the First Day’, and “Paul dialogued with them”.

YS:

“Finally, let’s look at this word συνηγμενων, translated “assembled” (Douay Rheims) or “gathered” (Young’s) or “came together” (King James).”

GE:

Before you proceed, forget it, if this is what they say, it’s wrong and not true or truth. But you are yet not quoting the “King James” correctly. The KJV says “WHEN came together”, which no finite Verb can be rendered with. “WHEN came together” must be how a Participle may be rendered; unfortunately the KJV does not render the Participle ‘synehgmenohn’ completely, and therefore undeniably is incorrect. No half-fact can be the full fact.

YS:

“συνηγμενων G4863 V-RPP-GPM from συνάγω sunago G4863 A. bring together, gather together I. of persons 2. bring together for deliberation or festivity 3. match, pit one against the other 4. bring together, join in one, unite. (We’ll use A. I. 2.)”

GE:

Exactly! Let me repeat again: ‘synehgmenoon’ is no Verb; it is a Participle; not an Indicative, finite, ‘Verb’! “συνηγμενων .... the Participle, “from, συνάγω ....” the Verb! Can’t you read the word, “from,”?!

YS:

“The conjugation of the Verb is RPP, having a Perfect Aspect; a Passive Voice; and Participle “mood." Being a participle, it has the declension Genitive, Plural, Masculine to show that the verb represents action done by the “we” (Wescott Hort) or “the disciples” (Textus Receptus). So just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together?”

GE:

Timely interruption! You unperturbed go on, calling and treating the word ‘synehgmenohn’ as “the Verb”! It is no Verb; the Verb of the sentence --- its Predicate --- is ‘dielegeto’, Singular third Person, Imperfect Indicative, ‘from’, ‘dialegomai’.

YS:

“.... just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together? First, the “perfect aspect” of a verb refers to a current state resulting from a previous action that is relevant to the present position in the story. In this case, the action of gathering was complete by the time Paul speaks, and the state of them

continuing to be gathered is indicated.”

GE:

“.... just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together?” is a full fledged, conjured, lie! ‘Synehgmenohn’ does not stand for “this act of gathering together”. A Participle – any Participle – tells,

1) adjectively HOW a Subject acted, in this case “Paul, (after) they having been assembling (while) being assembling (still) on the First Day, discussed....”;

2) adverbially HOW a Predicate was acted, in this case, “they being together (still) on the First Day (after) having been assembling (before), Paul discussed....”

So then, what you say here, “First ...” etc, is exactly what I say, except .... except that you corrupt the text once again, you saying, “Paul speaks”. It’s not ‘the time Paul speaks’, Present Tense; it, “in this case”, refers to the original ‘Perfect’ “action of the gathering” that “had been completed by the time Paul ....”, “spoke”:- Imperfect, in the past, ‘dielegeto’. ‘Dielegeto’ --- ‘the time Paul spoke’ having been “our still having been assembling on the First Day of the week”— inevitably, “after” that earlier and original ‘Perfect’ “action of the gathering” that “had been completed by the time Paul ....”, “spoke”.

YS:

“Now there are 417 verbs conjugated as Perfect Passive Participles in the Textus Receptus and 406 in the Westcott Hort, and while I will not pretend to have scrutinized every instance of these (that is, after all, what graduate students are for) I’ve not found one instance where any translator has felt the need to add in the word “after.” (Of course you are welcome to show me one.)”

GE:

I, no graduate student or not, haven’t made of it a study, particularly. But I am able to assuredly state that the concept of ‘after’ shall occur, for it is without exception always implied in cases of the Perfect Participle. Just like I have above every time been able to put my use of such concepts as ‘after’ in brackets, while my statements will make the same and perfect sense without its ‘adding in’ non the less.

I translate maybe the best of the best of first year Greek Grammars, that of JPJ van Rensburg, “The Tempus of the Participium does not in itself express time, but in fact the relation in time between die subservient action which is expressed by the Participium, and the action of the Verb (or Predicate) to which the Participium is subservient. .... Now the Verb of this clause is by English Past Tense, undoubtedly, “Paul spoke”— Lukes does not say ‘Paul speaks’!

The Participium Praesens expresses a subservient action which occurs simultaneously with the main act expressed by the Verb – for which purpose to translate, words like ‘while’ will have to be used. “Tauta legohn akousei” – “While he says it, he listens” ....”. Compare the familiar Scripture, Mt25:10 “while (the foolish virgins) went to buy, the bridegroom came”, ‘aperchomenohn autohn agorasai, ehlthen ho nymfis’.

The Participium Perfectum expresses a condition, which is the result of a subservient action which preceded the main action (“Paul discussed”).” Hence the ‘added in’ words like ‘after’.

Like in the case of the Participium Aoristus, the Participium Perfectum, in order to be translated properly, might find it inevitable to use supplementary words like “after”. “Panta paraskeyasmena legoh” – “I speak after everything had been prepared”. The Greek language itself, often makes use of adverbial words, ‘added’, like ‘hate’-‘while’; ‘hohs’–‘as when’.

Even a concept like ‘because’, may be necessary to be ‘added’, and in the case of the Perfect Participle in Acts 20:7 may be rendered: “Because they before had had been assembling and on the First Day of the week were being gathering together still, Paul addressed them.” Because time, with the Participle in Greek, is absolutely relative, and more often than not, cannot be translated without auxiliary words and ways to express the relation implied in the literal Greek.

The Perfect from both ends, looks at both ends, of an action. Simcox (I’m quoting from Dana and Many, p. 201), says, one “ought, in every case, to look for a reason for one tense being used rather than the other”. In the case of Acts 20:7, why is the Participle in the Perfect, and not in the Present – which is used for simultaneous gathering and being gathered? Because in the case of Acts 20:7,

1) no simultaneous gathering together and being together, and

2) no simultaneous gathering together and Paul speaking,

are intended to be made understood, but separate

1) in the past gathering together and

2) in the present being together are being intended to be expressed by use of the Perfect Participle.

YS:

“In addition, may I call your attention to the fact that while the perfect aspect indicates that the action was indeed completed, the verb having such an aspect is sunago (the action of gathering together) not klao (the action of breaking). Don’t you find it interesting that the author did not write “having broken bread” {they spoke with Paul}, but rather, “having gathered to break bread”? The implication of the action in this verse is quite clear. It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect.... ”

GE:

So that that is a question you should ask yourself, Yehushuan; not me! I find it irrelevant; as you say yourself, “It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect”.

YS:

“.... You obviously don’t understand me. The implication of the action in this verse is quite clear. It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect, not any act of breaking bread (which doesn’t seem to have happened until mentioned in the list of actions in verse 11, all of which were after “midnight.”).”

GE:

“The only implication of the (past) action in this verse” that remained over in the present, was, “our having been gathering together still”. The breaking of the bread had been finished by the nature of its case; something they did, and finished with; but the being together still kept on, even for the night.

Have you experienced something like it? I have; a few times, especially at an occasion like “our gathering together for to wed” (wedding) ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn nymfeyoh / gameoh / hymenaio-oh’. (cf. Mt22:8-9) All the guests from far and near would have arrived for the wedding. Then after the wedding had been finished, everyone or only some “having been staying behind”, would ‘visit’ (‘homileoh’) virtually all night. Sometimes – with us –, in the early hours of the morning we would go to sleep; on the couches, on the floor; anywhere. We may even have breakfast or lunch the next day before the guests would go back to their own. The wedding had been over with the day before; but the party went on until the next day. (The party after the actual wedding could go on for days on end! Cf. Mt22:2-3, Jn2:1.)

Grammatically the same situation as in Acts 20:7 can be seen in Jn20:19 / Lk24:34-35 / Mk16:10 “when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews”, and the Emmaus disciples “found the eleven and others with them”, “as they mourned and wept”, “thus having been thronging together still”, and “told them, the things that happened”. The actual ‘coming together’ of the disciples in the upper room, must have had happened long before the point in time the Emmaus disciples “found” them, or “spoke” to them, “while having been thronging together still”.

YS:

“But we must back up a bit. In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

GE:

Pure rubbish! In the first sentence in Acts 20:7, the first and only clause has its noun in the Nominative case in the name of the Subject of “Paul”.

If I were your professor, I give you nil out of ten; nil out of hundred; nil out of infinity; I fail you summarily! I ban you from my classes! How much worse the pretence, you appointed yourself my professor!

YS:

“since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case.”

GE:

For crying out loud! ‘The noun’ you got from where? I see a Pronoun, ‘they’ in the English. Who is ‘adding in’ his own surmised words and concepts? Yes, ‘they’ do stand for ‘disciples’, but not even ‘they’, appears properly as a Pronoun in the Greek; it also, necessarily, must be ‘added in’ in the translation, BECAUSE ‘they’ – or rather – “we”, also, is implied, right there inside the Participle ‘synehgmenohn’! No, I’ll in disgust leave your classroom and will report you to the dean!

YS:

“This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute....”

GE:

I said before, “in verse 7 the ‘breaking of the bread’, was for everyone of “us”, the Participle being in the Plural first person”. “The genitive use of the participle is not suitable when the noun [or Pronoun— ‘hehmoon’] that goes with the participle is also the subject, object or indirect object of the main verb ....”, J. W. Wenham, ‘The Elements of NT Greek’.

YS:

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

GE:

False: “the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”;

True: “We (the disciples) still being gathering together (on the First Day)....”.

“.... the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant .... action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action.”

How do you call “a relevant .... action” that was “causative” and “done”, “secondary”?

The Genitive Absolute by means of the Perfect Participle is used to indicate a “causative” action, “done”, and, afterwards, going on in its end-result, “we having been gathering together still in the First Day”, so that it ‘may be considered causative in reference to the main action’, “(Paul) spoke”.

“Why was (Paul) speaking? Because the disciples had gathered.” No! “Paul spoke to them”, because they / “we were being gathering together still on the First Day”! The fact “Paul the next day would depart”, while it gives a ‘secondary indication’ why and when “Paul spoke to them”, does not annul the fact “the genitive absolute”, i.e., the Perfect Participle and Pronoun, must still be considered the first causative or explanatory ‘indication’, ‘in reference to the main action’, “Paul spoke to them”, namely, ‘because’ and when “we on the First Day were still being assembling”. But the English (KJV) gives only half of the full fact of the Greek Perfect— “had the disciples” not in the first place in the past “been assembling together”, the opportunity for Paul to address them “{because} we were being gathering together still on the First Day”, would not have arisen.

“Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” No! Hence the Genitive Absolute, ‘synehgmenoon hehmoon’, is used to describe the disciples’ “being-gathering-together-still-on-the-First-Day-when Paul spoke to them”, after their “having been gathering together before”, before “on-the-First-Day-when-Paul, spoke to them”.

YS:

“..... In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

GE:

No! In English, we would read true to the Greek, “And {because} we on the First Day of the week being gathering together (still in the present) after having been assembling to break bread (before in the past), Paul spoke with them.” All you have proved at last, was, that it sometimes may be inevitable to use ‘added in’ words --- “{because}” --- in order to better translate the Greek Perfect Participle. Thanks.

YS:

“An interesting implication was that Luke, the travelling companion of Paul and reputed author the text, along with Paul (the “we”) had been gathered by "them" (the ones to whom he spoke) to break bread IN the first of the week. The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

GE:

“The Textus Receptus”? Boy, you’re bemused!

YS:

“I’ve more, but this is bordering on the ridiculous. Yehushuan.”

GE:

Yehushuan, You have said it!

Were you really addressing me in this post of yours? You meant I should duck? Sir, I am conversant enough in my 'second language' - better than you are in it seems your first language. If you are not talking to yourself herein.

You have not even grasped the first thing I maintained; then built your own straw-man to pepper with chewing gum gems of intellect. I really didn't feel like responding to your pretence, it's so void of substance or relevance.

21 January 2009

Acts 20:7 second consideration

Yehushuan:

Mr. Ebersöhn,

I’m a bit perplexed by your understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect. You give this rambling description of a wedding, which in context would describe an action that is rather imperfect (one is not quite sure when it starts or when it is over). But we’ve been discussing applications of verbs that conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described (whether a shutting of doors or a gathering together) is complete, with said completion still having relevance to the ongoing story.

In John 20:19 a shutting of the doors was due to (δια) the fear of the Jews, a somewhat interesting grammatical construct in that most people presume it was the disciples’ fears, not the Jews' fears that caused the doors to be shut.

“… δια BY MEANS OF τον THE φοβον FEAR των OF THE ιουδαιων JEWS …”

Unless John actually meant to convey that the disciples shut the doors not because they were afraid but because the Jews were afraid.

Regardless, the grammatical construct is NOT the same, in that the Perfect Passive Participle is not tied to an Aorist Passive Infinitive or a Genitive Absolute, but rather to a descriptive clause starting with the word δια, which gives a reason for the action.

But in order to straighten out this mess, we really need to start out with the fact that the subject title of your OP is somewhat inaccurate. Gerhard Ebersöhn in his OP title wrote:... “They assembled”, or, “They being assembling still,”

… but neither you nor I ever used those words. Rather, I provided the translation, “having been gathered (assembled)” while you wrote “having-been-assembled-still”. Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?

Yet we are still confronted by your curious addition of the word “still.” You keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having-been-assembled, but having-been-assembled-still, and declare the addition of this word “still” means that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”.

The problem is that by adding the word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action about to be described, you have created a linguistic artifact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was over. You are imposing the “perfect aspect” of their having-been-assembled onto the action of “breaking bread.” But the verb “to break” is NOT written as a Perfect Passive Participle. (Don't you think it would have been if the author had meant to say communion was over?)

So let’s try it this way. Was the action of assembling together completed before Paul started to “dialogue”? This would seem obvious. Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled. BUT, in order to convey this aspect of a completed past action (their being assembled together) resulting in a current state of their still being assembled, one would need to write: “having-been-assembled-and-still-being-assembled…” and this would result in a translation:

“…in the first of the week we, Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

It seems you wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support your hypothesis that they assembled on the Sabbath to celebrate communion, finished celebrating communion and then remained being assembled until the first of the week to be speaking with Paul . You want the text to say,

“… Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …”

The problem, Mr. Ebersöhn, is that’s not what was written. It doesn’t say what you wish. You can’t just snap a verb in half like a loaf of bread and stuff in other action between the two parts like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to make the language fit your doctrine. That’s what every religious nut tries to do, and we both would be wise to avoid doing so.

Yes, they were Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled. When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.

Acts 20:7 εν IN δε AND τη THE μια FIRST των OF THE σαββατων SABBATHS συνηγμενων Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled ημων WE κλασαι TO BREAK αρτον BREAD ο THE παυλος PAUL διελεγετο WAS SPEAKING αυτοις WITH THEM μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου

They were Having.Been.Assembled in the first day of the week.

But please. I think you’re letting the English helper verbs cause confusion. You read the words “Having.Been” and infer a time value of “before.” It would seem you interpret Having.Been.Assembled as “Assembling before the first of the week.” But a Perfect Aspect does not convey Past Tense, and the word “been” is used in English here to convey passive action, not time reference. The disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others.” The assembling was done to them (they had been assembled - they were assembled). The assembling was passive in nature. If the Verb was a Perfect Active Participle (or more specifically a Perfect Middle Participle), you would read “Having.Assembled.....” If the action was NOT passive (though it is) you would read, “And in the first of the Sabbaths Having.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled (we) to Break Bread, Paul was speaking…” Here, you can see that the assembling is clearly in the first day of the week.

In order to remove the “flavour” of time-value from the conveyance of the passive nature of the action, we need to drop the word “been” and can write, “others having assembled us...” The text would then read:

“…in the first of the week Others.Having.Assembled.Us.And.We.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

See the difference?

All the action of assembling was “IN THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS”

Personally, I have no problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren assembling for Sabbath at the synagogue with their Jewish brethren. What you need to HONESTLY ask yourself is, “Do you really believe the Jews would let the Believers celebrate communion at the Synagogue on the Sabbath?”

Seriously.

They may have assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but here, they assembled in a private house on the first day of the week in order to celebrate communion, and Paul “held a Bible study”. Sounds like a Sunday worship service to me. But I realize that you’ve placed your whole Christian Identity into this Saturday Church Service obsession, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise. That’s a bit unfortunate, since this verse clearly shows that they assembled for communion “in the first day of the week.”

YS:

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

GE:

False: “the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”;

True: “We (the disciples) still being gathering together (on the First Day)....”.

“.... the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant .... action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action.”

How do you call “a relevant .... action” that was “causative” and “done”, “secondary”?

The Genitive Absolute by means of the Perfect Participle is used to indicate a “causative” action, ““done””, and, afterwards, going on in its end-result, “we having been gathering together still in the First Day”, so that it ‘may be considered causative in reference to the main action’, “(Paul) spoke”.

“Why was (Paul) speaking? Because the disciples had gathered.” No! “Paul spoke to them”, because they / “we were being gathering together still on the First Day”! The fact “Paul the next day would depart”, while it gives a ‘secondary indication’ why and when “Paul spoke to them”, does not annul the fact “the genitive absolute”, i.e., the Perfect Participle and Pronoun, must still be considered the first causative or explanatory ‘indication’, ‘in reference to the main action’, “Paul spoke to them”, namely, ‘because’ and when “we on the First Day were still being assembling”. But the English (KJV) gives only half of the full fact of the Greek Perfect— “had the disciples” not in the first place in the past “been assembling together”, the opportunity for Paul to address them “{because} we were being gathering together still on the First Day”, would not have arisen.

“Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” No! Hence the Genitive Absolute, ‘synehgmenoon hehmoon’, is used to describe the disciples’ “being-gathering-together-still-on-the-First-Day-when Paul spoke to them”, after their “having been gathering together before”, before “....when, on the First Day Paul spoke to them”.

YS:

“..... In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

GE:

No! In English, we would read true to the Greek, “And {because} we on the First Day of the week being gathering together (still in the present) after having been assembling to break bread (before in the past), Paul spoke with them.” All you have proved at last, was, that it sometimes may be inevitable to use ‘added in’ words --- “{because}” --- in order to better translate the Greek Perfect Participle. Thanks.

YS:

“An interesting implication was that Luke, the travelling companion of Paul and reputed author the text, along with Paul (the “we”) had been gathered by “them” (the ones to whom he spoke) to break bread IN the first of the week. The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

GE:

“The Textus Receptus”? Boy, you’re bemused!

YS:

“I’ve more, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.

Yehushuan.”

GE:

Yehushuan, You have said it!

Were you really addressing me in this post of yours? You meant I should duck? Sir, I am conversant enough in my 'second language' - better than you are in it seems your first language. If you are not talking to yourself herein.
You have not even grasped the first thing I maintained; then built your own straw-man to pepper with chewing gum gems of intellect. I really didn't feel like responding to your pretence, it's so void of substance or relevance.

Now we can begin with your post above.

YS:

“Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

GE:

Soon you will have explored every linguistic possibility and impossibility for you to make a case of Sunday-worship out of Acts 20:7. The last, before, was the Infinitive; then the Genitive Absolute. Now it's the Passive. Yes, I did see where before you have made mention of the Passive Voice. As if it might make a difference in your favour. But it won't, sorry for you. Because it is meaningless with regards to the fact the disciples “before having been assembling together for to break bread (of Holy Communion) having been assembling together still on the First Day of the week, Paul spoke to them” --- it just keeps on having an Active meaning and the same old meaning still.

So what's your point with your issue with the Passive? You think that will scare the lion out of the bush?

YS:

“Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

GE:

Yehushuan, your answers keep on completely to ignore the fact THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THIS 'VERB' YOU KEEP ON REFERRING TO: “.... the verb in question is passive.....”. IT IS ‘such imprecision’ OF YOURS, that ‘will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?’

Sigh! Why do I torture myself like this?

But let us take your reply from the beginning; I’ll try to be orderly. So here’s what you’re now saying,

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn in his OP title wrote:... “They assembled”, or, “They being assembling still,” .… but neither you nor I ever used those words. Rather, I provided the translation, “having been gathered (assembled)” while you wrote “having-been-assembled-still”.

GE:

First, you never said “had gathered” or whatever to the effect? You forgot what you have been arguing over and over and I over and over told you, was wrong?

You never used the word or words, “They assembled”? Besides you constantly speaking of ‘the Verb’, what about these instances .....

1) “Now you’ve provided a partial translation, stating that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”:”

..... or are these not your words?

2) “Finally, let’s look at this word συνηγμενων, translated “assembled” (Douay Rheims) or “gathered” (Young’s) or “came together” (King James).”

..... or was it not you who used others’ use of it?

Or is ‘gathered’ not the same as ‘assembled’?

3) “The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

..... or does a Participle mean an “action” like a Verb means an “action” --- I mean, for you?

4) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

..... or does the Present Continuous cancel out the fact it’s the Verb to gather?

5) And right here now, and many times else, where you are telling me, “Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

..... or isn’t “the verb in question”, “assembled” / “gathered”, in view of the fact ‘synehgmenohn’ is a Participle and not a Verb?

Your whole argument you base on wrongly considering the Participle like “the action” of a finite, Indicative ‘Verb’. You yourself from the outset are so destroying your own argument. You have no case with which even to begin an argument for “the disciples’ gathering .... in the first day”, a Verb not being a Participle man! Get it into your head!

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn, I’m a bit perplexed by your understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect. You give this rambling description of a wedding, which in context would describe an action that is rather imperfect (one is not quite sure when it starts or when it is over). But we’ve been discussing applications of verbs that conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described (whether a shutting of doors or a gathering together) is complete, with said completion still having relevance to the ongoing story.”

GE:

I give up! How can you say you are ‘perplexed’, but give me a clear explanation of your clear ‘understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect’, of, “.... this .... description .... which in context would .... conjugate as “perfect””?

You think I would loose focus? Because why do you pretend to have lost focus all the time? Just listen to yourself: “.... which in context would .... conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described is complete”.

It’s not an “action”, “described”, “complete”! It is an “action”, only, implied, as, “complete”— the implication “they before having been assembling together (which action) having had relevance to the Breaking of Bread”;

It is not a “completion”, “said”, but a “completion” implied with the use of the Participle, a ‘completion still having relevance to the ongoing story’ of Paul’s speaking to the disciples. It involves the difference between a Participle and a Verb, which difference you not accidentally, but intentionally, don’t ignore, but underhandedly smother because it proves you a fake.

YS:

“In John 20:19 a shutting of the doors was due to (δια) the fear of the Jews, a somewhat interesting grammatical construct in that most people presume it was the disciples’ fears, not the Jews' fears that caused the doors to be shut.

“… δια BY MEANS OF τον THE φοβον FEAR των OF THE ιουδαιων JEWS …”

Unless John actually meant to convey that the disciples shut the doors not because they were afraid but because the Jews were afraid.”

GE:

Which I never meant to make an issue of. It’s you who ‘rambles’ on and on for no reason. In my OP I make NO case of the disciples who were hiding behind closed doors; I referred to this Scripture because of its use of the Perfect Participle in there; you recognise it? Now answer me again!

But you are the professor remember; not me; so instruct you, me, better, kindly.

YS:

“Regardless, the grammatical construct is NOT the same, in that the Perfect Passive Participle is not tied to an Aorist Passive Infinitive or a Genitive Absolute, but rather to a descriptive clause starting with the word δια, which gives a reason for the action.

But in order to straighten out this mess, we really need to start out with the fact that the subject title of your OP is somewhat inaccurate.”

GE:

At last you woke up to your own voice.

YS:

“.... Yet we are still confronted by your curious addition of the word “still.” You keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having-been-assembled, but having-been-assembled-still, and declare the addition of this word “still” means that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”.”

GE:

No, it’s you, who “keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having-been-assembled”; I don’t anything about a ‘verb’, ‘συνηγμενων’ that does not even exist! If a ‘Verb’, the ‘word’ would not have been “συνηγμενων”; it would have been ‘synagoh’. Now it isn’t, ‘synagoh’ the ‘Verb’; it’s ‘συνηγμενων’, the Participle.

It’s true I “keep asserting that the” the Participle ‘συνηγμενων’, “means having-been-assembled”. I also think it is virtually impossible to make difference between “having-been-assembled”, and “having-been-assembled-still”, only that “having-been-assembled-still” is truer to the real meaning of the Participle which more strictly should be rendered, not, “having-been-assembled”, but, “having-been-assembling”.

Which is the reason why I “chang(ed) the -ed to an -ing.” Because such strictly correct ‘precision’, certainly helps us understand the facts, now, not so? And so I in fact ‘changed’ nothing, but rendered only the real and true meaning of the Participle, “συνηγμενων”. (Cf. Marshall, Nestle’s Interlinear.)

YS:

“The problem is that by adding the word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action about to be described, you have created a linguistic artifact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was over.”

GE:

What on earth could be “The problem”, with “adding the (relevant) word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action....”? “This Greek idea” you will find in every Greek Grammar— only where it deals on the Perfect or Perfect Participle!

But notice your, “artifact” (sic.) Yeyushuan! Notice that you, “by adding”, “to the action about to be described”, have ‘created a linguistic artefact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was’ .... about to begin; was “about to be described”, in the words “Paul spoke to them”! (Only to contradict what you actually are claiming, that Communion wasn’t implied in verse 7, but actually started in verse 11.)

YS:

“You are imposing the “perfect aspect” of their having-been-assembled onto the action of “breaking bread.” But the verb “to break” is NOT written as a Perfect Passive Participle. (Don't you think it would have been if the author had meant to say communion was over?)

GE:

No! I have answered this nonsense of yours. I am not going to repeat. Go back and read what I have told you, Professor! (Or should I rather address you with, ‘Impostor’?)

YS:

“So let’s try it this way. Was the action of assembling together completed before Paul started to “dialogue”? This would seem obvious.”

GE:

Now what are you arguing about?! Everything except what you have argued about yet!

YS:

“Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled.

GE:

So what “is inaccurate”, what is so “curious”, about my “addition of the word “still””, when I wrote, “They being assembling still”?

When you say, “Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled”, it must be OK; but when I say the very same thing, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and say things that are not written.

What’s the difference between “the verb συνηγμενων” to “mean having-been-assembled” and “having-been-assembled-still”, except that the phrase is better with the word ‘still’ than without it?

What else would “Yes .... this too would seem obvious .... they were still assembled .... they (were) STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”” mean, than “.... that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”? Your very own finding!

But when I say it, I “wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support your hypothesis” – your ‘hypothesis’ you yourself have just arrived at in the affirmative but would not admit because it implies “that they assembled on the Sabbath to celebrate communion, finished celebrating communion and then remained being assembled until the first of the week to be speaking with Paul.” How well you understand; how precisely have you explained the working of the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenohn’! But refuse to see with the eye of faith!

However, it’s not so that I “wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support (my) hypothesis”. Firstly, I do not “insert different clauses out of sync”; I only ‘insert’ what is required, for clearer meaning; a word or two perhaps, or at most some phrase or phrases; but no “clauses” in order to create an independent sentence like you do— a sentence that says “They on the First Day assembled / gathered / acted getting together to break bread.”

It’s not so, that I, “wish to break this verb in half” (Again, I do not ever, treat ‘synehgmenoon’ as a “verb”!), but it is people who want to create a case for Sunday-worship from it, who do. They recognise only the first and previous ‘half’-circumstance implied in the Perfect Participle, and confuse it for the last, resultant, ongoing ‘half’-circumstance implied in it. People like you use only the first and past-‘half’ implied in this Perfect Participle, and ignore the latter, present-‘half’ implied in it, namely, the resultant ongoing circumstance of “having been assembling still”.

This latter, resultant, ongoing, present-‘half’ implied in the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’, namely, the circumstance of “our having been assembling still when”, was the ‘half’ of it ‘still’ applying “on the First Day of the week”, and when “Paul spoke to them”.

The past and initial ‘half’ implied in the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’, namely, “our before having had been assembling”, gets ignored dead! But one hasn’t said anything until one has said everything the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’ has to say.

To hush “our having been assembling still when” / “they (were) STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue””, and to shout “our before having had been assembling (for to break bread)” only, is telling no accidental half truth, but a full error.

Or worse by far is it to treat the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’ as if it were a Verb, and to say, “They on the First Day assembled / were assembled to break bread when Paul spoke to them”, because then the error has become intentional and most wicked lie.

Then blindly to go on defending that lie .... well ....

YS:

“You want the text to say,

“…Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …””.

GE:

You have a very bad memory when it suits you, Yehushuan! I refer you to your statements:

“The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day).”;

“In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them.”.

Therefore, again, it’s not I who “want the text to say,

“…Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …””— it’s you!

I not once, alleged “Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them”, because I would never like you do, use “assembled”, an Indicative Verb, for ‘synehgmenohn’, a Participle; I would never like you do, use “was speaking” a Present Verb, for “spoke”, an ordinary Past Tense Verb for the Imperfect, ‘dielegeto’ here in context in Acts 20:7.

YS:

“The problem, Mr. Ebersöhn, is that’s not what was written. It doesn’t say what you wish. You can’t just snap a verb in half like a loaf of bread and stuff in other action between the two parts like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to make the language fit your doctrine. That’s what every religious nut tries to do, and we both would be wise to avoid doing so.

GE:

And so you have been talking of yourself, to yourself, my dear fellow.

YS:

“BUT, in order to convey this aspect of a completed past action (their being assembled together) resulting in a current state of their still being assembled, one would need to write: “having-been-assembled-and-still-being-assembled…” and this would result in a translation, “…in the first of the week we, Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..””

GE:

‘BUT’, isn’t this, “Paul was speaking”, what you have just accused me of doing so absolutely by default? What is it with you? Where has your short term memory gone to?

And where has your memory gone to that exactly this, “…in the first of the week we having been assembling (in the first place, past circumstance,) to break bread, and still being assembling (in the resultant present ongoing circumstance), Paul spoke with them”? Don’t you remember, once again, I did not say, “Paul was speaking”? Don’t you remember, Luke did not write, “Paul was speaking”? Don’t you remember, it’s you who says, “Paul was speaking”?

And since when are you admitting Holy Communion spoken of in verse 7? Don’t you remember you until now have been maintaining Holy Communion is spoken of for the first time in verse 11?

YS:

“Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.”

GE:

Have I ever said differently? This is what I, have said, and have argued for, every inch of the way: “Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled (or rather ‘assembling’) When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.” But I have also consistently and unwavering said and argued, “Yes, they were having been assembled”— When? before when “they were .... still being assembled (or rather ‘assembling’) in the first of the week” and before when “Paul spoke to them”!

YS:

“Acts 20:7 εν IN δε AND τη THE μια FIRST των OF THE σαββατων SABBATHS συνηγμενων Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled ημων WE κλασαι TO BREAK αρτον BREAD ο THE παυλος PAUL διελεγετο WAS SPEAKING αυτοις WITH THEM μελλων εξιεναι

τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

They were Having.Been.Assembled in the first day of the week.

GE:

Ja, not exactly. It’s so easy to leave out indispensable factors and aspects concisely implied but nevertheless very thoroughly implied in the single word of the Perfect Participle. You try to fuse the past and the present aspects of the Perfect Participle into one, thus confusing the differently related things of both the breaking of bread and Paul’s speaking into the single time space of the last and ongoing resultant time aspect of the Perfect Participle, of when the disciples “were still being gathering together and Paul spoke to them”. You will not allow the breaking of bread its own time aspect of belonging, the initial and past stage or aspect of the disciples’ “having been assembling (originally)”, “(before) their / our having been assembling (after still)”, “and Paul spoke to them”— “spoke”, the only, ‘Verb’ of the sentence.

Letter for letter literalness won’t help for idiom and syntax. It may only confuse, as is obvious from your struggling here. But admit to truth – simple, common sense truth – Yehushaun would rather die than admit.

YS:

“But please. I think you’re letting the English helper verbs cause confusion. You read the words “Having.Been” and infer a time value of “before.” It would seem you interpret Having.Been.Assembled as “Assembling before the first of the week.” But a Perfect Aspect does not convey Past Tense, and the word “been” is used in English here to convey passive action, not time reference.”

GE:

Would the Perfect then convey a Present aspect of ‘tense’? Of course the Perfect – whether Verb of Participle – conveys time-aspect or in English, ‘Tense’! The Perfect though, in fact conveys dual time-aspect— the first, past: ‘past’ in aspect and time and tense; nothing continuous or ongoing still can be ‘perfect’. The second, ongoing, resultant, ‘present’ aspect or time or tense, even also in a ‘Past Tense’ sense of a ‘perfect’, ongoing condition. Like the Present Past or Past Present in the English language or in any language for that matter. It’s a linguistic phenomenon that cannot be done without. It’s easy; not difficult. If it’s difficult, you don’t understand it yet. And so is our case in hand. The Perfect Participle of Acts 20:7 cuts both ways, implying two time-aspects and relating to two different (impossibly at once) actions, the passed Past of “having” or “being (originally) assembling”, and the resultant ongoing Past of “having” or “being assembling (still)”; the first, when “to break bread”, the last, “when Paul spoke to them”.

YS:

“The disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others.” The assembling was done to them (they had been assembled - they were assembled).”

GE:

Yehushuan, in the Passive Voice, the Subject receives the action. “I am surprised” --- ‘I surprise’ as some languages may have it. No one else do my surprising for me. Who do you think, did the disciples’ assembling for them? ‘Synehgmenohn’ is not a passive with direct or impersonal agent. Maybe ‘synegmenohn’ can be viewed as a Deponent, that is, a Participle with Passive form, but active meaning. If “the disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others”, then it would not have been the disciples who assembled or who were assembled, but some others who assembled or were assembled, and Luke would not have been able to write “WE, being assembling”! I don’t want to be rude, but you should catch up your junior school level grammar.

YS:

“The assembling was passive in nature. If the Verb was a Perfect Active Participle (or more specifically a Perfect Middle Participle), you would read “Having.Assembled.....” If the action was NOT passive (though it is) you would read, “And in the first of the Sabbaths Having.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled (we) to Break Bread, Paul was speaking…” Here, you can see that the assembling is clearly in the first day of the week.”

GE:

You are speculating out of touch with Greek idiom. And I cannot see at all, “the assembling” in both its time-aspects of past perfect and present continuous perfect is clearly in the first day of the week”. By nature of its dual time-aspect, the past ‘half’ must have gone before the ongoing resultant ‘half’. I can clearly see how the disciples’ “still having been assembling”, was “on the First Day”; but not how the Perfect aspect of their “having been assembling” in the first place, could also have been at the same time of “on the First Day”, because the Perfect demands “having been assembling together” originally should have been before “still being assembling”, as well as before, “on the First Day”.

To me, here it is clear the implied original act with which their “having been assembling” had or was begun, was before, their “on the First Day having been assembling still”.

YS:

“In order to remove the “flavour” of time-value from the conveyance of the passive nature of the action, we need to drop the word “been” and can write, “others having assembled us...”

GE:

It’s not for you or anyone else “to remove the “flavour” of time-value” of the Perfect, mate! Are you the creator of the Greek language? You cannot sense the most basic ‘flavours’ of linguistics generally, what decide to get rid of what to you is the unsavoury flavour of “time-line” in the Greek Perfect Participle.

You make a lot of noise against ‘adding in’ necessary words, but cut and “drop” indispensable words for a correct understanding and pure ‘flavour’ of the language at will ‘in order to’ say your own unimaginable sottish things like “others having assembled us”.

YS (unperturbed):

The text would then read: “…in the first of the week Others Having Assembled Us And We Still Being Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

See the difference? All the action of assembling was “IN THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS”.

GE:

Well, thanks, Yehushuan. That just about explains everything; what exactly, I shall rather leave unsaid.

YS:

“Personally, I have no problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren assembling for Sabbath at the synagogue with their Jewish brethren. What you need to HONESTLY ask yourself is, “Do you really believe the Jews would let the Believers celebrate communion at the Synagogue on the Sabbath?”

Seriously. They may have assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but here, they assembled in a private house on the first day of the week in order to celebrate communion, and Paul “held a Bible study”. Sounds like a Sunday worship service to me.

But I realize that you’ve placed your whole Christian Identity into this Saturday Church Service obsession, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise. That’s a bit unfortunate, since this verse clearly shows that they assembled for communion “in the first day of the week.”

GE:

No comment. Comment impossible.

25 January 2008

Gerhard Ebersöhn

PS

Dana and Mantey,

182, “(the) basal significance (of the Perfect ‘Tense’) is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination [[or stopping]] and the existence of its finished results. … It implies a process as having reached its consummation and [[then as to continue]] existing in a finished state. The point of completion is always antecedent to the time implied or stated in connection with the use of the Perfect. It may be graphically represented thus: ___ . -----”. Gildersleeve says it “looks at both ends of the action””.

183, “In the indicative the perfect signifies action as complete from the point of view of present time. Its exact meaning is often difficult to render, because of a blending of the sense with the English simple past. ... the confusion arises from the effort to explain the Greek in terms of our own idiom. It is best to assume there is a reason for the perfect wherever it occurs ...

The fundamental difference between the perfect (more restricted in use than the parallel English tense) and aorist (much wider in range than the English simple past) is vividly illustrated in Col.1:16. We have first the statement, en autohi ektistheh ta panta, “all things were created by Him”, which simply notes the fact that Christ was the active agent in creation, while the last clause, ta panta di’ autou kai eis auton ektistai, “all things through Him and unto Him have been created”, views the universe as a result of Christ’s creative activity – it is a ‘Christ-created universe’.”

184, “The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its use.” (Emphasis CGE)

224, “The term ‘Participle’ … includes nearly all parts of speech EXCEPT VERBS …”.

The ‘translation’ presented by yourself renders the participle synehgmenohn as if it were an active, Indicative Verb. Fact is, the disciples did NOT on the First Day “assemble” for Holy Communion. The fact they “assembled”, is IMPLIED – not stated! And because implied through a Participle of the Perfect Aspect of Action, the implicated result is the disciples did not come together at the time of their still having been together on the First Day of the week. They therefore had to have assembled on the day before – “antecedent” – which happens to be the Sabbath Day as always.

John Calvin (Emphasis GE):

Calvin:

7. And in one day. Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom. But seeing it is no new matter for the Evangelists to put one instead of the first, according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue, (Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) it shall very well agree, that on the morrow after the Sabbath they came together. Furthermore, it were too cold to expound this of any day. For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place . . . . they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the Holy Supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all. . . .”

Gerrhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Acts 20,7, The Third Struggle

Acts 20:7 (for Gerhard Ebersöhn)

by Yehushuan

Mr. Ebersöhn,

I see you managed to get the previous thread on Sabbath Worship locked down before I could post a reply. (Ah well… after all the work I put in)

Not wishing you to think you were being ignored, I would at least like to comment on this one rather peculiar phrase you used - "Infinitive of Noun Force."

From your post, it would seem you contrast this concept of "Infinitive of Noun Force" with something you call the “Infinitive of Intent.”

Now, being unfamiliar with both phrases, I Googled them, only to find just two references to "Infinitive of Noun Force," (both of which were yours) and five references to “Infinitive of Intent” (two of which were about Gaelic).

It is obvious, then, that these are not grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists. In fact, "Infinitive of Noun Force," seems to be some kind of personal creation of yours, which was also a bit confusing since you used Luke 4:21 as an example (but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive).

So as for now, I do not think it would be wise of me to embrace your personally unique concept of “the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force,” since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although I did find one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”:

M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek wrote: In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και acquired additional meanings.

In short, this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form. A good example of this in English would be rather than saying, “I carried the knife carefully not to cut myself," one would write instead, “I carried the knife carefully so that I wouldn't cut myself," ('wouldn't' being the helper verb in the subjunctive mood).

Now (since you don’t seem to like Young’s) we have the verse:

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The phrase “to break bread” is κλασαι αρτον and the verb klasai is an aorist active infinitive. Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….” and contend that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).

Unfortunately many are confused between the concepts of tense and aspect, and since the verb “to break” is conjugated as aorist active infinitive (inside a genetive absolute), I provide the following:

Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek wrote: Because the aorist infinitive has aspect and not tense, it is impossible to translate the aorist infinitive into English. The present infinitive λύειν and the aorist infinitive λῦσαι are translated as "to loosen" in English. However, just because they have the same English translation does not mean they have the same meaning! Instead, the difference in meaning is determined by the aspect. Start paying careful attention to the infinitives you see when you read Greek. By studying the differences between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive, you can start to get a sense of the difference in meaning between present aspect and aorist aspect in Greek.

In other words, klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular – short sweet and to the point, rather than involved with complicated or drawn out movement through time. It does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished. So while an aorist active infinitive cannot be exactly translated, it may be adequately explained.

And while the primary purpose of the clause was not to convey any intent of a subject, the fact is, that since it fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, the disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread. (Even you stated that they assembled "for communion.") And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.

Kindly,

Yehu

PS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?

No, from your use of the word “we”.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them.”

The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.

(I would gently suggest you not read in malevolent intent where none exists.)

GE:

The best answer to your ‘arguments’, is to let you give it yourself. I have not before met an opponent so persistent, headstrong and proud in his ignorance. I have never seen someone so blind in his blindness to his own folly. I have never seen a dead horse being beaten so, Yehushuan, by his own master, than yours.

But not everyone who might read our debate, may pretend to be so informed as you pretend to be. For their sakes therefore, I am obliged to answer you once again. Otherwise I would not further have wasted time on you or your ‘benevolent intent’. You think I trust you? I pray the readers won’t. You could only help them from the edge of the cliff, off and down it.

YS:

“Mr. Ebersöhn, I see you managed to get the previous discussion on Sabbath Worship locked down before I could post a reply. (Ah well… after all the work I put in.)”

GE:

I didn’t lock it down; the moderators did; maybe in sympathy with your agony. Obviously you suffer none; I no longer could be surprised. If you put in less of your own mighty works and listened to others a little, you might still have suffered, but to your own improvement.

YS:

“From your post, it would seem you contrast this concept of "Infinitive of Noun Force" with something you call the “Infinitive of Intent.””

GE:

No, YS, from your posts, it is clear you, confuse the Infinitive of Noun Force for “something you” – not I –, “call the “Infinitive of Intent””.

YS:

“Now, being unfamiliar with both phrases, I Googled them, only to find just two references to "Infinitive of Noun Force," (both of which were yours) and five references to “Infinitive of Intent” (two of which were about Gaelic).

It is obvious, then, that these are not grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists. In fact, "Infinitive of Noun Force," seems to be some kind of personal creation of yours, which was also a bit confusing since you used Luke 4:21 as an example (but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive).”

GE:

“.... since you used Luke 4:21 as an example”— I, “used Luke 4:21 as an example”? As an example of what? I can categorically state I did nothing of the sort!

But credit to you at last, for admitting you “being unfamiliar with both phrases”. But ploughed in another examination, you being unable to point out the Perfect Participle in Luke 24 to which I was referring, mistaking “πεπληρωται” for it; and that, after I g-a-v-e it to you. I never asked you to identify “πεπληρωται”, and I, never claimed “πεπληρωται” is “an infinitive”. Now you try make me, look like the town’s simpleton.

From a basis where one admitted “being unfamiliar with” the things in question, one might have reached some intelligent apprehension. But whereas you from the outset was of the opinion you already knew better than anybody else, I’m afraid we were doomed to be disappointed, and I am not at all surprised by your veering away from the subject-matter to your inventive lightning-deflector, “as an example .... πεπληρωται”. I made no reference to this word. Why you do, only you would know.

YS:

“So as for now, I do not think it would be wise of me to embrace your personally unique concept of “the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force,” since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although I did find one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”....”

GE:

What a compliment to me, Yehushuan, you thought the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force was “some kind of.... unique.... personal creation of” mine, of ‘a grammatical concept in normal linguists’— which indeed it is, and which makes it the more confusing why you “used Luke 4:21 as an example’ and observed, “but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive”?

Only because you don’t know what you are talking of or are dealing with— which is thus obvious again in your quoting, “M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek” totally out of context and irrelevantly. I can see it without having seen it. You can’t see it although you have seen it. There’s the difference between us!

So you blunder on, “Since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although....”

1) you, ‘found’ abstract reference to but one ‘Koine Greek linguist’ while you stayed ignorant as to so many other ‘Koine Greek linguists’ who do ‘recognize the existence of such’ as the Infinitive of Noun Force; and

2) you, yourself, ‘found’ “one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”” which says nothing for or against “the existence of such” as The Infinitive of Noun Force.

I think it might be wise of you to ‘strive for simplification of analytical expression’ and to go to the library to find some recognised Greek grammarians on this issue, before you embrace your own erroneous conceptions for examples of precision.

Besides, I am not concerned with “grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists”. I deal with ‘Greek linguistics’, in this case, with the linguistic peculiarity of the Greek language of the ‘Infinitive of Noun Force’.

And may I suggest you stay by printed books on Greek linguistics, and forget ‘googling’. (Nevertheless I am pleasantly surprised “both of .... (the) two references to "Infinitive of Noun Force"” you could find through your ‘googling’, were mine. Thanks; I did not know.)

However, that does not mean anything like you decided it should, “It is obvious, then .... "Infinitive of Noun Force," seems to be some kind of personal creation of (mine)”. Your conclusion non the less only proves the poor research you have done.

I shall be considerate out of bounds for myself and – to see if it’s “some kind of personal creation of” mine or not –, shall refer you to a ‘reference to ‘Infinitive of Noun Force’ from the most understandable Greek Grammar I have come across, that of ‘Dana and Mantey’,

“The Infinitive is an indeclinable Noun .... in historical Greek is used in all Cases .... The Infinitive is a Substantive expressing an act or state ....”. So “an observation of Webster”, from D&M, “.... an incomplete idea .... supplemented by the epexegetical infinitive, expressive of object, design, purpose”.

This is why D&M, IV,187, could declare, “Intelligent expression inevitably occasions at times the naming of an action with substantival relations in a sentence. Here we have noun and verb occupying common ground. This may sometimes be expressed by an ordinary noun of action, but is more forcefully expressed by a verbal substantive. For this function the chief device of language is the Infinitive, which doubtless reached its highest known stage of development and variety of usage in the Greek language.” (Emphasis GE)

YS:

“M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek wrote: In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και acquired additional meanings.”

In short, this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form. A good example of this in English would be rather than saying, “I carried the knife carefully not to cut myself," one would write instead, “I carried the knife carefully so that I wouldn't cut myself," ('wouldn't' being the helper verb in the subjunctive mood).”

GE:

All this tells me is you are still battling to understand the Passive. I am not sure; all I’m sure of is, this is as much worth to the issue of the ‘existence’ and validity or not of the Infinitive of Noun Force as you being my helper to understand it.

In any case, this is fantastical surmising, “.... this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form.” “The infinitive no longer used”? Yehushuan, I don’t think M. Z. Kopidakis would accept this gracefully! You see, you’re like a bull that storms a china shop; you don’t notice or mind that you overthrow everything in your way. So did you overthrow what MZK stated in full, “The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced....”. You never noticed the word ‘likewise’? You tell me you didn’t! ‘Likewise’, that is, ‘like’, “gradually” – not instantaneously, but also and more so, not completely! Not totally, because to this day the Infinitive has not been ‘replaced’, completely. I don’t know if MZK is still with us; I never knew about his ‘Introduction’. But if he still lives, please write him a letter and tell him I dare say he never intended to say ‘replaced’ completely, but only to an extent.

And here, with complements of the occasion, to Yehushuan, is a good example of how I think the Infinitive of Noun Force in the English language would be looking like, if I said, ‘I carried the sword of the word for to cut the nerve of his surmising.’

YS:

“Now (since you don’t seem to like Young’s) we have the verse:

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The phrase “to break bread” is κλασαι αρτον and the verb klasai is an aorist active infinitive. Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….” and contend that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).”

GE:

Yes, I would, but not only for the reason “that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”)”, but mainly because the Participle with which the Infinitive is combined through immediate context, is Perfect, with its dual time-aspect of ‘past’ as well as resultant ongoing past ‘present’. Just to keep proper perspective, please.

However, let us also keep in mind the actual state of things here, that (like also the Participle) the Infinitive, is no ‘Verb’, but rather functions as a Noun! So, you’re already wrong to say, “the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”)”.

Rather, this meaningful combination of both the Aorist Infinitive and the Perfect Participle, even more emphatically implies “that communion had already occurred since the [Infinitive] is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).” Yehushuan, you have again helped me to see better, and in better perspective than I before did see. I have until now just overlooked the fact the Infinitive was Aorist. Thank you.

But before we leave from this scene, once again a correction. You say, “Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….”” No. You do not understand me correctly. I would rather see this phrase properly ‘translated’, ‘literally’, that is, as I have said, with both its time-aspects given their rightful weight or worth, first, past: “We, while having had been assembling to brake bread (“to have broken bread”)....” next, ongoing in the past present, “.... and while after having had been assembling still….”. I want it ‘translated’ in full and to full implication of its dual time-aspect. The KJV does not do it; the KJV verges on the edge of making of the Participle an Indicative Verb. (It daringly hovers over the ‘finite’ brink of the abyss, instead of to keep wise distance from it. See Marshall trying to do it, and I think, succeeding to an extent.) The KJV therefore in my opinion is plainly wrong, though not as intentionally wrong as virtually every modern ‘translation’ is, which / who consciously omit mention of the past and Perfect implication of “having had been assembling at first, before having had been assembling still after when Paul spoke to them”. How does one separate the two aspects? I find it impossible. The Perfect, Participle, Aorist and Infinitive together, will not allow any time-aspect (“time-line”) be separated from the rest together. But we modern people are too lazy and hasty, so that although there is nothing wrong with it, “having had been assembling at first, before having had been assembling still after when Paul spoke to them” to us sounds clumsy and too taxing to maintain our attention.

YS:

“Unfortunately many are confused between the concepts of tense and aspect, and since the verb “to break” is conjugated as aorist active infinitive (inside a genetive [sic.] absolute), I provide the following....”

GE:

Speak for yourself, yes!

YS:

“Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek wrote: Because the aorist infinitive has aspect and not tense, it is impossible to translate the aorist infinitive into English. The present infinitive λύειν and the aorist infinitive λῦσαι are translated as "to loosen" in English. However, just because they have the same English translation does not mean they have the same meaning! Instead, the difference in meaning is determined by the aspect. Start paying careful attention to the infinitives you see when you read Greek. By studying the differences between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive, you can start to get a sense of the difference in meaning between present aspect and aorist aspect in Greek.”

GE:

So what have we actually learned? I guess that in Acts 20:7 the Infinitive being an Aorist, might better express a Lord’s Supper of the past than an ongoing one of the present, and therefore a Lord’s Supper not while Paul spoke to them on the First Day while they were being assembling still, but rather a Lord’s Supper while they before were having been assembling. Just what I have tried to say all the time, and what you denied.

YS:

“In other words, klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular – short sweet and to the point, rather than involved with complicated or drawn out movement through time. It does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished. So while an aorist active infinitive cannot be exactly translated, it may be adequately explained.”

GE:

Yehushuan, you don’t write your quotation marks; so who is now speaking, “Clayton Croy” in his “Primer of Biblical Greek”, or you? I would say it’s you because to say “klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular” (sic.) is so evidently contradictory, I cannot think it was Croy who wrote it.

If ‘punctiliar’ “does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished”, then I would be unable to tell what would. Dana & Mantey actually say it is almost inevitable to translate the Aorist with Past Perfect in English.

I recommend, avoid the word ‘punctiliar’ and instead use the words ‘constative’ and ‘ingressive’. They are much clearer and understandable --- to me in any case --- (and spell easier). Be that as it may, fact about the Aorist is, it exactly conveys typical Greek “time information” to indicate that action had been accomplished.

Most ironic that you are the one who brought the Aorist aspect about this Infinitive to the fore; now are the one who tries to wangle its meaning to suit your lost case of a Lord’s Supper indicated by an Aorist Infinitive “klasai”, that “does not indicate action that had been completed”, and that “does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished”, but must have been ongoing. Which is just ugly, wrong, and false, but spot on correctly exposes you for the linguistic conman you are!

Once again as well, you should be asked, since when do you propagate the Lord’s Supper from verse 7? You previously denied it, and insisted the Lord’s Supper only ‘exists’ from verse 11 on. So even your inconsistency is consistently fraudulent.

YS:

“While the primary purpose of the clause was not to convey any intent of a subject, the fact is, that since it fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, the disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread. (Even you stated that they assembled "for communion.") And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.”

GE:

So we’re back to square one. There’s no ‘clause’ here, if a ‘clause’ means a phrase that contains a Verb, because there is no Verb involved in this phrase. YS can still not perceive it.

And now, ‘since it’, ‘it’, the phrase ‘klasai arton’?, “fits into the construct of the genitive absolute....”? How does ‘klasai arton’, ‘fit into’, ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’? It rather, ‘links up’ with it, I would say. So, alright, since ‘klasai arton’ fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’, what was your, conclusion? “The disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread.” There you say it yourself, they ‘did’. But again you suppress all the other factors of the reality implied in verse 7, that they were not presently and ongoing ‘assembl-ing for the purpose of breaking bread’, but “While we before were in the past assembling for to Break Bread, and on the First Day were presently and ongoing assembling still, Paul spoke to them”.

You straight on commences with your old story, “And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.” ‘Synehgmenohn’ is no Verb! And back again to no Lord’s Supper in 7, only in 11. You are a hopeless case.

YS:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?”

No, from your use of the word “we”.”

GE:

From my use of the word “we”? So does the TR not have ‘synegmenohn’, because ‘synehgmenohn’ says ‘we’? So does the TR not have ‘hehmohn’, because ‘hehmohn’ says ‘we’?

YS:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them.” The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

GE:

(Thanks for the opportunity and please allow me to improve what I have written here, to make it read, “After having been assembling for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembling still, Paul discussed matters with them”, only to be more correct ‘technically’, thanks.)

YS:

“The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

GE:

I have made double sure; I looked up Nestle Aland’s ‘codices’. I have also checked Wigram’s ‘Variants’. I could find no ‘Variant’ that has the word “the disciples”-‘mathehtai’. By ‘variants’ is meant what is in “the Textus Receptus” but not in ‘the Wescott Hort family of codices’ (they’re virtually the same as NA), and vice versa.

Yehushuan, The TR has ‘hehmohn’; so does NA. I don’t know about W&H, if they have it. It is this Pronoun that implies ‘us’, ‘the disciples’. The Textus Receptus does NOT “have the words “the disciples””!

Honestly and earnestly, Yehushuan, for your own sake, stay away from Greek linguistics and for that matter from all linguistics; you’re just not up to it, my boy.

YS:

Wow, claiming to do all that reading and still getting it wrong? Amazing.

The Scrivener’s Textus Receptus as found in e-sword reads:

Act 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

In addition, the Textus Majoris from The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament from Thomas Nelson Publishers reads:

Act 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινε τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

….. though it does note the variant of ημων in Nestle-Aland 26 and the United Bible Societies’ fourth edition (as in e-sword’s Westcott Hort).

"Double sure"? You might wish to try again, without that whole – bitter old man condemnation prattle. Third time’s the charm. How can you possibly hope to get the interpretation correct, if you can't even track down the exact Greek words.

GE:

Ja. there are as many 'codices' as there are ‘codifiers’.
I am no scholar on manuscripts, but I will say this here quoted stuff from Scrivener’s is a personal commentary of his on the manuscript-sources themselves. Supply the manuscript 'names' with all those funny letters and signs, you know. They are usually accompanying a photostat copy of the original. From those fragments etc. there have quite a few 'Textus Receptus' been compiled. When I speak of the TR I have in mind that of Erasmus, which, if I am not mistaken, Tyndale translated from. If mathehtai/ohn were on that 'TR', NA and Wigram who works on Erasmus and NA, would have indicated it. They do not; so I as an amateur, take them for my authorities. And my feelings tell me Schrivener's is not authentic; until the real thing to the contrary can be shown. I do not accept your source, is what I'm saying. Bring your claims from Erasmus, if you talk of the Textus Receptus. Then I shall admit I'm in the wrong, and you right. Not until then.

In any case, what difference does it make to the meaning of the passage under discussion? I in fact has all the way myself maintained 'the disciples' are meant with hehmohn and the first person plural of synehgmenohn. I have even given the names of those disciples, as they are mentioned in the first verses of chapter 20. You though, carry on if my contending the words tohn mathehtohn are not in the TR shows everything else I'm saying is untrue and incorrect.

Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) named his GNT – published by Cambridge University Press, “The New Testament in the original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version (1894)”. Scrivener also edited the “Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the AV”, (1873). In 1884 he published the “Authorised Edition of the English Bible”.

Written in Greek (of the NT, in other words, in Koineh Greek), his NT was still a ‘translation’, and therefore a commentary on the actual TR or compilation of manuscripts used for the translation of the AV. He ‘added in’ words, like “the disciples” in Acts 20:7.

Now you, Yehushuan, made such a noise when I dared to ‘add in’ words when I ‘translated’ through the medium of another language than Greek (English), but here laud victory, “knowing Third time’s the charm”, too soon, with regards to a truly great scholar who found it necessary to ‘add in’ words even though he translated through the medium of the same language of the original (manuscripts), Greek. I throw your comment back to you, How can you possibly hope to get the interpretation correct, if you can't even track down the exact Greek words?

I shall not again answer you in this fruitless conversation wherein added in cookies, crackers and wafers the lot are of far better value than your contribution to it.

1 February 2009

YS:

Ebersöhn,

Despite your rude and obnoxious bitter old man behaviour, I took the time to find the evidence you demand. The following picture is a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE, which you may download for free at: http://www.lulu.com/content/731315

Now unless you’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick you, I don’t expect THIS source to be challenged without adequate PROOF from you. (And I’m certainly NOT going to buy a plane ticket for you to travel and see the manuscript with your own eyes.)

As can be seen on the first complete line, we read starting with the fifth word, "σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος" (And yes, I underlined the words in red.)

I expect an apology. (And we’ll know just what type of Christian you are from how you respond to this.)

The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus. That word applies to differences between manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy, etc.

I find none of your posts to be honest or earnest, and since YOU have overtly declared that I don’t know what I’m talking about I would suggest that any honest person would surf the above link, download the file (save as target) and actually READ page 362 (it’s near the bottom).

Again, since you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus' own text) says “the disciples,” I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one that’s just one more ad homonym of your bitter old man syndrome).

Yehushuan

PS: The entire forum can now judge just who isn’t “up to it.”

GE:

Whose handwriting is this?

Was Acts written in 1522?

Scrivener --- Erasmus --- what's the difference? Both are THEIR 'New Testaments' --- neither are the manuscripts; and the actual sources of the TR are manuscripts --- written perhaps two to six centuries AD, but not in the sixteenth century!

O Lord, it's hard to be humble!

For those who might be interested.

Yehushuan’s own referred to source, reads,

“Erasmus' third printed edition of Greek New Testament published in 1522. Colophon to Apocalypse contains the date 1522 but the Introduction says 1518. It contains both the Greek and the Latin (Erasmus' own translation) texts in parallel columns.

This is the first printed edition of Greek NT to contain the Comma Johanneum (1Jo5:7-8), howbeit in a rather unusual form. .... This edition was used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (1526), by Stephanus as a base for his 1550 edition and by the translators of Geneva Bible and KJV.”

The mss of the Geek NT can, according to content, be divided mainly into two different groups: a) the ‘Majority Text’ or Byzantium text, about 5200 mss and about 99 percent of which very closely resemble each other; and b) the group of mss that contain the main differences, about 50 of them or 1% of all mss. About 600 mss are capital letters, and the rest are minuscule.

The history of the Greek text from about the fifth century AD for approximately fifteen centuries was dominated by the Majority Text or Textus Receptus. It originated over a vast area north and east of Egypt.

Erasmus wrote his GNT using these mss, and Tyndale wrote his English Bible using Erasmus’ GNT while he for every word and phrase tried to keep to the manuscript readings itself. Tyndale mostly had to work in exile, so how available the real mss were to him, I cannot tell, but he in the end could witness that he translated no single word against his conscience –--- a conscience he most certainly did not weigh against the work of another man, Erasmus, but must have weighed against this centuries old and used source of the original manuscripts, which by the time Tyndale translated his NT, was long known already by the collective name of the Textus Receptus --- later called the Majority Text.

So do I understand things, and so have I maintained throughout this childish bickering about the fatuous and inflated issue about the presence or not of the words ‘the disciples’ in Acts 20:7 in the TR which was started by one Yehushuan for no reason but to find something to glory in to the embarrassment of a Mr Nobody who dared challenge his pretence.

3 February 2009

JB:

Interesting read: So are you saying that you trust this heinz 57 text?

GE:

As I very clearly said, I am no scholar; least in the field of Text and Text criticism. Therefore, I do not understand what you are saying or might be insinuating. All I say is, the TR _is_ NOT, that which is, 'Erasmus', or, that, which is, anybody else's 'NT' based upon 'Erasmus'. So, 'the disciples' or no disciples, it's immaterial! And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'.

That, I do trust, yes!

2 February 2009

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'.
That, I do trust, yes!

You know Ebersöhn this is just pathetic.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: When I speak of the TR I have in mind that of Erasmus, which, if I am not mistaken, Tyndale translated from.

I gave you both the link AND provided the picture of the actual publication used by Tyndale as published by Erasmus. You can plainly see the words “the disciples” even with your bad eyesight.

Hard to be humble? You don’t even know the meaning of the word.

So Acts 20:7 “precisely reads” of us? Does it?

Prove it. I mean SHOW ACTUAL PROOF you poser. Stop pretending. Admit you never Ever saw any of these written manuscripts Erasmus used, and therefore cannot state what any of them “precisely reads.” (Precisely? Your strategy is to lie and then swear to it?)

First you say only the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press, not written) and when shown you’re wrong now you spout off something completely inane about “the real TR”?

THAT’S JUST TOTALLY PATHETIC. (Hope that was large enough for you to read.)

So just tell me what the “real TR” is, and I’ll go prove THAT has “the disciples” written in it.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:…started by one Yehushuan for no reason but to find something to glory in to the embarrassment of a Mr Nobody who dared challenge his pretence.

This is an apology? Hey dude, if you can’t stand to be shown you are wrong then don’t start attacking others who actually know better. You still owe me an apology because YOU wrongly accused ME.

And I formally request of the Father that he hold your feet to the fire for the sake of saving your own soul. (May you be delivered from the pathetic bitter old man syndrome that has you in bondage.)

Yehushuan

GE:

3 February 2009

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, I have been trying to follow this discussion and maybe I missed a few ideas, but I am a simple fella. Just out of curiosity, do you prefer the Byzantine writings over the Alexandrian writings? If so why? Thanks in advance for your response.

By the way, Yehu has thumped on me a few times in Greek discussions. But to be honest I had it coming. But at the same time I learned quite a bit as a result of it.

GE:

But JB, please tell me what you mean with "this heinz 57 text"?
Thanks

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: But JB, please tell me what you mean with "this heinz 57 text"?

The phrase "heinz 57" is an American colloquialism, meant to express a condition similar to the word "mutt" or "mongrel" - saying that an item is all mixed up having numerous and conflicting varieties of everything all at once, as if a cook took each of the 57 Heinz products (ketchup, mustard, relish etc.) and put it all together in the same pot.
Hope that helps.
Yehu
(One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history.)

JB:

The Lord has laid it on my heart to write this post and I am not sure why but I must be obedient to this prompting. I participate in several forums and have had the privledge to get to know and to debate with many people. But in all the time that I have participated in these forums, there is only one person that I haver come to know on a very personal level. That person is Yehu. I consider him a very close friend. We have not only battled on the forum but we have fellowshipped at the dinner table. I believe that Yehu is one of the humblest men that I have ever met but at the same time very exacting. What I mean by exacting is his sense for detail. We have cried together and laughed together. We have shared victories together and failure together. I have grown to respect him and appreciate his concern for peoples relationship with Christ. I love Yehu and I deeply respect his commitment to the study of Gods word. I have learned more through discussion with him than all the time that I spent in college. And I thank God for him and I thank him for that. God has used Yehu in my life in a mighty way. we may disagree from time to time but for the most part I believe that we both serve the same God.

Thank you Yehu for your commitment and your influence in my life.
JB

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, I believe that Yehu nailed it down for me. Since business has been good and I don't find a lot of personal time, I find it difficult to respond quickly to questions on this forum.
I believe that there were several ideas in the translation process. One of which is the accumulation of many texts from various regions of the world and then are compared. The translators then take what they believe is the best idea and that becomes the translation.

With the advent of the printing press and the need for greed, there was a race that took place to print the first Greek text available to the public on a mass scale. Unfortunately, the race was about money and not the scriptures. Another unfortunate event was that many of the first Greek type sets that were developed were flawed and many of these first mass produced manuscripts were littered with error. What I find most concerning is the fact that after the first production of this Greek text, a much earlier text was recovered and when it was compared to this mass produced text there were many differences. But since this was the standard, these mass producers continued to produce this Heinz 57 text and it became more ingrained in people that this was the original text. To bring about any change at this point would now be a difficult action based on the proud attitude that is seen in people and that attitude still exists today.

This is what I mean by the heinz 57 text.

JB

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn, All you needed to say was, “Oh look at that, the TR does say ‘the disciples’.”

But you see this isn’t about ME being right. (So why did I press the point?) This is about you being unable to admit you’re ever wrong, because if you did admit you were wrong in this one point, you might also start to wonder if you might be wrong about your basic premise. (And heaven help us we couldn’t have that, could we?) It would be very sad were you to realize that your entire ministry is quixotic. That your mission in life to prove that we should all worship on Saturday is something God doesn’t really care about. You might realize that it’s your mission, not His. (I feel for you.)

But when Paul met with the disciples in Acts 20, they met on the first day of the week and celebrated communion.

It’s hard for you to mount a convincing argument against this based upon the Greek text when you also admit that you have no training in Greek translation. Suffice it to say, your arguments are not convincing. Nor have your insults to my person been beneficial in convincing others.
I’ve shown that you invented a term unknown to any other linguist. I’ve shown that the perfect aspect describes that it was their gathering together which is to be seen as completed action, not their breaking of bread. I’ve shown the initial phrase of verse seven conforms to the genitive absolute which in turn prohibits a conclusion that communion was completed. And if nothing else, the text clearly shows they broke bread in verse 11. What more can be said?

Now I’m not sure what resources you have at hand nearby where you live, but it may be of great benefit were you to toddle on down to University and take a professor of Greek to lunch.

If he disagrees with you, you’ll learn something. If he agrees with you, you may learn how to better present your arguments.

GE:
JB, Am I right, to conclude, Erasmus (as Scriverner's) and "many of the first Greek type sets that were developed were flawed", and that, according to you, "this Heinz 57 text .... became more ingrained in people that this", ('type sets' -- like Erasmus and Scrivener centuries later) was not "the original text"? And, that while we are here concerned with the words, "the disciples" in Acts 20:7 actually being 'type set' (by Erasmus and others), make up one of the 'flaws'; and that "To bring about any change at this point would now be a difficult action based on the proud attitude that is seen in people and that attitude still exists today", though veiled, is an inference to one who on this thread is calling himself "One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history"?

Edited: JB, I shall not mind if you don't want to answer to this post of mine; I think I understand.

JB:
Actually I was responding more directly to your question about Heinz 57. There were many events that impacted the accuracy of the Heinz 57 text. But yes, there were many type set errors.

You asked: “Another question, Do I understand you right, that you 'say', the textus receptus' is, this, Heinz 57 text?” That is what I am saying.

GE:

Then why do some people insist on its' precise content so, if it's worthless after all, being some 'Heinz 57' 'codifice' / codex?

JB:

Some do praise it but not all. There are just as many that don't trust it as those who do trust it.

I believe that this is a very difficult question but it is one that needs to be addressed. I struggle with this idea daily. But the truth of the matter is, we don't have to go very far in our studies to see the textual difficulties that exist among the variant texts. In my Greek Library I have books that address the variant texts and while I might not like them, they are really there. The TR was developed from many manuscripts and documents directly and indirectly. As the translators went through all these variant texts they in fact found contradictions.

The questions should be, "where did the contradictions come from" and "How did they deal with the contradictions in the many translations that existed"?

I believe that the contradictions came from the original autographs. While they were perfect and inspired, they were used to make copies. The original letters or writings would be sent to the Church and after the letters were studied, they would make copies and they sent the copies to other Churches. From the earliest copies, variant texts began to appear. Sometimes the writer would spell wrong or would get lines mixed up. The result is variations.

Another difficulty was when a letter was sent to a community where the language was slightly different. The writer would attempt to translate the letter into a more understandable language for the people with a slightly different language. And what happened with that? They began to develop their own ideas. After many years the result was that many of the letters and texts used to develop the TR were found to be paraphrased and in many case new and added text had been discovered.

How they dealt with these contradictions was through an attempt to develop a consistent theological theme. They would study all the extant texts and then decide which one would best fit the theological idea. After these texts were developed they found there way to the printing press and were mass produced.

What I find to be really sad is that after this mass production of these texts, earlier scripts were discovered but were rejected because they weren't even close to what the translators thought should be right.

You said: “if it's worthless after all, being some 'Heinz 57' 'codifice' / codex?”

That is the interesting thing. I compare the KJV with the NAS and NIV and several others and I see the differences. There are many. I believe that the Alexandrian text played a crucial role in the differences that we see today as I am sure you will agree. There are textual commentaries on the New Testament that show just how graphically these differences are.

GE:

JB, Thanks for these posts.

First, a little light my wife has thrown on the 'Heinz 57' expression --- she is a very bright and sprightly person without whom I don't know how I would have managed in life. She amazes me every day. She always says, "I'm just a nurse", but I haven't met her peer yet intellectually. In any case, she tells me of when she was young, her family was sometimes treated on a tin of 'Heinz all-sorts' sweets. She says she doesn't remember the '57'. But just maybe the tin contained just 57 sweets? So, could this tin of sweets perhaps have been the very original 'manuscript / source' that later on became the 'standard' or 'assized' (Afr., 'geykte') or 'textus receptus' of the expression as used today by everybody not at all knowingly, of its origin? Then that is how I understand what the TR is, and if I'm not mistaken, you as well.

If so considering this post from you, the real TR consisted of the actual collection of mostly not the original but hand written copies of the original. So that:- the first complete handwritten 'text' of one specific preferred choice of these 'scraps' and 'parts', that of Erasmus, is not or was not, itself, the, 'Textus Receptus'. That is how I understand you, from this post, of yours. Erasmus' therefore, was the first tin of all-sorts sweets, marketed being branded, 'Heinz', perhaps?

YS:

The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir which reads: : textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus, translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."

The words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative case to the nominative, and the term “Textus Receptus” was born.

This was mostly a marketing gimmick intended to sell books, as the publishers declared that their printed book comprised the definitive edition of the Greek text used by the KJV translators in 1611.

In reality, the translators would have had access to all the printed editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (and printed editions of revisions made by other printers) but the SIX manuscripts used by Erasmus (none of which contained the book of Revelation) were not physically available in England, and were never referred to as the Textus Receptus.

Since the Elzevirs' book was published, the term “Textus Receptus” has come to identify any member of the family of the Greek texts (i.e. printed books) used by the KJV translation committee, specifically the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament first printed by Froben of Basel (Switzerland) in 1516.

Again, the term Textus Receptus refers to printed books, not the source manuscripts.

(HEY, you all have access to Google and Wikipedia, why do I have to do all the work?)

Before Martin Luther (circa 1515), the Greek text of the New Testament didn’t really matter, as there weren’t any Protestants. The teachings of the Church were based upon The Apostle’s Doctrine, (cf. Acts 2) which in practice meant Apostolic Authority which in turn meant Apostolic Office (the Bishops and the Pope) because Ecclesiastical Authority was not vested in scripture but rather in the Church Fathers (the living ones being a bit more important than the dead ones).

You did not look to the Bible for your faith; you went and asked your priest.

It is only because of the Protestant Reformation, which relied upon the principle of Sola Scripturae, that the Bible (and hence an accurate and “true” Bible) became important. The Reformation can almost be isolated to one single moment when Martin Luther read in the Greek text that Jesus preached “Repent” rather than “Do Penance” as was written in the Latin Vulgate.

Up until this time, and for nearly one thousand years, there had been only ONE Bible (sort of) which is now called the Vulgate, written in Latin by Jerome, and published between 382, 405. (And remember any such Bible was hand written and hand copied until the first printed edition on a Guttenberg press published in 1445. Yet even by then there were various manuscripts of the Vulgate that differed.)

Since the year 400, the Western Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Eastern Church, or the Orthodox Church) had the Latin Vulgate as its Bible. The Bible was the Latin Vulgate. The name Vulgate comes from the Latin word for common, since by 400 AD, hardly anyone in the Empire spoke Greek anymore. Interestingly enough, Jerome did not create a new Latin translation from any authoritative Greek texts, but rather was commissioned by the Pope to gather up as many Latin Versions as possible and create a standardized version from these.

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, the local priests would make a Latin Translation on his own to use in services. These are known as the Old Latin Texts, and Jerome was to compile these and fix any errors he found.

Again, it is the Protestant principle of Sola Scripturae that created the near psychotic need for an accurate and true and singular Bible that was based on as “original” a Greek text as possible. The fact that there are significant differences between various Greek manuscripts from different regions (not the innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses “we” as found in Acts 20:7) is something that each Believer needs to rectify for his or her own faith.

Oddly enough, while the KJV relied upon the Greek Texts compiled by Erasmus and printed in a book, Erasmus didn’t care about the Greek text. He was on a mission to fix the Latin Vulgate, and included this Greek text in order to show how his Latin was better than Jerome’s.

GE:

Reply to Yehushuan's two last posts above:
Thank you for these; they make me realise the big holes in my canvas on the easel. I especially appreciate your explanation of the very first use of the appellation 'Textus Receptus', and must admit I did not understand it that way simply because I have not properly been informed in these matters. I have always thought 'TR' is the equivalent of a collection of collections of actual manuscripts – I wrote of them as those smaller and larger pieces of writing material that are identified with 'A's and reversed 'R's and stuff in the museums and places where they are preserved. That is why I contended that the 'TR' does not have the words, "the disciples" - since not one of the real manuscripts actually have these words. But as you said above, it was an "innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses “we” as found in Acts 20:7".

I herewith therefore formally admit having been sadly informed regarding the meaning and use of the appellation 'Textus Receptus'.

GE:

Regarding the KJVO ‘issue’,

My viewpoint – for what it may be worth – rests on the assumption no ‘Version’ or ‘translation’ is perfect; but, that each ‘case’ of alleged ‘mistake’ in whichever ‘Version’ or ‘Translation’ should be treated individually.

Like in the case of
Matthew 23:24 —
The KJV has “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”.
Some presume “the KJV doesn't make any sense in this verse” because the Greek – they claim – would say, “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”.

Adam Clark, ‘Commentary on the Bible’,
“Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense.”

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, ‘Commentary’,
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat--The proper rendering--as in the older English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the translators' hands--evidently is, ‘strain out.’”

John Wesley, ‘Explanatory Notes’, much too arrogantly, declares,
“.... Ye blind guides, who teach others to do as you do yourselves, to strain out a gnat - From the liquor they are going to drink! and swallow a camel - It is strange, that glaring false print, strain at a gnat, which quite alters the sense, should run through all the editions of our English Bibles.”

Robertson, “Word Pictures”,
“Strain out the gnat (diulizontes ton kōnōpa). By filtering through (dia), not the “straining at” in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V.”

Albert Barnes, ‘Notes on the Bible’,
“Which strain at a gnat ... - This is a proverb. There is, however, a mistranslation or misprint here, which makes the verse unmeaning. “To strain” at a “gnat” conveys no sense. It should have been to strain out a gnat; and so it is printed in some of the earlier versions, and so it was undoubtedly rendered by the translators. The common reading is a “misprint,” and should be corrected. The Greek means to “strain” out by a cloth or sieve.”

I disagree, there is no ‘misprint’ in the KJV. There is – here – no suggestion to ‘straining out’ in the sense of another action than swallowing, like to sieve out. If, as Barnes admits, “This is a proverb”, it’s a proverb for ‘to swallow’ and is not the literal of ‘to sieve’. The section speaks about swallowing with ease or difficulty.... The drinker swallows both wine and gnat though with difficulty and repugnance – he 'strains at' it. But gross impurity – the proverbial ‘camel’ – he swallows and downs like wine without effort and with great relish.

I do not try prove the KJV – whichever edition – is faultless or directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. I only try prove my own point – take it or leave it – that each suspect instance of ‘mistake’, ‘flaw’ or ‘irreconcilability’ or whatever, should be judged on own merit or demerit. I therefore say the Bible, though it contains human error and imprecision (even in the several Greek ‘translations’), it, as the Word of God, is infallible, unerring and absolutely authoritative in all matters of Christian faith, doctrine and walk. And I shall go so far as to say and accept – even to confess – that text-compilations from the ‘differing’ or ‘minority’ manuscripts like the compilations of Westcott and Hort and Nestle and Aland, still contain the infallible, unerring and absolutely authoritative in all matters of Christian faith, doctrine and walk Word of God.

7 February 2009

YS:

You're quite welcome.

Mr. Ebersöhn, Isn’t it wonderful when we’re not insulting one another? Trust me, I have my own large holes in the canvas; I just purposefully stay well away from them which is why I come across as arrogant. I tread very lightly and cautiously around the holes until they can be filled in with concrete evidence.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:… simply because I have not properly been informed in these matters.

Not a problem. There must be many things of which I’ve not been properly informed, and it’s always fun to learn. But all theologians such as you and I fight like badgers when backed into a corner – at least until the moment light dawns, and then we will fight like badgers for our new understanding. It is a matter of integrity, and JB knows I will grab onto an issue and bite into it like a bulldog until I’ve chewed it through to the bone.

So let’s see, I think we were discussing the impact of the perfect passive participle of “gathered together”??

(Give me a moment to catch up.)

Yehu

GE:

No Capitulation!

That having been said (my posts of 7 February 2009), which I think explains my position clearly enough, many things from the posts of one Yehushuan may for some still seem undecided, or decided in his favour due to his ‘very exacting sense for detail’. I shall therefore (only God knowing, and I leave it in His hands, if He will), go through the above ‘Heinz 57’ discussion once more, to try to sort out the rotten eggs from the good, which may seem an impossible task; but is very easy in fact. Just place all the eggs in a bucket of Water of the Word and Life, and if in the end they find rest in Him, it’s good; but if they float above the Water of the Word and Life, it’s gone bad already and unrecoverable and must be disposed of (carefully, or the result may be ‘rudely obnoxious’).

The inference was made to, “what resources you have at hand nearby where you live”, in South Africa. Now I have great admiration for the American people, but am not impressed by the innuendos. There is no ‘resource’ (I’m talking of the written word) in the field of human sciences and its categories I am interested in, like ‘divinity’, “textual analysis and history”, that Americans may have access to and may be ‘versed in’, that are not accessible to South Africans. The library I use most is that of the University of Pretoria, a library to be proud of and that compares favourably with any in the world, I would say, although I have not as much entered an overseas one. ‘Sources’ that cannot be reached from Hans Merensky may not be worth finding anywhere else.

It is said I “demanded Evidence”. I, ‘demand’ ‘Biblical’ – not extra-biblical – ‘evidence’, ja. I ask ‘evidence’ evident to all the world and his wife. And I gave, ‘evidence’ – evidence kept back from the poor man for no reason whatsoever than Christian Sunday-worship and the self-esteem of those who place their “whole Christian Identity” into this Sunday “Church Service obsession”. Because this one text, Act 20:7, is – they too easily forget – their only text in Scripture when perverted to lean on.

I am ‘expected’ — unless I’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick me’ — to ‘challenge’ ‘with adequate PROOF’, “THIS source”, “a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”....

To challenge it in what respect? For which reason? Why would I disagree with any of the given data of ‘this source’? I would indeed challenge ‘this source’, unless I’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick me. But I’m not that mad yet.

But here is irony at its best.

I quote, one Yehushuan,

“The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”. (I would gently suggest you not read in malevolent intent where none exists.)”

“The following picture is a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE....”.

“Again, since you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus' own text) says “the disciples,” I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one”

“So just tell me what the “real TR” is, and I’ll go prove THAT has “the disciples” written in it.” (“THAT”, “the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press”)

I, confused the Textus Receptus for the actual manuscripts. What does our benevolent ‘gentle’ man do? He claims, “the TR (Erasmus' own text)”.

Note the date, 1522.

For ‘adequate PROOF’, “THIS source”, in fact is, the, “Textus Receptus”, and that ‘THIS’ Textus Receptus indeed contains the words, “the disciples” in Acts 20:7, I quote,

“As can be seen on the first complete line, we read starting with the fifth word, "σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος" (And yes, I underlined the words in red.)” — which is the whole point of our authority in this matter, “One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history”.

To quote this ‘very well versed’ authority,

“The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”

Please note the date, 1633.

Please note our authority claims “The term Textus Receptus comes from”, this 1633 “Greek New Testament”.

But just before, our authority has claimed “The term Textus Receptus” existed, was in use in, and in fact had been, “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”.

To test if I’m mistaken or dishonest, here’s an honest and earnest statement by our better knowing guru, “.... you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus’ own text) says “the disciples”....”.

Jubilating, our ‘very well versed’ authority celebrates victory as were it over the most formidable opponent (meanwhile only me), “I expect an apology.” No sooner, than he repeats demanding acclamation from this non con poop challenger (me), “I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one that’s just one more ad homonym of your bitter old man syndrome).” And a third time! “This is an apology? Hey dude, if you can’t stand to be shown you are wrong then don’t start attacking others who actually know better. You still owe me an apology because YOU wrongly accused ME.”

In the end, I owe my benevolent and gentle instructor an apology over an "innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses (sic.) “we” as found in Acts 20:7".

The tyrant cannot stand the silent taunting of the contemptible.

He who knows better saith: “The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus. That word applies to differences between manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy, etc. .... I find none of your posts to be honest or earnest....”.

Has anyone heard a word from him who knows less, one word to the contrary? He who knows less (that’s me) did in fact confuse, “manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy” for being the ‘Textus Receptus’. That, I did. That, said I, and say I still, and shall I say, is not, “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”.

I also said, still say, and will say, the words, ‘the disciples’, are not contained and do not appear in or on a single manuscript or remainder of a manuscript of the original; not in or on a single first hand, or second, or third hand copied manuscript before Erasmus or before a printed handwriting.

(Except perhaps, in the Vulgate? I’m too lazy to ‘Google’ for the answer. Like the real manuscripts, I have never read the Vulgate, nor intend to. And the Vulgate I won’t and cannot read, not even to save face.)

So that, as it now seems to me, Erasmus was the first person ever to have used the words “the disciples” in his own translation, of the few actual manuscripts which he used to compile his ‘New Testament’ from. None of these few manuscripts (were they five, or six? What does it matter?) contained the words, “the disciples”. And whether or not I personally ever set eyes upon these or any other real manuscripts or photographs of them, changes nothing about my claim they do not contain these words. Until the one so well versed in texts and manuscripts with actual exhibit from before the sixteenth century – at least a photograph of it – the onus rests with anybody but me, to prove the word’s ‘the disciples’ do exist handwritten in Acts where we now posses the demarcation 20:7.

(Can the reader now understand why I won’t be a fundi in text and text-criticism?)

This debate has become a monologue between arrogance and foolishness, because I have always maintained and never denied, the concept of ‘the disciples’ is, first, implied, in verse 7, by the words synehgmenohn and hehmohn; and next, in the context before verse 7, through the disciples’ names being mentioned.

My ‘mistake’ was that I incorrectly thought the actual manuscripts that predated the Textus Receptus, were the Textus Receptus. I admit my folly, and herewith retract and rectify it, with remorse and repentance. I acknowledge my deadly error before everybody, and before everybody do give our well Googled authority due credit for having in this regard steered me back onto the way of his benevolence – a way and a regard he clearly does not understand himself.

My mistake no moment was that I denied the words ‘the disciples’ appear or are contained, in the manuscripts.

Our one so well versed and Googled in these matters is the person who won’t admit fault because it to him seems that he will through admitting weaken his case for a Sunday service supposedly indicated in Acts 20:7. Here are his words:

A) “The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

B) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.””

Now hereby the guy has dug his own grave and written his own epitaph. I shall return to the subject of it with details, a little later.

So having reinvestigated my case, our judge came up with another judgment against his lowly pupil, Gerhard Ebersöhn,

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'. That, I do trust, yes!....”

condemning him,

“You know Ebersöhn this is just pathetic.”

Really enlightening!

My lecturer tells me, “The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus.”

Why does he tell me that? Did I say that in my exam? That is not how I remember my answer. Let’s see. I wrote,

“I have also checked Wigram’s ‘Variants’. I could find no ‘Variant’ that has the word “the disciples”-‘mathehtai’. By ‘variants’ is meant what is in “the Textus Receptus” but not in ‘the Wescott Hort family of codices’ (they’re virtually the same as NA), and vice versa.”

Now here, as far as I am able to discern, appears my vulgar error of having confused the Textus Receptus for the original manuscripts. But I am not able to understand how from this can be concluded that I confused the ‘variants’ for the Textus Receptus. I think I was being done in; I did not earn a pathetic mark. I admit I earned an average, because my actual mistake is very common, one, one should not be surprised to find made by even scholars, more often than not.

Had I further to endure,

“First you say only the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press, not written) and when shown you’re wrong now you spout off something completely inane about “the real TR”?

THAT’S JUST TOTALLY PATHETIC. (Hope that was large enough for you to read.)”

Alright, I was WRONG about “the real TR”; so were you, o master! Difference is, now I have mended my misconception; you persist in yours.

Just like you persist in creating false impressions about me, saying, I first said, “only the Erasmus text is the TR”. I never said that; in fact, that was what I have consistently denied, and blamed you of doing; which in fact you have been doing consistently and uninterruptedly until this very second and until this very second have refused to admit has all the while also been wrong and a mistake of yours.

Then again, yes, “the Erasmus text .... was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg [sic.] press, not written”. Who claimed differently? I? No sir! I asked you – rhetorically – “Whose handwriting is this?” Is it someone else’s? So, it’s not Erasmus’? Come on!

Have you not read the web-page? Its comments to this NT ‘of Erasmus’? How they (or he) in the comments describe this was the first time a certain comma was used? Whose invention was this comma? Was it Erasmus’ handwriting, or the printers’? I won’t know. Fact remains, this printed publication was that of Erasmus, and from the hand of no one else.

But thanks for allowing me a little enjoyment; this is a pleasure ....

“So Acts 20:7 “precisely reads” of us? Does it? Prove it. I

mean SHOW ACTUAL PROOF you poser. Stop pretending. Admit you never Ever saw any of these written manuscripts Erasmus used, and therefore cannot state what any of them “precisely reads.” (Precisely? Your strategy is to lie and then swear to it?)”

Prove:-

Experiment need catalysts lying and swearing:-

Thesis:- Acts 20:7 precisely reads, “of us”.

“ACTUAL PROOF”:-

ALL manuscripts: “synehgmen-OH-n”;

Control:-

ALL manuscripts:- “hehm-OH-n”.

Secondary, confirming proof:-

Erasmus: “t-OH-n matheht-OH-n”.

Result:- Found, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, “of us”.

Test:- Does experiment need catalysts lying and swearing?

Conclusion: No.

9 February 2009

So, after all, there remains a need to say something about, the fact or no fact, “.... the TR does say ‘the disciples’.”

If, the TR were editions or – without permission used “codices” –, like and since the “New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”, then, all I say, is, I admit, and I accept, and offer an apology – a real one; no fake one, and undertake henceforth to be careful not to use the appellation Textus Receptus indiscriminately of any manuscript predating it.

If, the TR were the edition or – without permission used “codex” –, of the “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE.... TR (Erasmus' own text””, then too, all I say, is, I would admit, and would accept, and would offer an apology – a real one; no fake one, and would undertake henceforth to be careful not to use the appellation Textus Receptus indiscriminately of any manuscript predating it.

BUT SINCE “The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”, and therefore cannot formally or legitimately apply to “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE.... TR (Erasmus' own text””, I formally herewith point blank before the entire formal forum confess my stubborn old man syndromic refusal to say an admittance or apology repeating after, “Oh look at that, the TR does say ‘the disciples’”. Never in your life or mine!

Because this is, about me, having been right “about (my) basic premise”, but having been sidetracked and taken with, off the narrow way, and paraded on the broad way the parody before a united (or perhaps not so united) formal board. And heaven help us, we couldn’t have me being right, could we, because then we would have sat with no Scripture at all for our mission in life to prove that we should all worship on Sunday, because God really cares about our worshipping him as long as it’s on Sundays, and might realise that Sunday worship has been our mission in life all along, and not God’s, but all the while has been contrary His care.

Ja, heaven help us, we couldn’t have me being right, could we, or we might start lying and confirming our lying with swearing, “But when Paul met with the disciples in Acts 20, they met on the first day of the week and celebrated communion.”

Have I recently been reminded of Peter and the rooster’s crow? Yea; and his bitterly crying afterwards. Because it was hard for him to war against his conviction, and hard to be tried by fire for the sake of saving his soul. But the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ his Lord and Mighty God and Saviour thus in him gave him a contrite spirit and created in him a new heart.

It has become time I do as I said above I would, “Our one so well versed and Googled in these matters is the person who won’t admit fault because it to him seems that he will through admitting weaken his case for a Sunday service supposedly indicated in Acts 20:7. Here are his words:

A) “The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

B) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.””

Now hereby the guy has dug his own grave and written his own epitaph. I shall return to the subject of it with details, a little later.” (‘Internal Evidence’)

It isn’t much in detail I want to say, so I won’t ask too much of your time. What I want to say is much in meaning though, and so I ask so much of your attention as possible, please. It is all, about the conditions and implication for and of the grammatical phenomenon of the syntactical ‘construct’, called an Absolute Genitive.

According to the thrust of our well Googled instructor’s argument, first understand that to “make a stronger case for the disciples’ gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week”, would be to ‘have’, “the words “the disciples””.

But then also understand according to the thrust of his argumentations, to “make a stronger case for the disciples’ gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week”, it would have been desirable, in fact, necessary or conditional, to here have an Absolute Genitive. I quote him,

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

“Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.”

I don’t want to tell the reader anything YS hasn’t said himself.

Does YS insist we here in Acts 20:7 have a Genitivus Absolutus?

“In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

YS said, “.... the genitive absolute .... indicate(s) a(n) .... action done by ANOTHER party .... in reference to the main action. The main action is PAUL’S speaking.”

I ask, therefore,

Are ‘the disciples’ the ‘doers’ (the ‘Subject’) of ‘the main action’? THEY ARE NOT. Paul, is. YS said so.

Now, what was this again?:-

“In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

This already, had been a self-destructive misconception! “.... the first clause has no noun” --- conditional to form a ‘Genitive Absolute’; YS stated, “In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. .... This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

So, “.... the first clause has no noun....”, yet, “....the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case”. How can there be no noun, but the noun is ....? Simply because the very Genitive Absolute tells the words, ‘the disciples’ are supplied in error. Erasmus made a blunder when he inserted – ‘added in’ – the words ‘the disciples’ into the EXISTING Genitive Absolute.

Rule of the Gen. Abs.,

“Only when there is no syntactical relation between the Subject of the subordinate clausal phrase ‘synegmenohn hehmohn’/‘our (the disciples’) having been gathering still’, and the Verb or Predicate of the principle clause or verbal phrase, ‘Paulos dielegeto’/‘ho Paulos dielegeto’.”

YS alleges: “Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” False!

The Gen. Abs.— “our (the disciples’) gathering”-‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’— ‘is used to describe’, “Paul spoke”.

It is not the words or the use of the words ‘the disciples’, that “describe the disciples’ gathering”; the words ‘the disciples’ are superfluous, and would effectually have destroyed the Genitive Absolute that in fact and correctly, without them, exists and tells about ‘the disciples’ gathering’. From this very presence of the words ‘the disciples’ it is incontrovertibly clear no original, used manuscripts, would have contained them – words that could not have been in there in the first place, or no Genitivus Absolutus – recognised by even YS – could have existed.

And in the second place – by now really insignificant an inducement – should the words ‘the disciples’ have formed the Subject, it is incontrovertibly clear the words should have been in the Nominative Case, and not in the Genitive; so that one would have had a Verb – an Indicative Verb and not a Participle, and its tense probably would have been Imperfect, and not Perfect.

Therefore, the question, “Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”, is wrong, and should have read, Question:- ‘Why — since the inserted noun “disciples” is in the genitive case — did Paul, the Subject of the sentence and ‘main action’, speak? Answer:- “Because the disciples (implied, not mentioned – and NOT the Subject of the ‘main action’) in the First Day of the week having been assembling still”. But mainly, “because the next day he would depart”.

I really benefited from my taking my Greek professor to lunch, although I feel for him that he had to forfeit the only Sunday motivation he thought he had from the Scriptures. A big thank you.

10 February 2009 (edited)

Yehushuan » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:38 pm

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: No Capitulation!

What the crap does that mean?

Gerhard, come back when you learn to speak English.

Wading through your tortuous expressions is just not fruitful. I have better ways to waste my time.

(Like they say, ya can't teach old dogs new tricks)

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, A little trivia for you:

Heinz 57 is a shortened, popular form of the "57 Varieties" slogan of Pittsburgh's H. J. Heinz Company. In its early days, the company wanted to advertise the great number of choices of canned and bottled foods it offered for sale. Although the company had more than 60 products in 1892, the number 57 was chosen because the numbers "5" and "7" held special significance to Heinz. The number "5" was Henry John Heinz's lucky number and the number "7" was his wife's lucky number. The company now has more than 6,000 products. Prepared horseradish was their first product.

In response to the question "What does the '57' stand for in Heinz’s famous slogan, '57 Varieties?'" the Heinz company's official Web site states: "While riding a train in New York City in 1896, Henry Heinz saw a sign advertising 21 styles of shoes, which he thought was clever. Although Heinz was manufacturing more than 60 products at the time, Henry thought 57 was a lucky number. So, he began using the slogan '57 Varieties' in all his advertising. Today the company has more than 5,700 products around the globe, but still uses the magic number of '57.'"

Although the company does not often use the slogan on its products today, the number 57 remains pervasive in its corporate culture and is known worldwide (although younger generations are markedly less familiar with it). In the United States and Britain, the number 57 is still printed on the packaging of various Heinz products.

The slogan is printed on Heinz pickle pins that are distributed by the millions.

Heinz 57 is also the name of one variety of Heinz steak sauce.

By the way I really enjoyed the discussion

JB

GE:

So did I, JB, thank you, I'll give the ‘trivia’ to my wife to read!

GE:

And another thank you to my lunch professor, Yehushuan. I ‘tools-thesaurus-ed’ his word, ‘tortuous’, and made a beautiful discovery --- for me. And came to a happy conclusion, ‘Heinz 57’, ‘tortuous’, and, ‘Byzantine’ which I have seen used to describe the ‘Textus Receptus’ many times and have always (I think correctly) thought had to do with where the TR originated from, have the same meaning— more or less, 'cosmopolitan', ‘mixed’, or as I noticed someone on this thread has described it, ‘mongrelised’. And this is our best source – someone told us – for knowing the words ‘the disciples’ are, “in the Textus Receptus"!

It was lunch hour, well spent.

GE

10 February 2009

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag 43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Part Two of Part Three

7.2.

Acts 20, Holy Communion

In the light of this background of the Church’s life of faith it is not at all surprising to find that the Holy Communion was observed on the Sabbath as integral and formal part of the Church’s Sabbath’s worship.

7.2.0.1.

“From the days of the Apostles”

“So much Scripture”

Says Richard Baxter ^{“The Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day”} of the Sunday, “If so much Scripture as mentioneth the keeping of the Lord’s Day, expounded by the consent and practice of the Universal Church from the days of the Apostles, (all keeping this day as holy, without the dissent of any one Sect, or single person that I remember to have read of), I say, if all this history will not fully prove the point of fact, that this day was kept in the Apostles’ time, and consequently by their appointment, then the same proof will not serve to evince that any text of Scripture is Canonical and uncorrupted; nor can we think that anything in the world that is past, can have historical proof”.

“So much Scripture … expounded … all this history … by the Apostles’ appointment … kept … practiced … consented” … that even the Canonicity and uncorruptedness of all Scripture and historicity or genuineness of the Scriptures could depend on it, is supposed of the First Day!

“So much Scripture” and “all this history” “fully prove the point of fact, that this day was kept in the Apostles’ time, and consequently by their appointment”, says Baxter. Dr. Hawkins though, in his “Bambton Lectures for 1840”, Sermon 5, remarks, “Add then but a few recognitions in the Christian Scriptures themselves of the actual observance of the Lord’s Day even in the age of the Apostles, and with their sanction, nay, apparently with the implied sanction of our Lord Himself and of the Holy Spirit, and we have all the proof which we really require of its Divine authority”.

“So much Scripture” and “all this history”! says Baxter. “But a few recognitions”, says Hawkins. Acts 20:7 and 1Cor.16:2 – two unrelated and incidental “Scriptures”, “and we have all the proof” “we might require” but not God. If Baxter had said of the Sabbath’s histories and Scriptures, “so much Scripture” and “all this history”, it would have made sense and would have contained some truth. But this acrobatics in exegesis serves to illustrate how completely general opinion can be cultivated on artificially sweetened water only. From “but a few recognitions in the Christian Scriptures themselves”, a huge leap of the imagination is taken to the other side of the abyss “of the actual observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) even in the age of the Apostles”. These “few recognitions” now, are supposed to “fully prove the point of fact” and to provide “all the proof which we really require”, of the “implied sanction of our Lord Himself” of the Apostles’ “keeping” of the First Day of the week. “Apparently”, i.e. obviously, also of “the implied sanction of the Holy Spirit” of their “observance” of the First Day as the Lord’s Day. That, not only instils unwarranted magnitude to the “few recognitions” but minimises the massive bulk of “recognitions in the Christian Scriptures themselves” of not only the “implied”, but the actual, “sanction of our Lord Himself and of the Holy Spirit” of the Apostles’ observance of the Sabbath of the Seventh Day, as the Lord’s Sabbath Day.

Of course “the Universal Church from the days of the Apostles, all without the dissent of any one Sect, or single person”, will be silent on dissent or sects on the question of the First Day as against the Sabbath as Day of Worship. For the simple reason that no dissent or sect ever existed on the question. No such question ever arose. If so much Scripture as mentioneth the keeping of the Sabbath, expounded by the consent and practice of the Universal Church within the days of the Apostles, all keeping this day as holy, without the dissent of any one Sect, or single person, I say, if all this history will not fully prove the point of fact that the Sabbath Day was kept in the Apostles’ time, and consequently by their appointment, then the same proof will not serve to evince that any text of Scripture is Canonical and uncorrupted; nor can we think that anything in the world that is past, can have historical proof.

7.2.0.2.1.

New Testament Liturgy

Good Christians have worshipped not knowing they worshipped liturgically, that liturgy was their tool and horse for handling and carrying the Gospel message. Good Christians have worshipped excellently while even underestimating the vital importance of liturgy for their devotion and veneration of the Lord. Said Spurgeon, “Certain weaklings have said, “let us have a liturgy!” Rather than seek divine aid they will go down to Egypt for help. Rather than be dependent upon the Spirit of God, they will pray by a book! For my part, if I cannot pray, I would rather know it, and groan over my soul’s barrenness till the Lord shall again visit me with fruitfulness of devotion. If you are filled with the Spirit, you will be glad to throw off all formal fetters, that you may commit yourself to the sacred current, to be borne along till you find waters to swim in. Sometimes you will enjoy closer fellowship with God in prayer in the pulpit than you have known anywhere else. To me my greatest secrecy in prayer has often been in public; my truest loneliness with God has occurred to me while pleading in the midst of thousands. I have opened my eyes at the close of a prayer and come back to the assembly with a sort of shock at finding myself upon earth and among men. Such seasons are not at our command, neither can we raise ourselves into such conditions by any preparations or efforts. How blessed they are both to the minister and his people no tongue can tell! How full of power and blessing habitual prayerfulness must also be I cannot here pause to declare, but for it all we must look to the Holy Spirit, and blessed be God we shall not look in vain, for it is especially said of Him that He helped our infirmities in prayer.”

The use and benefit of liturgy could not be described or defined better. Liturgy is not a book of prayers. It is not “cold”. It is the sum of Christian worship in action outwardly. The strong who knows his own weakness will certainly employ liturgy in his worship. He would rather say, If you are filled with the Spirit, you will be glad to submit to all formal upliftment, that you may commit yourself to the sacred current, to be borne along till you find waters to swim in. Instead of images and icons your help “if the supply of the Spirit be scant” will be nothing but the Spirit in the invisible operations of its power.

Liturgy constitutes formal worship. It projects through order, form and atmosphere the object and content of Christian Faith and Congregation. Liturgy channels the thoughts and spirit to God the Holy Spirit and Christ. God chooses to so work and to be so worshipped. He is not served or honoured where the instruments He provides for implementation in His worship are neglected, despised and discarded. The moment the Body which is Christ’s is realised, liturgy comes into play. Congregation of Believers immediately and primarily pre-supposes liturgy. Congregation of Believers in Worship of the Lord already is liturgy. Prayer, song, confession, praise, study, proclamation, are not only enriched but conditioned by formal order, sacred nature, sequence and recurrence. Wherever The Church comes to life in the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ, liturgy appears. It not only accompanies all aspects and events of worship but is an indispensable aspect and in itself event, of Christian worship. “If we are to be much in the spirit of prayer, we need sacred oil to be poured upon the sacred fire of our heart’s devotion; we want to be again and again visited by the Spirit of grace and supplication”, says Spurgeon, not conscious that he actually pleads for the necessity of liturgy.

Christ Jesus’ Death and Resurrection are the centre and gravity of Christian Worship and therefore of Christian Liturgy. For this very reason of its nature and essence, it is wrong to identify liturgy with restricted ceremonies and rites of Christian Worship, such as sacrament, confirmation and consecration. Liturgy

constitutes formal Christian Worship as a whole and in all its forms, events and aspects.

Where and when Christian Worship celebrates its Lord’s great deeds of redemption, its celebrating is liturgical – its celebration is liturgy. Thus when and where the Church proclaims the Gospel, teaches the people, makes disciples, baptises, eats the Lord’s Supper, or celebrates the Lord’s Day, liturgy is central and fundamental. Liturgy witnesses to each and every practice of the Church as Christian practice and Christian Church.

The ancients were wise to expect of the simple as sufficient to know by heart the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23 and perhaps the Apostolic Articles of Faith. The ancients were wise to expect of the ordinary folk to attend the sermon and the sacraments and no more. The same thing each time by the power of the Holy Spirit makes of it the blessed Tidings of Salvation to the poor in knowledge and understanding. The simplest of liturgy each time becomes new and refreshing to the wisest and greatest of believers. The Spirit does it. “The Lord is the fortress of my life” – that steadiness which is the variety and spice, “the strength of my life”. Liturgy is what the Lord provides to transfer that help and comfort of the Holy Spirit in real life to the soul of the believer in Jesus Christ.

Not least, but first and most important, liturgy witnesses to the institution and practice of the Lord’s Day as Christian practice and Christian institution. First and foremost in any and all of its church-life is the Chrurch’s congregation – its assembling in the Name of Jesus its Lord. Whenever the “there” of Christian Congregation and Worship occurs, there and then the “when” of Christian Congregation and Worship occurs. The Church is the Lord’s Body where, and, when, it congregates and worships. “Where”, asks the Heidelberg Confession, “is the Church?” It answers, “Where the Gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments are observed correctly”. That happens and ought to happen “every Sabbath Day” when in the faith of Jesus the Resurrected Lord the Church congregates and worships.

So, if one wants to find the when in the Church-life of authentic and authoritative Christianity – in the Apostolic Congregation – one must find Christian Worship of the Resurrected Jesus first. And where one finds that – Worship of the Resurrected Jesus, there shall one find the Christian When – the Christian Sabbath Day. Liturgy unmistakably pin points the Christian Day of Worship and Rest – the formal, orderly, regular and set Christian Day of Worship and Rest – the formal instrument and channel of the operations of the Holy Spirit.

Apostolic, New Testament, Liturgy, proves the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God is the Lord’s Day. F not, the Scriptures and the Gospel aren’t proclaimed truthfully and correctly. Then the sacraments aren’t those of Christ. Apostolic, New Testament, Liturgy, proves the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God is the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead. That was its Sabbathly message, its Sabbathly devotion, its Sabbathly worship – that, and nothing but that. It had, no, other message, no other occasion, no other devotion, no other worship. NOTHING but Jesus Christ RESURRECTED from the dead!

“Christ's resurrection tells me, not only that Christ died to pay the penalty of my sins, but also that He lives to empower me to live victoriously. Some Christians focus on Christ's crib and others on His Cross, but ultimately it is His resurrection that gives us the reassurance that "He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). The resurrection tells me that Christ is not on vacation recovering from the exhaustion of His earthly mission, but He is actively working at the right hand of God (Eph 1:20) to bring to consummation the redemption he accomplished on this earth.” S. Bacchiocchi, News Letter.

Christ's resurrection therefore tells me, that Christ rose from the dead “in Sabbath’s-time” – in liturgy-time!

From Bacchiocchi’s words, “Christ's resurrection tells me, not only that Christ died to pay the penalty of my sins, but also …”, the first thing to be noticed, is that “Christ's resurrection tells …that Christ died”. Jesus’ resurrection, is confessed, “from the dead”. His resurrection and death are Christ’s one act. The one without the other cannot be – not in the case of Christ. But if we could imagine the one without the other, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then death would have been His only and single act – and we would have been left without hope or comfort. Then Jesus’ life and ours would have been no different – only a prelude to death. And if we could imagine the one without the other the other way round – Jesus’ resurrection without His death – then we would have to imagine … the impossible! The fact and truth that Jesus rose from the dead confirms His death as divine and divinely willed and acted. Then Jesus’ death and resurrection are the phases or aspect of His eternal and planned and executed council.

Jesus’ resurrection makes His death the Christian’s joy in God’s salvation. Were Jesus not raised from the dead the Christian’s joy would be grief, his worship, anguish, like the heathens’. Were it not for Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, Christianity, the Faith of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ, would never have been. The Church – the liturgical assembly of the saints – would never have appeared in history. Its worship would not have been – If Christ were not raised from the dead. (Not the other way round, as if Jesus Christ were the mental projection of some first century enthusiasts, as if the Church were the creator of the Christ-idea.)

So the worship of the Christian Faith proclaims as well as reflects nothing but Jesus’ death and resurrection from the dead and death. The Church’s very existence in essence and in form is about Jesus’ deeds of redemption, and his resurrection first and foremost is that redemption verily, ultimately and comprehensively.

The worshipping Church is the elect living and acting the faith of Jesus Christ – the Faith of Jesus Christ Crucified and Risen. Its every aspect, its core and circumference, its past and future, its constitution and formal manifestation, all, proclaim, witness, praise and worship the only begotten Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth – the Risen Lord. And that is liturgy – the collective word for the event of Christian worship. There is nothing the Church does that is not based on the truth of the Risen Lord and that does not proclaim the Risen Lord. The cause for congregation, is the Risen Lord. The object worshipped, is the Risen Lord. He is praised with song. He is prayed to. He, the Word, is preached. He is remembered and confessed and worshipped in and through sacrament. It is the Risen Lord worshipped or it is not the Christian Church, not the life of the Faith of Christ, not the system, not the order, not the reality, not the Spirit … NOT THE DAY OF HIS WORSHIP! And then, while it is Church, the life of the Faith of Christ, and the system and the order and the reality and the Spirit of the Resurrected Christ – then, the very reality of the Sabbath Day, is there!

Now see the Church a living unit and unity in Jesus Christ, and you see congregation, worship, prayer, song, confession, preaching, sacrament – order! You see the Church an event of the Holy Spirit. You see it distinguished, separate and separated from any kind of creation and collectivism, even distinguished, separate and separated from individual members and believers – you see the Body which is Christ’s. And, you see formal Christian worship – liturgy! Christian worship and liturgy are almost identifiable. And they definitely are inseparable. The life of each is caught up the one in the other.

Now see this Church in its beginnings, directly coming into being from the events of Christ and the Holy Spirit, as portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles – as portrayed in the Scriptures! See all the things already mentioned: congregation, order, sacrament, witness, charity … the how and the where of the Christian Faith. Then notice one other thing. Not something different or strange, but something that intrinsically and essentially is Christian Faith and worship. See Christian Faith and worship as truly and basically as the Church’s congregating, as truly and basically as the confessing of and the witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ through prayer, song, or sacrament. See the Church’s keeping of the Sabbath Day!

Ultimately it is His resurrection that gives us the assurance that He is able to save those who draw near to God through Him. Ultimately it is Jesus’ Resurrection that gives origin to the Church and its worship and the way it worships. Ultimately it is Jesus’ Resurrection that gives origin to liturgy. Liturgy tells Who the Lord the Church worships, is. Liturgy tells: It is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Liturgy tells Christ rose from the dead in Sabbath’s time exactly because liturgy tells the Lord worshiped is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ – every Sabbath Day! Why did the Church congregate and worship? How did it worship? Whom did the Church worship through form and order? Of course it all is summed up in one word, the Risen Christ! Therefore did the Church assemble and therefore the Church worshipped. And therefore it was on the Sabbath every time the Church assembled and worship and practised the content and intent and extent of its Faith.

If ever anything proves the fact of Jesus’ resurrection “in Sabbath’s time” it is its going to Church on the Sabbath! The early Church had no liturgy but its Sabbath liturgy – which was a resurrection liturgy through and through. Every aspect of Christian worship of the Apostolic Church was one concerning the Risen Lord Jesus. It came together for no other reason, through no other cause, by no other Power. It used each Sabbath’s hours for no other reason, through no other cause, by no other Power. In fact, liturgy – Christian Faith’s formal worship, is the only word the New Testament has to say about the Sabbath Day, the Seventh Day of the week.

The attempt of false teaching to lay this foundation for the Sunday comes down to this single factor, the factor of liturgy. Could liturgy be ascribed to the Sunday, it, instead of the Sabbath, should be or would have been the Christian day of worship-rest. It shows that in principle the argument of liturgy is absolute and final. When applied to Sunday sacredness the argument is full proof. But when applied to the Sabbath it is ridiculed.

The factor of liturgy even proves which is the false claim. Whenever claimed for Sunday, the proof of liturgy is invariably denied the Sabbath. Whenever claimed for the Sabbath, the argument of liturgy for argument’s sake should also be allowed for Sunday – one should then only have to present those instances of liturgical worship by the Apostolic Church on Sunday. But if one fails to present such evidence, of course the argument of liturgy won’t help Sunday. Liturgy must then support the Sabbath.

But if the argument of liturgy be denied the Sabbath by arguments for the Sabbath, something drastic must be wrong. Returning then to Bacchiocchi’s nice sounding remark here quoted, it no longer sounds that nice. Christ’s resurrection one now can see, is separated from its moment of truth and effectiveness: Christ's resurrection is separated from His empowering to live victoriously. His resurrection is something else than His making intercession and ability to save. His resurrection-life was short lived and lost effect. Jesus’ resurrection presumably disposes not of everlasting power to draw near to God. Jesus’ resurrection is not His working at the right hand of God nor the consummation or the accomplishment of salvation. The resurrection merely tells me that Christ is not on vacation recovering from the exhaustion of His earthly mission – which implies a “heavenly” benefit that precludes from his resurrection that very benefit. In stead of keeping focussed on Christ’s resurrection this applause loses sight of it. And seen in the context of its statement – why the Passover should not be celebrated liturgically – this applause precludes the Christian Sabbath its only reason of validity for the People of God, namely Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, His entering into His own Rest.

The apostles immediately after Christ’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit proceeded to institute a form and content of worship in order to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection by a distinctive liturgy. This development is obvious in each and every contexts of the mention of the Sabbath in the Acts as well as Gospels. Nothing but Christ’s resurrection on the Sabbath Day can account for the phenomenon.

Indication of this development – the apostles’ immediate proceeding after Christ’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to institute a form and content of worship in order to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection by a distinctive liturgy, enjoys biblical and historical support, because in the Apostolic Church the Resurrection was seen as an existential reality experienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Saviour, and consequently as a liturgical practice associated with formal worship. Although the name "Day of the Resurrection" does not appear in the New Testament its documents imply the commemoration of Jesus' resurrection on the Sabbath (e.g., Acts 2, 13, etc.).

“If the primitive Jerusalem Church had pioneered and promoted Sundaykeeping because they no longer felt at home with Jewish Sabbathkeeping, we would expect to find in such a church an immediate break away from Jewish religious traditions and services. But the opposite is the case. Both the book of Acts as well as several Judeo-Christian documents clearly reveal that the ethnic composition and the theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church were profoundly Jewish” says Bacchiocchi. But he fails to notice how profoundly the Jerusalem Church was the Resurrection Church! The fact that the primitive Jerusalem Church did not pioneer and promote Sundaykeeping but felt at home with Jewish Sabbathkeeping, proves that they accommodated their Resurrection-Faith within Sabbath-keeping. Luke's characterisation of the Jerusalem Church as "zealous for the law"

(Acts 21:20), hardly allows for the abandonment of the Church’s chief reason for existence, its Faith of the Risen Christ!

Bacchiocchi’s argument therefore is irrelevant. He gets side-tracked by his occupation with the Sunday-issue, an issue that was non-existent in the Apostolic Church (as we know it at least) and therefore cannot be brought into consideration rationally. The existential difference between Jewish and Old-Testament worship on the one hand and Christian worship on the other in the same Temple and in the same Synagogue and on the same Day of Worship had nothing to do with the Day as such, but with its significance for the different faiths. The one party observed it religiously and legalistically. The other celebrated and observed it for being The-Day-Of-Its-Worshipped-Lord – The Day-of-Christ’s-Resurrection-From-The-Dead and all that that implied. The most practical implication of all that, was that the Sabbath and its observance by the first Christians, liturgically implicated and indicated the Christian Faith’s Saviour’s Day of Resurrection.

7.2.0.2.2.

The New Testament “Church” Day

“Despite the fact that the Sabbath did not shift from ‘Saturday’ to ‘Sunday’, there is a thorough relation between the Seventh and the First Day of the week … There is a certain transfer of emphasis between the Old Testament Sabbath’s appreciation and Jesus’ practice of the Sabbath.

In the Old Testament emphasis undeniably falls on the rest day. There is of course sporadic mention that the sabbath also is a day for congregation. Thus, e.g., the expression in Leviticus 23:3, ‘a holy day of celebration’ (Afrikaans Translation) should rather be translated ‘a holy meeting’ (‘convocation’, AV) as in Exodus 12:16. But the whole idea that the Sabbath in particular is Church Day, a day to assemble, to praise the Lord and to listen to his Word, we do not find in the Old Testament. In fact, it could not. The Jews outside Jerusalem (before the exile) didn’t have a place to gather.

What is striking is that what we know about the first congregations’ celebration of the First Day exactly correlates with what Jesus did on the Sabbath (and actually all his life) : They as Congregation assembled (Acts 20:7) and in particular chose the day for charity (1Cor.16:2).” ^{Prof. Adrio Koenig, Sondag., p. 48 / 49}

What we know about “the first congregations’ celebration”, through consideration (above) of their Congregational assemblies, exactly correlates with what Jesus did … on the Sabbath (and actually all his life) : They as Congregation assembled on the … Sabbath! Now isn’t that striking!

Notice the preconceived idea, “what we know” … already! “Our knowledge” is not derived through consideration of “the first congregations’ celebration”. We have decided beforehand it is the First Day. The very same tactics are used to start Prof. Koenig’s argumentation: “Despite the fact that the Sabbath did not shift from ‘Saturday’ to ‘Sunday’, there is a thorough relation between the Seventh and the First Day of the week … There is a certain transfer of emphasis …” that in the end applies to the First as thoroughly as it is preconceived that there exists a thorough relation between the Seventh and the First Day of the week. The outcome is taken for granted even before a single Scripture has been cited or considered in support of the assumed “undeniable” and “certain” attributes of the First Day. Meanwhile Prof. Koenig actually talks of the Sabbath!

The Professor certainly and undeniably is strikingly confused. He contradicts his own assertion, “In the Old Testament emphasis … falls on the rest day. There is … mention that the sabbath also is a day for congregation. Thus, e.g., the expression in Leviticus 23:3, ‘a holy day of celebration’ (Afrikaans Translation) should rather be translated ‘a holy meeting’ (‘convocation’, AV) as in Exodus 12:16. But the whole idea that the Sabbath in particular is Church Day, a day to assemble … we do not find in the Old Testament”.

Prof. Koenig, nevertheless, correctly asserts that in the Old Testament the Sabbath has not reached its full status of being “Church” Day. That status, again as he correctly asserts, had only been granted the Sabbath through its New Testament application, appointment and observance by Jesus and the New Testament Church. The only problem facing his assertions is to indicate the relevance of it all to the First Day while denying the relevance to the Sabbath Day!

But Prof. Koenig is too assertive. Says he, “The whole idea that the Sabbath in particular is Church Day, a day to assemble, to praise the Lord and to listen to his Word, we do not find in the Old Testament. In fact, it could not. The Jews outside Jerusalem (before the exile) didn’t have a place to gather.”

Before the exile there had been the Temple; and before the Temple there had been the Tabernacle; and before and after the Tabernacle there had been the home “to gather”. And before it all there had been Eden where God had met with Man and Eve. In fact, the very absence of repeated mention of “in the Temple (or Tabernacle)”, “on the Sabbath Day”, each time Congregational and Devotional assembling happened, is surest indication that Congregational and Devotional assembling “in the Temple (or Tabernacle)”, “on the Sabbath Day” was the usual, the normal and the Institutional. For example, only one Psalm (in some manuscripts) is called a Psalm “for the Sabbath Day”. Now does that mean only this Psalm had ever been sung on the Sabbath and on no other day? “Certainly” just the opposite! It implies, as implies the very nature of the Psalms collectively, that the normal, usual and institutional thing was to sing Psalms especially on the Sabbath Day. The same sort of indication is found in the very act or event of assembling. The exercise of “assembling”, “calling / call together”, “convocation”, “reading” (all from the Hebrew word miqra), or of “chance”, “event”, “happening”, “befall” (all from the Hebrew word miqreh) supposes some Day–For-Coming-Together. This day or days are often deemed “holy” and its gathering, “holy”, implying their special and Institutional character. Therefore they are reckoned “Feasts”. (Lv.23:1) These Days when very special were announced by blowing of the trumpet! (2Chr.29:28-29) These Days’ were accentuated with “proclamation” of God’s Word (Lv.2:2) . “Prayer” and “song” marked these Days as Days of Congregational worship, Neh.8, 2Chr.29:28-29. They are most intimately connected with the act of observance of “rest” where specifically the Sabbath of the Seventh day is the Day, as in Lv.23:2-3. The Fourth Commandment invokes God’s people to “remember” the Sabbath Day. The Sabbath Day is “separated”, “the Seventh Day”, implying perpetual recurrence. Through “remembrance”, the “remembrance” as a matter of course and perpetual recurrence is implied of the Congregated People through Worship of the Creator and Redeemer. Thus to “remember the Sabbath Day to keep it specially (holy), implies its as a matter of course and perpetual recurrence being an institution “for ever” for assembling and worship.

The conclusion is inevitable that we most definitely do find in the Old Testament the whole idea that the Sabbath in particular was Church Day, a day to assemble, to praise the Lord and to listen to his Word. In fact, it could not be otherwise. Wherever outside Jerusalem the Jews would find a place to gather, even if it had to be “by the rivers of Babylon … in a strange land.” ^{Ps. 137} And, seeing Prof. Koenig and all the others think the Sabbath is so Jewish, would “we (Jews) sit down being come together there singing and weeping while we remembered Zion”, also not have “remembered” the Sabbath Day “to keep it holy”? We most definitely would.

But as Prof. Koenig further demonstrates (not quoted here) we need not doubt about the Sabbath’s observance when it comes to the lifetime of Jesus and the apostles. And if their times may have any bearing on our observance of the Sabbath, may not the remotest time, the time of creation? May not the same obvious and meaningful scarcity if not total absence of direct reference to a keeping of the Sabbath Day during patriarchal times explain its continued observance by at least the faithful since creation? It was the same Word proclaimed in New Testament times after all that was proclaimed through creation when on the Seventh Day God rested. Would God not “again speak of the Seventh Day” that in it “He entered into his rest”? Was not “the Gospel preached to them as well as unto us”? ^{Hb. 4:2} Would God not finally speak through the same Word that “in the Sabbath” He would rise and enter into his glory, the glory of his finishing and rest “in the fullness of time”?

In the light of this background of the life of faith of the Church of all time then, but more than any time, in the light of the time of the life of faith of the Church of the New Testament, it is not at all surprising to find that Holy Communion was observed on the Sabbath as integral and formal part of the Church’s Sabbath’s worship.

7.2.0.3.

The Usual Explanation But Not the Usual Day

The usual interpretation given to Acts 20:7 may be represented by the Living Bible’s version, “On Sunday we gathered for a communion service with Paul preaching”. So how could it be alleged that the Holy Communion was actually celebrated on the Sabbath? Translators do their best to make such a finding “from the Scriptures” impossible. Yet it can be discovered even from translations of the Scriptures here in Acts 20. Marshall’s interlinear literal rendering of verse 7 of the Nestle Selection of Apparatus unveils certain definitive facets of the meaning of the Greek. He has, “On the First of the week having been assembled = as we were assembled to break bread Paul lectured to them being about to depart on the morrow”.

Says Ds. A.J. van Staden, ^{The Sabbatarians and the Bible, HAUM, Cape Town, RSA 1975, p. 31} “According to this text (Acts 20:7) Paul that Sunday not only proclaimed the Gospel, but he also served the Lord’s Supper. … The (Sabbatarian’s) argument that this gathering was an exceptional assembly, also does not satisfy, because the fact that they (the congregations) on that occasion celebrated the Lord’s Supper, raises the idea that it was a gathering at the usual time. Hoekema justly asks, “if there was no special significance in the day on which the Christians met, why should Luke take the trouble to say, as he does, ‘on the first day of the week’? This item of information could well have been omitted if it conveyed a fact of no importance. That Luke mentions it, shows that already at this time Christians were gathering for worship on the first day of the week.” (The Four major Cults, p. 166).” (Emphasis CGE)

Traditional Christians across the board seem to have memorised some explanation for Acts 20:7 along these lines. They without exception base their conclusions on the assumptions that, 1, Paul “preached” and administered Holy Communion; 2, that the Congregation assembled on Sunday. These basic suppositions will be dealt with now. But consider first the question put another way,

If, this gathering had been a fortuitous assembly rather than “exceptional” – a gathering directly due to the apostles’ itinerary?

If, the assembled “on that occasion” did not congregate nor celebrate the Lord’s Supper?

If, Paul did not “preach” or “proclaim the Gospel”?

If, here “congregation” not in the sense of “Church” is the case, but “congregation” in the sense of “the company”?

If, “When being still together on the First Day having had assembled for Holy Communion, Paul “addressed them” the “company”?

When would “the usual time” then have been but on the Sabbath before? “The usual time” then would naturally be the day the Church was accustomed to meet on, as had been the case right through the Acts and throughout the history of the Apostolic Church many times over and over again (as has been shown). This instance agrees to the letter grammatically speaking, “when being still together on the First Day we having had assembled for Holy Communion” … the Sabbath before!

The conclusion is perfectly justified, Had the day on which the Christians met no special significance, why should Luke take the trouble to say, as he does, “being still together on the First Day having had assembled for Holy Communion before”? This item of information – the invariably ignored Perfect Participle, could well have been omitted if it conveyed a fact of no importance. That Luke mentions it shows that at this time Christians were all along gathering for worship on the Sabbath Day that naturally comes before the evening of the First Day. “First Day”, being the “Jewish” denomination for the “Jewish” day, “first” in the time-cycle of the “Jewish” “week”, and reckoned the “Jewish” way from evening to afternoon inclusive.

7.2.1.

Which Day of the Week?

Luke says, “on the First Day of the week, Paul lectured to them” – en tehi miai tohn sabbatohn ho Paulos dielegeto autois. Paul lectured “until midnight”. Paul reckoning the day-cycle the Jewish way, the night of the First Day is our present day “Saturday night”. If he reckoned the day as we nowadays do, the Roman way, the night of the First Day before midnight would be what we nowadays call Sunday evening. When after midnight, then it no longer would be Sunday, but the Second Day, Monday. Now if Paul “broke bread” only shortly before sunrise, the Lord’s Supper occurred on Monday. If the keeping of the Lord’s Supper hallows the day – as some allege – then not Sunday, but Monday should be the Christian Day of worship. Should Paul ordinarily have enjoyed food before leaving and did not serve the Bread of Holy Communion, then one might fairly ask, If the Church came together for the purpose of taking Holy Communion, why is it nowhere mentioned in Acts 20? Did Holy Communion occur “on the First Day of the week” at all?

“At Troas, many years after the occurrence at Pentecost, when Christianity had begun to assume a more settled form, we find that something of this sort occurred,

James Augustus Hessey	The Text Uncompromising
St. Paul and his companions arrived there, and “abode seven days, and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.	Paul and his companions arrived there, and abode seven days. While upon the First Day being together still having had assembled for the Lord’s Supper before, Paul discussed matters with the company.

Now one would think that unless the first day of the week had been already the stated day of Christian assembling, St. Luke’s narrative would have run thus,

Now one would think (conclude!) that unless the Sabbath before the First Day all along had normally and formally been the stated day of Christian assembling, St. Luke’s narrative would have run thus,

“On the last day of Paul’s stay, he called the disciples together to break bread, and preached unto them.”

On the last day of Paul’s stay, while being together still upon the First Day, after having had gathered to Break Bread (the Sabbath having had ended shortly before), Paul (used the opportunity and) discussed matters (of imminent importance).

But his language is very different – “the first day of the week”, evidently their usual day of meeting for the religious purpose of “breaking bread”, and of receiving instruction …	Clearly his language is very ordinary “On the First Day or the week”, evidently after having had assembled on their usual meeting for the religious purpose of “breaking bread”, Paul then instructed them
The matter of course way in which these circumstances are introduced seems to indicate that these were points already established.”	The matter of course way in which these circumstances are introduced indicates quite clearly that these were points already established.

Says Paul Jewett, ^{The Lord’s Day, 1971, p. 60/61} “The key phrase for our investigation is: ‘When we were gathered for the breaking of bread’ … This phrase has a formal character about it; the verb for ‘gathering together’ is a technical term describing assembly for worship and the expression ‘breaking of bread’ occurs frequently in primitive Christian literature to designate a spesific Christian meal … One therefor can only conclude that the author of Acts is describing a well-known type of structured Christian assembly … And the manner in which it is described indicates a usage of sufficiently long standing by the late fifties that the day on which it occurred

may be regarded as the regular day for such worship among Christians.” (Emphasis CGE.)

Jewett further says in the quoted passage, “Here is the earliest clear witness to Christian assembly for purposes of worship on the first day of the week”.

“The key phrase for our investigation” being ‘When we were gathered for the breaking of bread’, it having “a formal character about it”, and “the verb for ‘gathering together’” being “a technical term describing assembly for worship” it speaks for itself that it should receive due attention. Now the phrase as Jewett presents it above clearly does not contain any “witness to Christian assembly for purposes of worship on the first day of the week”. Nor does it “indicate a usage of sufficiently long standing” that the First Day “may be regarded as the regular day for worship among Christians.” Jewett uses the concepts “designate”, “conclude”, “indicates”, “may be regarded”, each a way of expressing conclusion, opinion and interpretation. The question should rather be whether Jewett’s conclusion that “Here is the earliest clear witness to Christian assembly for purposes of worship on the first day of the week” is justified by the given data from which he thus concludes. Do Luke’s statements allow for conclusions such as Jewett’s? Do Luke’s statements, and their implications, favour the First Day as Christian Day of Worship, or do they favour the Sabbath as the Christian Day of Worship?

7.2.1.0.1.

Typical Misrepresentation

“And upon the First Day of the week, as the disciples gathered for Holy Communion, Paul preached to them. Because he would depart the next day, he preached till midnight.”

Professor Adrio Koenig, ^{Sondag (“Sunday”), NGK Publishers} comments:

“The important question with this text is, whether the Congregation as a rule assembled on the First Day of the week, and whether it only happened this one time on the First Day because Paul would have departed the next day”.

The important thing to keep in mind when considering Prof. Koenig’s question though is all the misconceived presuppositions upon which his question is based. The translation of the text is a shameless twisting of about every possible linguistic principle of the Greek language, as will become clear through our discussion. The textual manipulations are most glaringly reflected in the (common) suppositions that the “congregation” is involved; that the “Church” actually “assembled” on the First Day; that Paul “preached”, and that he “extended” his “sermon” till midnight “because” he would leave the next day.

“Certain given facts are important in this context”, Prof. Koenig continues with wild assuming: “Congregation … meets … Jewish Sabbath”:

“In the first place we should take notice that the Congregation meets the first day after the Jewish Sabbath for Holy Communion (“to break bread” in verse 7). If they still kept the seventh day, why did they not come together on that day to hear Paul for the last time?”

It will shortly be shown that “they” indeed did come together, and, on the Seventh Day. It will be shown through the fact that the text does not have the noun, “Congregation”, as a subject at all; It will be shown through the fact that the text does not have a finite verb as a predicate that says that the Congregation “assembled” or “came together”. It will be shown that the text has a word – a Perfect Participle – of substantival and adjectival force which means, “We as the assembled (company of missionaries) being together still (on the First Day)”. That simply but absolutely implies that any actual coming together had taken place before “the first day …”and therefore on and not “… after the Jewish Sabbath”! The word intentionally wrongly translated finite and indicative, “met”, “came together”, “congregated”, “assembled”, answers Prof. Koenig’s question, “If they still kept the seventh day, why did they not come together on that day?” And the answer is, They in fact did “come together” on, and “still kept the seventh day” … without violating one iota of Scripture or of its evangelical fulfilment in Jesus.

“To hear Paul for the last time”? The same “company”, “attending still on the First Day” that heard Paul out till midnight, would leave with him, and again would meet to listen to him, “for the last time” at Miletus, 20:17.

“To hear Paul for the last time”? Nowhere will an Infinitive of the verb “to hear” be found in the text. The words that Luke uses imply the “company’s” participation in Paul’s “discussion” and in his “intention”. Not so much their “hearing” but as much their participation is implied. The word Luke does use in the Infinitive supplies certain indication of the cause rather than of the purpose of the “company’s” “being together”. “We”, “while having had assembled before for the Lord’s Supper and now being together still on the First Day, Paul addressed

them, he intending to depart the morrow”.

“Because we have to add here that Paul was in great haste, so much in haste that he, according to verse 16, does not even allow himself the time to go ashore at Ephesus, ‘for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost’. Even so he waits specifically for the first day of the week (despite the fact that he had been there since Monday, according to verse 6) before he presents his parting sermon to the congregation. It is senseless if the congregation had been together on the previous (seventh) day.”

Each of the factors here listed are irrelevant to the “question with this text” on the First Day as Day of Christian Worship. Each assumed factor contradicts the other regardless of their bearing on the issue. It makes no sense that Paul “does not even allow himself the time to go ashore at Ephesus” to travel by ship, but prefers the much slower going by foot. Why would he stay seven days at Troas yet for no noteworthy reason be in such a hurry that hours counted? Why would Paul be in such a hurry on this night yet extend his discussions till midnight and enjoy comradeship with his fellowmen till break of day? Why not leave immediately or go to sleep in order to be able to move faster in the morning? What difference would the few hours of this night make in any case to a journey that would extend over several days or even weeks, and that to all indication never reached its goal, Pentecost at Jerusalem? No, every step of the travel “company’s” journey was “planned” … that very night at Troas, and Paul was in no particular hurry “because he would leave the next day”.

“(Paul) could have left any time”, says Prof. Koenig. But “he had already decided beforehand that he would travel by foot from Troas”. Now this obviously had been Paul’s idea, but his resolve or decision, expressly noticed by Luke, was “to depart the morning”. So Paul “could have left any time” but chose not to. He could not have been in such a great hurry. Paul quite relaxed “enjoyed the company” of his friends “till break of day”.

The popular traditional impression that the “Pentecostal” Christians were kind of super human beings, also here proves to be mythical. Even if Paul had the energy and ability to “preach” right through the night it remains incomprehensible that his “congregation” would have been able to give attention right through the night. No, from midnight on the night seems to have been spent in a more relaxed way than the intense “dialogue on matters” (“action” – handel, High Dutch) that had gone on before midnight. (See further Par. 7.2.3.1.)

“He had been there since Monday, according to verse 6”. How does Prof. Koenig work that out? Only if he counted days inclusively and assumed that Luke uses a sunrise reckoning of the day could his count be possible. Luke counted exclusively, for no one could be confused by the chronology of events and days as Luke narrates it. The missionaries named in verse 4 “went before to meeting us”. Then “we” (Luke and Paul?), “after five days met them at Troas where we stayed for seven days. And on the (following) First Day being together still after having had congregated on Holy Communion (the Sabbath immediately before) Paul discoursed with them, prepared to depart the morning”. Luke’s exclusive “matter of course way”, ^(Hessey) of narration, mentioning each grouping of days separately, allows for no other day of Paul’s arrival than a Sunday, and the seventh day after his arrival consequently a Sabbath.

“It consequently is clear that the congregation in Troas did not meet on the Sabbath”, says Prof. Koenig. He is wrong about the “congregation”, about the “did meet”, and about the day and time of the implied act of meeting, “on the Sabbath”.

“(It consequently is clear) further also that this meeting wasn’t arranged because Paul would leave the next day.” Quite correct. It was the spontaneous continuance of the meeting that had originally taken place on the Sabbath. The company not only found their last day at Troas the proper occasion to enjoy the Lord’s Supper. But they afterwards found the circumstance opportune to receive Paul’s instructions as to their intended journey and future strategies for proclaiming the Gospel. So after sunset “on the evening of the First Day (the evening after the Sabbath and the Lord’s Supper) while being together still Paul addressed them, in view of his departure the morning / next day”. These aspects of the Troas event disallow the assumption that “They as a rule gathered on the first day of the week and that Paul had waited all week for this”. These aspects indicate and imply just the opposite, that Paul had not waited all week for this, but it accidentally occurred under circumstances that resulted from their keeping of the Sabbath (and the Lord’s Supper on the Sabbath) as a rule.

“The text says expressly they gathered to break bread”. The text expressly says not “they gathered”, to repeat.

“The text says expressly …Paul addressed them because he would depart the next day”. Correct again. “There is no possibility that they had gathered because Paul would depart the next day and it therefor was an extraordinary meeting.” An extraordinarily correct observation! Nevertheless translations do incorrectly interpret the text to the effect that: “Paul addressed them because he would depart the next day”. (This is literally the Afrikaans translation Prof. Koenig uses. See further Ds. Momberg.) The situation in the upper room “on the First Day of the week” at Troas was no extraordinary meeting and no meeting actively at all. It was the result of a meeting actively before, the result of “being together still after the assembly on Holy Communion” … the Sabbath before.

7.2.1.1.

Luke’s Day-Reckoning

How does Luke view the day cycle? Does he understand and express it as the Jews do, or, he being from the heathen, does he reckon the day as the Romans do? F.F. Bruce, e.g., ^{“the New International Commentary on the NT, “the Book of Acts”, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Michigan, 1981, p 408} concludes as if most natural and conclusive that “‘Break of day’ was ‘on the morrow’”. That, for Bruce, settles it that the event of Acts 20:7 took place, “on Sunday evening, not Saturday evening.”

7.2.1.1.1.

From Midnight to Midnight

Luke, it is said, writes to believers from the Gentiles. He describes the day as they would understand it. For example, in Acts 4:4, 20:7 and 23:31-32 Luke speaks of “the next day” from the viewpoint of the previous night and previous evening. “Evening” and “the next day” are therefore, different days, and the separation or division between them had to have occurred at midnight. Luke uses the expression “next day” while he uses Jewish count of hours, 10:9, 3, 23:23, 32. He wasn’t confused with Jewish and Roman reckoning of the day. He even refers to the afternoon as the “outgoing” day in 25:17 – translated “morrow” but contextually clearly the afternoon.

Luke uses the expression “next day” with reference to 3 o’clock afternoon, as in 10:9, 3 (14:19-20); with reference to noon, as in 10:23, 9; with reference to the morning itself, as in 10:24, 23, with reference to “one (full) day”, as in 21:8, 7 (23:30), and with reference to several days as in 25:6. “The next day” would in each case have started with sunset, and the next morning of course would be “the next day”.

Luke also speaks of “the next day” with reference to the night, necessarily after midnight and before the break of day, as implied contextually, 23:32, 31. He, according to the logic of the “next day” argument, might just as well have reckoned the day from sunrise to sunrise.

What is translated “the next day”, in the Greek literally means “after-early-morning”. The early morning after midnight till sunrise is, aurion, “the (first or early) East”. The “East” that follows, the morning after sunrise till midday, is the word translated “next day” – epaurion. The word is derived from the preposition “after” -epi, and “East” – aurion. “Next day” is a lamentable effort at expressing the meaning of epaurion. “The morrow / (next) morning” comfortably represents its true meaning, and with it the whole argument of “the next day” collapses.

7.2.1.1.2.

From Sunset to Sunset

Had Luke been a Greek “heathen” he would have reckoned the day just as the Jews do. – See Part One, Par. 5.3.2.2.1. Pliny. Luke, although a “heathen” writing to “heathen”, fully assimilates Old Testament and Jewish world-view as far as his reckoning of the day is concerned. Above has already been shown how he counts the hours of the day as the Old Testament and the Jews do. In Lk.23:54 he describes the nearing of the Sabbath in relation to the “going down of the sun” -epefohsken sabbaton, a unique feature of the Jewish reckoning of the day. For Luke the day ends with afternoon, not with midnight or morning. In Luke 24:29 he describes this his view of the day’s end (and the implied beginning of the next day), “It is toward evening (“vespers”) and the day is far spent (almost over)”. Also as above, Acts 25:17, afternoon as the “outgoing” of day. Luke meticulously kept track of the course of the day from the premise of sunset to sunset where he describes feasts and customs, Lk.22:1, 17; Acts 12:3, 4; 18:1-3, 18; 21:24. He especially used the Jewish and Old Testament Sabbath to mark off periods and days, Acts 18:4; 17:2; 16:13; 15:21; 13:14, 42, 44.

Luke uses the Hebrew and Old Testament name of “First Day” and not “Sunday”. He relates it to the Jewish and Old Testament concept of the “week”, “First Day of the week”. In the total context of the Acts of the Apostles, Luke reckons times and days, “Jewish”, 2:15; 3:1; 10:3, 9, 30; 23:23. In the context of Acts 20:7, events take their course according to Old Testament observances, verses 6 and 16, “Days of Unleavened Bread”, purify to enter temple and Pentecost (still erroneously observed by Christians). There remains no reason at all to pay attention to the condition that Luke reckoned the day to Roman economy. “The First Day of the week’s” night was Saturday night. It was on Sunday. And it was Sunday still when Paul, next morning, still talking and eating, left on foot for Assos.

According to the narrative of Acts 20 this Sunday stood in fixed relation to other days of the week. Luke tells how Paul and his friends arrived at Troas, remained there for seven days, and “on (the night of) the First day of the week”, “stood on the point of departure” again, “on the next morning” to leave. The last of the seven days, therefore, must have been a Sabbath. That means that they had arrived on a Sunday, and departed again on a Sunday. That seems like convenient time-approbation and time appropriation for Sabbath-keepers.

7.2.1.2.

“To Break Bread”

Only if Holy Communion had been celebrated can any meaning it might have had for the day on which it was celebrated be inferred. The first question is, Was the Holy Communion celebrated or observed on the occasion and day implicated in Acts 20:7? Although affirmative the answer is not so obvious and easy as it is usually assumed to be.

The phrase, “to break bread” – klahsai arton, has two meanings in the New Testament. In every instance of occurrence of the phrase the context must indicate whether an ordinary meal or the Celebration of the Holy Communion is meant because in any case the words are almost identical. Where in the Gospels the expression “to break bread” indicates the Holy Communion, it is easily recognisable, being its institution, Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.24:30, (Jn.13:1f). Also where Paul infers the institution of the Holy Communion and gives certain rules of conduct concerning it, it is immediately identifiable, 1Cor.10:16 and 11:24. But eight times in the New Testament the expression “to break bread” simply means “to eat” without religious meaning.

7.2.1.2.1.1.

Acts 2:42

In Acts one should read carefully. Twice in each case of Acts 2 and Acts 20 the phrase “to break bread” appears. In 2:42 it can be deduced that Holy Communion is celebrated because the phrase “with the breaking of bread” – tehi klasei tou artou, is used in the context of Congregational and liturgical practices. The context treats on “teaching” – didacheh, “prayers” – proseuchai, “communion” – koinohnia. It is “usage” – proskarterountes, and “apostolic” – tohn apostolohn. Also baptism is treated on in the relevant context, verse 41, and faith, verse 44. The “breaking of bread”, therefore, could not be normal appeasing of hunger.

7.2.1.2.1.2.

Acts 2:46

In Acts 2:46 “the breaking of bread” – klohntes arton, is no duplication of what has just been said in verse 42. That would have been unnecessary repetition. Where the first instance (2:42) helps describe the liturgical pattern of Christian worship, the second, verses 44 to 47, supplies a look into the social and organisational relations within the Christian community. Property was utilised and food distributed “communally” – “to them all” – auta pahsin, “according to each one’s needs” – kathoti an chreian eichen, “from house to house”, or, “to each home’s nature” – kat’ oikon. The Greek literally says that the believers “shared their food” – metelambanon trophehs. The “bread” was “food”.

shared their food “with gladness”, “thanked God” for it and for the “favour they enjoyed with the people”, verse 47. That is how they lived “daily” while “persevering single mindedly in the teaching”. Two aspects of their lives are pictured, the religious and the social.

7.2.1.2.2.1.

Acts 20:11

Twice in Acts 20 is it said that “bread was broken”, in verse eleven and in verse seven. In what sense would bread have been used in these two instances? In verse 11 Paul – only a human – would naturally have been hungry after a whole night’s discussion, and would have needed nourishment for his planned walk the next day – now breaking – from Troas to the port at Assos. The words, “breaking bread” – klasas ton arton, could be expected to mean “to still one’s hunger”. Which indeed the text confirms in as many words, Paul “having eaten was nourished” – klasas ton arton kai geusamenos. “Thus he went forth” – houtohs exehlthen, “nourished” and, “having kept company” – homilehsas. “Nourished” is intended physically, not spiritually. If the Holy Communion had been implied in Paul’s action of eating or “breaking bread”, it would not have been in the singular – only Paul eating. And Paul would not eat of the Lord’s Supper to still his hunger. Nobody else participated in the meal or any other aspect of the Holy Communion. Nothing is said of the other elements of the Lord’s Supper. No prayer, no table, no cup, no formulary. It is not called by its proper appellation of “Lord’s Supper” – kuriakon deipnon – the name Paul originated for the Holy Communion. (When at Troas, Paul had stood in the ministry for three years already, 20:31.) The time of night was early morning – not the time of “evening” – “Supper” time, implied in the word deipnon. Nothing is mentioned of song or exposition of meaning as in every other instance of reference to the Holy Communion in Paul and the Gospels. No liturgical circumstance of worship exists in the context of Acts 20:11. Paul, “leaving”, still “grouped”. He still “ate” while he left, “breaking bread as he went”. The circumstance was not that of the Lord’s Supper. One person slept in the window-space. Others busied themselves downstairs. Luke (as translated) tells how Paul “for considerable time went on discussing”. He discusses nothing of the Lord’s Supper or of its significance for the Faith. “Breaking of bread”, in the Lord’s Supper, is read from Scripture. It was not read from Scripture in this case. It may definitely be concluded that in Acts 20:11 the Holy Communion is not mentioned, or is in any way implied. (Not even in the article of the Infinitive, klahsas ton arton as suggested by Bruce. See Par. 7.2.1.2.2.2.3.)

7.2.1.2.2.2.

Acts 20:7

7.2.1.2.2.2.1.

“The Lord’s Supper”

But in verse seven the Lord’s Supper is certainly intended in the words, “to break bread”. Many scholars disagree, not a few Sabbath-keepers who argue that because the eating implied in Acts 20:7 was ordinary, having no implications of Christian worship, the First Day of the week was ordinary. We beg to disagree on solid grounds as far as the nature of the “breaking of bread” is concerned. The Lord’s Supper and the “breaking of bread” of the Lord’s Supper, was the reason for the Christian Community “being assembled together”. The Infinitive of Purpose used with noun force, klahsai arton, “(the) to break bread”, makes of it liturgical action, sacred meaning and “worship” of Jesus Christ – nothing short of “Holy Communion”. The liturgical “sanctification” of either phrases, “assembled”, and, “to break bread”, is mutual.

Could Acts, the only document in the New Testament (and outside) of the history of the earliest Christian Church and its institutions have only the single reference to the Lord’s Supper in 2:42? Could the absence of reference to the Lord’s

Supper otherwise have been overseen? Incidence of Holy Communion in the Acts certainly is generally assumed by well meaning Christians disproportionately. But if Acts 20:7 does not have the Lord’s Supper in mind, there remains the solitary reference of 2:42 in the entire history of the “Acts of the Apostles”!

The believers gathered with the view to “break bread”. Paul dissuades Christians to just eat while they gathered for the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. He admonishes them to eat before they assemble for Holy Communion. “The Lord’s Supper is not meant for appeasing hunger”. ^{1Cor. 11:20} In Acts 20:7 there is “communion” in the real Christian sense of the word. It was for the purpose of “breaking bread” – for Luke the idiomatic expression for “Holy Communion” in this context, for what Paul calls the Lord’s Supper. And it was for the purpose of “assembling” – for Luke the expression for Christian Fellowship.

7.2.1.2.2.2.2.

Farewell Meal

“To break bread” in Acts 20:11 and 7 also does not merely have the meaning of a farewell meal in honour of Paul. The travellers were in Troas only for one week and just passing by so to speak. No record is given of any great accomplishment of the company or friendships closed during this week that could have motivated a farewell feast. There seems to be no reason for a farewell party. What a strange farewell meal in any case that only Paul ate of? Except within the travelling companies’ own ranks can any reason for any coming together be discerned. They came from different locations to meet in Troas, and, after using the opportunity of the evening to “discuss” their future plans and strategies, they were ready to part again as workers for Christ. Occasion to see each other was rare and precious. In what better way could they separate than through partaking of their Lord’s Supper? (“Whenever you meet, partake”.) So they “had come together” on precisely that purpose and for no farewell party for Paul of whom they were co-workers, themselves being proclaimers of the Kingdom of heaven. Not only Paul, but they all needed to partake of the Christ meal.

7.2.1.2.2.2.3.

Fellowship Meal

Even then some raise the argument that not the Lord’s Supper, but an “Agape Meal” (“Love’s Meal”) or “Fellowship Meal” took place in Acts 20:7. The “Fellowship Meal” is also seen as the second meal of the night. “Where the article klasas ton arton points back to klahsai arton in v. 7 and refers to the eucharistic breaking of bread, geusamenos refers to the fellowship meal”, says Bruce. This notion is merely fanciful. The Lord’s Supper is the Christian “Fellowship Meal” – “Holy Communion”. There is no other. If there ever developed another “fellowship meal” in early Christianity – very unlikely – it had been a development of times much later than New Testament times. In Acts 20:11 geusamenos, “nourished”, concludes the meaning of klasas ton arton, “having eaten” and has nothing to do with anything but normal “eating”. The idea of “fellowship” is never in arguments for the “Fellowship Meal” associated with the word homilehsas which means “grouping”, “associating”, “communing”. Arguments are always based solely on the word geusamenos that literally has nothing to do with “fellowship”. Which is rather ironic.

7.2.2.

“Communed” on the Lord’s Supper

Had the article been a “pointer” (verse 11) – and it is a strong pointer when used with an Infinitive – it would not have been used with the Participle, klasas. “The eucharistic breaking of bread” is pointed to within the phrase where it means “eucharistic breaking of bread”, verse 7. It is pointed to there by means of the Infinitive used with noun force, and it is pointed to there by means of the Christian significance the word “together-assembled” receives as in Acts 20:7. What Paul did was not what “we had done before” – as implied in the Perfect Participle – according to verse 7. Paul did not share of Holy Communion a second time that morning, or, for the first time that evening, or, took part of different meals. He ate once only for the whole of that night and not of the Lord’s Supper. Paul “ate his full” after he had come up stairs again.

On what basis then could it be said that Acts 20:7 has the Lord’s Supper in mind? “To break bread” with “eucharistic” meaning, is in verse 7 implied through its association with the kind of “fellowship” implied in the word “assembled” – sunehgmenohn. The concept “assemble”, concludes the concept “to break bread” in the phrase, “together to break bread”. “It was Holy Communion”. It was “Holy Communion” implied in the combined but unitary phrase of Perfect Participle and Infinitive of noun force.

7.2.2.1.

“Our Coming Together”

“Whenever you come” // sunerchomenohn oun humohn.

“Whenever your coming” // sunerchomenohn oun humohn.

“Whenever you come together” // sunerchomenohn oun humohn epi to auto.

Paul expresses in a rather pleonastic way the intimacy of the Lord’s Supper. It happens in Christian goodwill and faith. Only those of strong mutual interest in “the Lord”, are eligible to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, “To break bread” means “to have Church” as “to gather” means “to have Church”. It means Christian Worship. The “breaking of bread” while the Church of Christ “came together” was Christian worship in the Christian way. It was liturgical worship: “We, assembled on Holy Communion”.

The significance the event of “gathering” received through translation in the case of Acts 20:7 (not, as in the case of John 20:19) is correct and honest. That significance reflects the intent of the Greek. But something went awry. Through translation of Acts 20:7, the First Day of the week, Sunday, appears to have been the day “on” which the Church “came together”. The First Day should not have received the positive implications derived from Christian “gathering” the Sabbath should. How could it be possible? Through misunderstanding the Greek. The following illustrates how it happens.

7.2.2.1.1.

Actually Gathered On First Day

A “Syntactical Structure-Analysis” of Acts 20:7, composed by Ds. Hennie Momberg, ^{(Personal letter)} explains it all:

(1) En de tehi miai tohn sabbatohn (On the First Day of the week

(2) sunehgmenohn hehmohn (we having assembled

(3) klahsai arton (to break bread,

(4) ho Paulos dielegeto autois (Paul preached to them.

(5) mellohn exienai tehi epaurion (Ready to depart in the morning

(6) pareteinen te ton logon (he taught the Word

(7) mechri mesonuktiou (until midnight.

(Translation CGE but as Ds. Momberg would have interpreted the passage.)

Ds. Momberg “expounds” on these “syntactical components”, “Components 1 and 2+3 also mutually form certain relations in the whole”, says he. It is obvious that Ds. Momberg makes certain groupings of concepts, and he thereby succeeds to illuminate the whole problem underlying usual translations. The problem lies with grouping the clause, “Paul preached to them” with the preceding phrases of Participle and Infinitive: “Having assembled to break bread on the First Day, Paul preached to them”. Paul’s speech is made the sermon for the Lord’s Supper. It implies that the believers actually gathered on the First Day for the Lord’s Supper. “But that is exactly what Luke says”, one might hear remonstrated. But that is exactly what Luke does not say. The grammatical and syntactical composition of the Greek simply does not allow for Ds. Momberg’s grouping.

7.2.2.1.2.

“Still Together On the First Day”

The correct grouping of the predicate, “Paul preached to them” should be with the following “components”, “Paul preached to them ready to depart …”; and the phrase “to break bread” should be grouped with the preceding “component”, “Assembled to break bread”. No present action that has another, later and consequent, future action in view is implied in the phrase “Assembled to break bread”. This phrase has no verb! To say, “We assembled / had assembled / were assembled to have Holy Communion”, only an indicative, finite verb would do. The Perfect Participle and Greek Infinitive could not.

Notice the difference between,

1. “We assembled to partake of Holy Communion on the First Day”,

2. “We, assembled, to partake of Holy Communion on the First Day Paul addressed them”,

3. “Paul (while) we being together still on the First Day after having had assembled to partake of Holy Communion, addressed them”.

“We assembled for Holy Communion” / “We were assembled for Holy Communion” – the Active and the Passive – are the same thing – finite Verbs, Indicative. They have exactly the same function, the same temporal integrity, “to indicate as happening” – actual occurrence of event.

“We assembled to have Holy Communion on the First Day”, indicates an event “on the First Day”. A finite indicative verb forms the predicate of the event. It is of Present tense of a sentence that speaks for itself analytically.

“(Being) together still on the First Day after having had assembled for Holy Communion (before)”. Utilising a Participle it pictures a resultant circumstance only of togetherness on the First Day. The anticipated and tentative event of Holy Communion had been anticipated and had been realised at the stage of actual assembling implied in the Participle – which is an act implied as perfectly past with a present result, completed, “perfect”, and without further development. However, to maintain that, “We, being ready being together on the First Day to break the bread of Holy Communion” is another matter. The circumstance is of the Present only because “we” also (by implication through use of the Participle), assembled on the First Day. But here is wanting, a Present Participle. Here there is, a Perfect Participle. To say that we assembled on the First Day, the Greek could also have used an Indicative instead of a Participle, and it would not have used the Perfect but probably an Aorist or Present.

“We, after having had assembled for Holy Communion and consequently being assembled still on the First Day”, also, only pictures a circumstance of togetherness on the First Day. No event is indicated, not even the Holy Communion. But the Holy Communion is implied as the event of the Perfect Past (tense). Because the event is implied, the phrase (clause), “after having had assembled” translates the Participle of the Perfect but in part only. Because the implied event of the Perfect Participle had a perfect resultant effect, effective still in the present, on the First Day, “we (found ourselves) assembled still on the First Day”.

Marshall’s literal rendering of verse 7 of Nestle (Bagster Interlinear) could reveal certain aspects of 3. He has, “On the First of the week having been assembled to break bread = as we were assembled Paul lectured to them being about to depart on the morrow”. (Emphasis ours.)

7.2.2.2.

The Infinitive of Noun Force

“The chief device of language for the function of forcefully to express the naming of an action with substantival relations in a sentence is the Infinitive”. “Proper understanding of the Greek Infinitive is conditioned upon an adequate apprehension of its dual (verb and noun) character.” “No idiom is more decidedly peculiar to the Greek language than this substantive character of the Infinitive”. ^{(Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT)}

Says Ds. Momberg, “We should realise that indication of purpose (through use of the Infinitive) does not at the same time indicate if – and when the purpose was obtained. If not elsewhere mentioned, we will therefor never know if the believers and when they broke bread. We from this phrase only know what their purpose was.”

Ds. Momberg is of this opinion only because he apparently seems to be ignorant of the Infinitive’s nature and its significance as Greek idiom. Who would doubt that those “who by fear of death through all their lives” actually lived? Yet the Greek employs the Infinitive, “through all the(irs) to live” – dia pantos tou dzehin. Or who would doubt that the cock did crow considering the expression, “Before the cock crows twice”? The Greek says this with an Infinitive, “the cock to crow” – prin eh dis alektora phohnehsai. Regardless of the fact that it is further on in the context mentioned that the cock crowed, the Infinitive supposes the crow as crowed. “Having had assembled to Feast” = “Being together on the feast”, Mt.27:15/17. Who would doubt that the disciples and Jesus on their way to Emmaus crossed roads? See Par. 7.2.3.1, homilehsas.

The Infinitive does not exclude realisation in the case of an Infinitive of purpose, but being used idiomatically as the name of an objective action, the Infinitive actually confirms accomplishment. In Revelation 19:19 John “sees” (the predicate of the sentence) the hosts of evil in the state of being gathered – Perfect Participle and Infinitive of Purpose used attributively as the name for the objective action – to make battle! John “sees” them being seized and thrown in the fire of brimstone – present aspect of the Perfect – as after they had mustered forces – past aspect of the Perfect. The battle took place! Why would Luke, who uses this structure more than any other writer of the New Testament, not also use it to describe an implied act that is not acted in the present but in the past – with its effect of course in the present?

The Infinitive in Acts 20:7 must be appreciated as a truly Greek Infinitive of noun force. “We had assembled because of Holy Communion and on Saturday evening consequently were still together when Paul dialogued with them”. Holy Communion is supposed as a past feat and not as a future possibility.

The Infinitive of purely purpose of sunagoh – “to lead together” / “assemble”, may be seen in Acts in 14:27, 13:44 and 4:6. Compare also the Infinitive of Purpose of the verb sunerchomai – “to come together”, e.g. 28:17. Such use of the Infinitive is accompanied by an Indicative, and not (perhaps never?) by a Participle.

Being an Infinitive of noun force, therefore, the Infinitive of Acts 20:7, 1. Takes the article, “the to break bread”. (See Wigram’s listing of Variant Readings, tou klahsai. With or without article, the Infinitive is substantival.) 2. Has case relations, in this case the genitive (or Locative?), “on Holy Communion”. 3. Is used as a verbal expression of object, “We to-break-bread-together, 4. Is qualified by adjectives, here the adjectival Pronoun, “our-to-break-bread-assembledness” – sunehgmenohn hehmohn klahsai arton. And 5. Is tremendously strengthened in its noun force through relation to the Perfect Participle, “assembled to Holy Commune” = “assembled on Holy Communion”.

Being used with noun force, the Infinitive names the event. It implies an event that actually occurred – in the past as a matter of course. Being used with verbal force, the Infinitive has aspect of tense. The event, named by the Infinitive of noun force, is past and of past “tense” (“tension”). The Infinitive in Acts 20:7, true to Greek idiom, means, that the act, “to break bread”, belongs to the past in relation to the present, “on the First Day”. The impression that Holy Communion had actually been celebrated is quite correct. But the impression that Holy Communion had actually been celebrated on the First Day is quite wrong.

7.2.2.3.

The Perfect Participle

7.2.2.3.1.

The Perfect “Tense”

For the purpose of analysis the Perfect Participle must be understood separately. But it should never be forgotten that it, in this incidence of its use, forms only part of the whole of Perfect Participle AND (Past) Infinitive of noun force.

The Greek Perfect is a “tense” of dual aspect of perfect past event and perfect present effect. The event no longer continues in the present. The effect is present in perfect condition, static and without change. The Perfect does not consist of two (or even three) “tenses”, the Past Perfect Tense and the Present Perfect / Present / Future Tense.

7.2.2.3.2.

Perfect Participle

The Perfect is here a Participle. The dual meaning contained in the Participle as such is that of the implied perfect event – not the event as such – and the actual (perfect present) effect. The dual meaning of the Perfect Tense and the dual meaning of the Participle as such are synchronising … perfectly!

The Participle has adverbial significance. It may be interpreted with an adverb, “We, still together / being together still / were together still”. Because adverbial, the Participle modifies the meaning of the Infinitive, obviating its noun force, “Our still being together on Saturday evening” no longer is the Holy Communion, but originally had been the coming together for Holy Communion.

7.2.2.3.3.

Adverbial Phrase

According to the structures of this passage, the Infinitive “to break bread” relates to the dual verbal aspect of time of the Perfect Participle and to the adverbial phrase of time, “on the First Day”. The adverbial phrase of time-circumstance “on the First Day”, limits the present perfect effect of the implied past perfect event, to the present. No present continuous or future is contained in Perfect inflection whatsoever.

7.2.2.3.4.

Perfect Participle and Infinitive Are One

Because the Perfect Participle is here related to the Infinitive, the implied past perfect event consists of the name of the Infinitive-event or act. The Perfect Participle and Greek Infinitive, together, constitute an inseparable, single idiomatic structure. The idiomatic nature of the Greek Infinitive’s substantive character is quite clear in Acts 20:7, “on Holy Communion”, and in conjunction with the Perfect Participle it means, First, The perfect aspect of the present: “We, together on the First Day still”. Second, The perfect aspect of the past: “We, together on Holy Communion”. The combined phrase has no verb and it is no predicate of a past or present event. It “indicates” – not verbally but adverbially – the present circumstance resultant from a past event. An accomplished feat not happening or pending, and not a contemplated aim merely, is implied. The combined phrases imply a single completed event, of peculiar nature, and its effect – not itself – of present perfect status on the First Day. The Infinitive and the Perfect Participle fully correlate in Acts 20:7 “we, assembled [still] on the First Day, we [having had] assembled on Holy Communion [before]”.

7.2.2.3.5.1.

Circumstance

The Perfect Participle says, “We, having had assembled (on Holy Communion) and on the First Day of the week assembled still”. Then, as combined phrase, does it relate to the predicate. It as a unit creates milieu – an in the present perfect situation – for Paul who “continued to address them until midnight” (Imperfect).

The Perfect Participle can never serve as finite verb. That is clear from the following examples of its use illustrating the circumstance it indicates, Mt.18:20, “Where two or three are gathered in my name”; 22:41, “While the Pharisees were together”; 27:15/17, “Being together at the feast” = “having had assembled on the Feast”; Acts 4:31, “When they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were together”; 19:32, “The mob was confused, most of them not even knowing what they had come together for” – sunelehlutheisan; Hb.13:3, “As if bound with all prisoners”.

7.2.2.3.5.2.

A Resultant Circumstance

The Perfect Participle pictures an in the present, perfect situation or circumstance as the result of an implied event of indefinite earlier occurrence.

The Perfect Participle indicates a circumstance resultant from a past event. It does not “indicate” the happening of the event as such, but supposes it a fact. “We on the First Day [were still] assembled [after we had come] together on the Lord’s Supper [when] Paul spoke to them because he would soon leave next morning”.

7.2.2.3.6.1.

The Participle a Conjunction

The first aspect of the Perfect Participle and Infinitive implies a second aspect. “We [being] together … Paul spoke to them”. “When” comes from no word of the Greek, but because the Perfect Participle indicates the situation of being assembled resultant from an implied past event (Holy Communion), it serves as correlative adverbial conjunction – in English rendered, “when” / “while”.

7.2.2.3.6.2.

Examples

In Lk.24:33 the two disciples from Emmaus went to Jerusalem on the First Day’s evening and “found the eleven and others thronged together” – heuron ehthroismenous, Perfect Participle. John describes this situation “on that same day at evening” as “doors were locked where the disciples were” – hopou ehsan. No doubt the disciples “were there” before the evening already. They were afraid of the Jews (who were after them since Jesus’ burial, according to the Gospel of Peter). They were “found” there “thronged together”. They assembled not during the evening, but, “after having had assembled an indefinite time before, they were assembled still during the evening when they found them”, to give the literal and exact meaning of the Perfect Participle. Literally and exactly the same applies in Acts 20:7!

Luke uses the same expression in the same form of Perfect Participle in Acts 12:12. Peter, after being freed from prison, “came to the house of Mary … where many were thronged together praying” – sunehthroismenoi kai proseuchomenoi. They were busy praying – proseuchomenoi. They were not busy assembling. They prayed when “found” “assembled”. They “assembled” not when “found”. They had assembled before, in fact, they had been assembled since Peter was jailed (verse 5). His release from prison was the answer to their prayers, which they being thus assembled still, prayed. The circumstance of “being assembled still” had been lasting all the time till and while Peter arrived. Their “being assembled” “within” this specific period – “perfects”, completes, the effect of the implied causal event of the effect. Their “being assembled” did not begin when Peter arrived and afterwards “prolonged”. They also all the time till and while Peter arrived, “prayed”. But that is obvious because it is said by means of a finite verb, proseuchomenoi. Not as in the Troas passage where a noun-force Infinitive is the second of the pair of words. Their act to assemble got completed in the past and they resultantly, as in the Troas passage, were “still assembled” when Peter arrived on that day. In Acts 20:7 “our being together” differs in no wise. “Our having had come together for Holy Communion and our having been together as a result still on the First Day – being the particular circumstance, Paul addressed them”. Now no word of this interpretation serves not to render the precise meaning of the text. It shows the circumstance as Paul addressed them. It does not describe the event that caused the circumstance.

Luke in Acts 10:27 uses the Perfect Participle of another standard word of saying “assemble” – sunerchomai. Peter “entered and finds many that were come together” – heuriskei sunelehluthotas. The application is analytical, “He finds many that were come together”. The situation as “found” by Peter as he enters the house (Present), “Cornelius said”, had lasted since “four days ago”! These people “had been assembled since four days ago” ^12:24 and were “still assembled” when Peter in “the same night” of his deliverance from prison ^12:6 entered that house. Acts 20:7 linguistically differs in no iota. In Acts 20:7 the people “had been assembled (since the Sabbath) and were assembled still on the First Day (evening) when Paul addressed them”.

“Does not the apostolic today derive its mystery, power and dignity wholly and utterly from this yesterday of the underground waters of Jesus’ past being which come to the surface in the Easter [Passover. “The Greek is “Pascha”, meaning the Passover. It has no connection at all with the pagan Saxon deity Eastre or Astarte the syrian Venus, who is the abominable idol Ashtoreth in the Old Testament” (Judges 2:13 et al)] time as a spring which swells to a great river in their time? In this Yesterday it takes place first and properly that the Kingdom of God comes and is proclaimed in parable, signs and wonders. Here it is that the reconciliation of the world with God is accomplished on the cross. Here it is that the foundations of the community are laid. Here it is that the great dividing line is secretly but very really drawn which marks off the new age from the old. Here there lives and moves and acts and suffers the Lord who reveals Himself as such at the resurrection, and then in the power of this revelation builds, maintains and rules his community until the new age is consummated. Here, this Lord, the true Son of God, is also true Man, born of the virgin Mary and made like one of us. Et incarnatus est! Above all He is and therefor has been in this perfect. He would not be if He had not previously been.” ^{Karl Barth CD 3.2. Par. 47} (Emphasis CGE)

7.2.2.3.7.

Before as well as After, Implied

As little as the context after the Infinitive must contain information of the event implied in the purpose of the Infinitive or “we would never know if or when it ever occurred”, as little the context before the Perfect Participle must contain information of the event implied therein. It may never be assumed that the Perfect Participle indicates the event. But, the Perfect Participle always, implies the event – for certain, but for certain not in the present. In Acts 10:27 the actual event of the past, did occur, the people “assembled” – obviously. In 20:7 the actual event, notwithstanding not being mentioned, occurred for certain, the disciples assembled – in the past, obviously.

7.2.2.3.8.

Résumé

Now “while” the Perfect Participle in Acts 20:7 means that “the company (of missionaries)” “had finished to gather” in the past, and in the present – indicated by the phrase “on the First Day” – “were still gathered”, they did not “come together” on the First Day, but had congregated before the First Day, that is, on the Sabbath. And while the Infinitive as integral part of the concept conveyed by the Perfect Participle, means that the company had congregated “on Holy Communion” in the past, it means that they in the present – indicated by the phrase “on the First Day” – “were on the First Day still together perfectly as they had congregated on Holy Communion” on the Sabbath before.

7.2.2.4.

The Predicate

7.2.2.4.1.

Prolonged Situation

Says Ds. Momberg, “The fact that it is a Perfect, on the one hand supplies an event which can be viewed as completed with reference to the time of the predicate. (of the sentence, Paul “discussed”). ^{(component 4 in the above “Syntactical Structure-Analysis”)} But on the other hand it supplies an event of which the effect is / was still valid in the time of the predicate. The completed event / situation which we must understand in the light of component 1 (“on the First Day”) is that the believers within Saturday evening and before Paul started to speak, were assembled. The prolonged effect of the event / situation (“we were assembled still”) that we should understand in conjunction with component 1 (“on the First Day”), is that the believers who within Saturday evening were gathered before Paul started to talk, remained gathered while he spoke”. (Emphasises CGE) Right here, “within Saturday evening were gathered”, and, “remained gathered while he spoke”, things start to go wrong for Ds. Momberg. He should have said instead, “… being gathered still on the First Day while Paul spoke”. ^{Refer Par. 7.2.2.1.2 about the Passive Voice.}

First be it noted there is no “event” occurring “within Saturday evening”, i.e., “on the First Day”, spoken of in the adverbial phrase consisting of Perfect Participle, Infinitive and adverbial phrase of time. There is the resultant circumstance of the implied and earlier event. Had an event’s occurrence been described it would have been done in terms of finite verbs. What Ds. Momberg suggests, that “The believers within Saturday evening and before Paul started to speak, “were assembled”, is more than a phrase or clause that translates the Participle. It is a sentence with finite verb. It is wrong; it isn’t true because it “indicates” an act in the proper, finite, sense of the word or act.

Secondly it should be noted that no time limit into the past exists in the Perfect Participle or in the past = noun-sense of the Infinitive barring the impossibility of a past event occurring in the present. That means no time limit exists in the Perfect Participle or in the past noun-sense of the Infinitive barring that the believers “were assembled” on Sunday. Nothing keeps relevant “events”, “within Saturday evening” = on Sunday. That is to say, linguistically. The Perfect Participle indicates past-ness as well as consequential present-ness. But it does not state or imply definite time of past-ness. For example, “we received the painted chairs on Thursday evening”. The chairs were painted already when received and therefore had to have been painted before Thursday evening. But no time is given when before Thursday evening the chairs were painted – it could have been painted a year ago already. In Acts 20:7 and 9, therefore, had it not practically been far fetched, “we” could even have gathered a year ago as far as grammar would allow. But place the event implied by these syntactical structures of inflection on Saturday – before “within Saturday evening” – and we do it on logical suppositions as well as on solid linguistic grounds. If “we” were together still on the First Day (and nothing is said of “our Holy Communion”, “within Saturday evening”), then we could only have assembled before “within Saturday evening”. And that would have been on the Sabbath. It places the event implied by these syntactical structures of inflection on Saturday – before “within Saturday evening”, i.e., it places it “on the Sabbath”, on historical grounds. Historically chronologically, the Sabbath was the last of the disciples’ stay in Troas and, naturally, the day before the evening of the First Day, Saturday night. The Christian custom to celebrate Lord’s Supper on Sabbaths prompted the disciples to have communed for the Lord’s Supper on the Sabbath before “within Saturday evening”. This very passage reveals that the disciples “being together still on the First Day having had communed for the Lord’s Supper before”, actually Holy Communioned on the Sabbath. And this very passage is so translated as not to allow that!

Of course the believers “remained gathered”, “while Paul addressed them”. That simply is consequential. But it, from the text, is no more than a logical conclusion. And it is not at all grammatically correct. The present perfect effect of the Perfect has already been taken up in the phrase, “on the First Day”.

What went on after the effect of the original event, was the effect of the predicate, and not the original event’s “prolonged” effect. “The believers having had come together were on the First Day perfectly together still as a result”. That completes the Perfect Participle. Because they now, logically, were together, they, logically, remained together and Paul, actually, “spoke to them”. They do not, grammatically, “stay together”, to hear, Paul speak, or “for Paul to speak”. Of course they did wait to hear him speak, but that is nowhere indicated linguistically. These chronological consequences are not contained in any inflectional structure of the passage but in the Imperfect predicate! The sequels are purely and easily deduced, mentally. But why then, not even taking into account the inherent qualities of inflection, not also reach the equally mentally easy consequence that the company had come together before the evening?

The factual conclusion that the believers “remained gathered” most definitely cannot be derived from the Perfect Participle. The Greek Perfect does not contain the dual meaning of past, and, of future. There is a vast difference between “being assembled still on the First Day after we had assembled on Holy Communion”, and “being assembled on the First Day remaining assembled, for Paul yet to address them / while Paul addressed them”. The interpreter has no right to supply his own purpose of the “together”-circumstance, that of Paul to speak to them. “We, were” not “assembled” to be addressed by Paul (no Infinitive of purpose) but “to have Holy Communion”(Infinitive of noun force). Truth is, “We”, at some stage in the past, as implied in the Participle and Infinitive and historic passing of time, had “come together”, “to break bread”, which means that “We were assembled on Holy Communion and as a result were still together on the First Day of the week when Paul spoke to them”.

7.2.2.4.2.

Cause and Effect

Ds. Momberg writes, “To break bread links with we were assembled still. … It (to break bread) therefor is fixed to the fact of a completed event confirmed by the Perfect.” It could not have been said better. But Ds. Momberg directly says further, “At the same time to break bread is an extension of purpose of the continued situation / effect of which the Perfect witnesses (“We were assembled”)”.

One cannot first have the effect of an event and only then the event itself. If “we on the First Day were assembled still” (effect), we had to have actively assembled” (causal event), before “on the First Day”. The Perfect (Tense) indicates actual occurrence of event with resultant effect perfect in the present. The Perfect Participle does exactly the same except that instead of indicating occurrence of event, it implies occurrence of event, thereby putting emphasis on effect in relation to time.

Ds. Momberg admits of the “completed event confirmed by the Perfect”. That means that where and while this word sunehgmenoi is applied, the event supposed in the passage, was “completed” = “Perfect”. It is therefore argued that the disciples actually had assembled on the First Day and not before “on the First Day”. Had that been true, then for no other reason that this word is applied twice, in verse 7 as well as in verse 9, the disciples would have had to actually have assembled twice “within” the First Day’s evening, i.e., “within Saturday evening”. Verse 9 tells of the “many lamps” where “we being assembled (were)”. Had this phrase “indicated completed event”, “event” would have occurred. But of course it is nonsense. It is nonsense simply because no event occurred, not in verse 9 or in verse 7. The word, being the Perfect Participle, describes circumstance of locality and time-relations, “There were many lamps (burning) where we were together still after having had assembled when, sitting …”. In this instance the relation concerns “a certain young man”, “sitting in the windowsill”. He sat there, “while” and “where we being assembled still after previously having had assembled”, were. Verse 7 differs in no respect.

7.2.2.4.3.

Predicative Relation

Ds. Momberg sums up his argument, “The believers remained gathered”. (I emphasised.) Now that, to ascribe to the Perfect, a present / future connotation of incompleteness of circumstance in the present, and – disregarding the fact that the Perfect comes as the Participle – to ascribe incompleteness of occurrence to the event per se, simply is incorrect and illegitimate. In the Greek, that would have required the Imperfect or a Present, not the Perfect. It would have required a finite, indicative, verb, not the Participle. To repeat, underlying this misconception is the interpretation of the Perfect with a Past and a Present or Future instead of with a single Perfect of past completeness as well as of present completeness. (Not to mention the basic doctrinal motivation- also present behind the NAT of Luke 23:49, “The women remained standing to see those things” (that would yet happen – Jesus’ interment). The Pluperfect heistehkeisan, should be rendered, “The women had stood observing those thing (that then had happened – the crucifixion.)

The Participle is not adverbial in relation to the time of Paul’s speaking. It is adverbial in terms of the event of Holy Communion’s resultant circumstance of “being gathered still – on the First Day after – after Lord’s Supper”.

7.2.2.4.4.1.

Basic Mistake

The basic mistake made with the usual translation of Acts 20:7 is not that the Passive is mistaken for an Active, but that the Perfect Participle is interpreted as an indicative finite verb. Ds. Momberg calls the Perfect Participle an “indication of an event”; “Communion took place”, says he. At the time of Paul’s speaking though, Communion was not yet to happen or perhaps not to happen at all, because the Perfect Participle as well as Infinitive conclude or imply that “we in fact had assembled” and that “communion in fact took place”. The Perfect Participle implies a perfected effect of situation or circumstance of the present “on the First Day” that originated from a past (implied) event in relation to the present situation or circumstance “on the First Day”. The (combined) phrase only tells, as far as the time “on the First Day” is concerned, how, and, when, “Paul addressed them” – “while we [were] together still”. The effectual situation of the Perfect is static, implying a previous act that left behind this circumstance, “being assembled on the First Day”. “As such, Paul addressed them”. No present or continuing act, per se, independently of this past relation, refers or relates to the predicate as if “Paul addressed them while they gathered” or “while / because they had gathered!

Correct	Wrong
“Having (earlier) had come together for Holy Communion and while together still on the First Day, Paul addressed them”.	“As on our Holy Communion earlier communicating still on the First day”,	“Assembled for our Holy Communion on the First Day, Paul addressed them”.
The event is implied and of the past while its effect is present. The emphasis is not on an event but on circumstance	The event itself of the past, not its effect, continues not perfect in the present. The emphasis is not on circumstance but on an ongoing event.	No past event or present effect. Event is of present anticipation and tentative. Emphasis is on the predicate of the sentence, not on circumstance.

7.2.2.4.4.2.

The Point At Issue

Notices Ds, Momberg, “… At this point then (“remained assembled”) comes the difference between us directly to the fore, that the completeness should be understood in terms of the time of the predicate – they were already together before Paul started to speak …”. (Emphasis CGE) He adds, “… and not, the way you want it, before Saturday evening had arrived”.

It is as legitimate a logical conclusion that “we” were assembled before it had become “on the First Day” as that “we” were assembled before Paul started speaking and that “we” remained assembled after he had started speaking. It is as legitimate a logical conclusion because a perfected effect persisted throughout.

But that is not the point. The assumption, “That the completeness (of the Perfect Participle) should be understood in terms of the time of the predicate”, is the point. “At this point comes the difference between us directly to the fore.” A new, continuing period of the believers “remaining” from this “point” on, is introduced by Ds. Momberg. He calls it an “extension of purpose” and “prolonged effect of the event” (implied in the Perfect Participle). He makes of “Perfect”, “Imperfect”. According to the text, though, the completeness is implied in a twofold way: A present perfect effect resultant from a past perfect event (here implied because of Participle) corroborating perfectly with the Infinitive of noun force. Thus the “completeness” – which includes completeness of purpose as well as of togetherness – should be understood. The implied event is that of assembling on Holy Communion. And the “completeness” should be understood in terms of its effect, “together”. That, “on the First Day” still persisted. “Completeness” should not be understood in terms of the predicate, “(Paul) addressed (them)” – Imperfect!

That they were assembled before it had become “on the First Day” is therefore, more than a legitimate logical conclusion. It besides is a grammatical and syntactical requirement. The event implied in the unitary expression of Perfect Participle and Locative Substantive – the original purpose (The Lord’s Supper) – was the purpose of the original implied past event. The effect of the coming together is not completed after it had become “on the First Day”. The effect had continued completed since initiation through event, into the First Day and on the First Day completed the completed effect = “Perfect”.

7.2.2.4.3.

A Single Sentence

Says Ds. Momberg, “We here have to do with, 1. A time-indication (adverbial phrase of time by means of the Dative and preposition, “on the First Day”). 2. An indication of event (adverbial phrase of manner and relation by means of the participle in the Perfect, “together”. 3. A description of purpose (by means of the Infinitive).” “This combined phrase serves to demonstrate”, says Ds. Momberg, “that the disciples remained together on the First Day in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” (Emphasis ours.)

For such an interpretation Ds. Momberg would need “an indication of event” – as he puts it. He would need a finite, “indicative” verb (“We came together”) to describe that “indication of event” – not the Dative and preposition. No “adverbial phrase of manner and relation by means of the participle “together”, could “indicate” that. He would need the Verb “in the Present (perhaps Aorist or even Imperfect)” – not in the Perfect. Then that would make of the phrase an independent sentence, resulting in two sentences – which the phrase is not. “The combined phrase” is an adverbial phrase of circumstance describing the situation “as / when Paul addressed them”. Grammars will define it as a “Temporal Clause”.

We could re-define Ds. Momberg’s three given factors. We here have to do with a Sentence, “And upon the First Day of the week being together still having had assembled on our Lord’s Supper, Paul discussed matters with them intending to leave the morrow”. This sentence consists of a Subordinate Clause, “And upon the First Day of the week being together still having had assembled on our Lord’s Supper” and a Principle Clause consisting of Subject and Predicate, “Paul discussed”. The Subordinate Clause consists of

1. A Co-ordinate Relative Clause, “And upon the First Day of the week being together still having had assembled”, consisting of,

1. A Co-ordinate Temporal Clause, contemporaneous – Dative and Preposition, “And upon the First Day of the week”, and

2. A Co-ordinate Relative Clause consisting of,

1. A Temporal Clause, antecedent-contemporaneous – Perfect Participle, “being together still having had been assembling”, and

2. A Causal-Temporal Clause, antecedent – Infinitive, “our to break bread / on our Lord’s Supper”.

7.2.2.4.4.4.

Subject of the Sentence

Paul is the subject of the sentence, singular, “he”. In Acts 20:7 there appears the one verb of predicate of sentence only, “We” did nothing in this sentence. “We” did not “assemble”. “We” did not partake of the Lord’s Supper “on the First Day”. Had they been predicates these concepts would require finite verbs to be sentences. The first phrases are a combined adverbial clause that limits the verb in the Principle Clause by a time relation of circumstance. “When still together on the First Day after having had assembled for the Lord’s Supper, Paul addressed them”.

7.2.2.4.4.5.

Aspect of Time

The predicate contains in itself its aspect of time through inflectional form. Being an Imperfect, dielegeto, it says that Paul was the one who “spoke”.

The Greek does not use the Aorist, “started to speak” as if every one, “remained assembled”, was now ready, and Paul “started to speak”. Luke would not have used the Imperfect had he wanted to say, “started speaking”. The believers did not “remain” for Paul to address them and he then started to address them. We, “had already been assembled”, and he, “spoke to them”. The Perfect Participle is not, to quote, “an event that is designated with the time closure ‘on the First Day’.” The Perfect Participle is itself of adverbial as well as of attributive force. In Acts 20:7 it describes the circumstance of “our being together still (after the past action to gather on Holy Communion – the Infinitive) when Paul addressed them.” “Our being together on the First Day” was not the disciples’ act, then, but their circumstance, then, under which they “found” themselves to be when Paul spoke to them. Says Ds. Momberg, “The text’s own time-indication is explicitly limited to the things that actually happened, after the evening after the First Day had started”. (Emphasis ours.) Neither “to break bread” nor “together” is mentioned in Acts 20:7 as an actual act of the evening. Both are recorded, the first as implied cause, and the second, as effect of the implied causal event when the only act, Paul’s speaking, actually occurred. Ds. Momberg’s statement that “The text’s own time-indication is explicitly limited to the things that actually happened, after the evening after the First Day had started”, is not completely true. The time-indication contained in “on the First Day”, is in fact “explicitly limited to the things that actually happened after the evening after the First Day had started”. But, “the text’s own time-indication” contained in the Perfect Participle is not explicitly or implicitly, “limited to the things that actually happened after the evening after the First Day had started”. “Things”, “contained in the Perfect Participle” (“assembled”), are “things that actually happened”, “before the evening before the First Day had started”. Also the implicated “thing”, “contained” in the Infinitive (“on Holy Communion”), is something “that actually” had happened, “before the evening before the First Day had started”.

7.2.2.5.

The Pronoun

In the Acts 20:7 instance Luke’s peculiar use of the first and second person plural contributes to the understanding of this passage whereas elsewhere it often may confuse. “Paul spoke to them”, he says. = “To those assembled still after having had Lord’s Supper”. Luke does not say “us”. Both Perfect and Infinitive describe “we”. Both, and together, are attributive! “We, together” – on Holy Communion (not “came together”). “We, still together on the First Day”. “Our-on-Holy-Communion -come-together, on-the-First-Day-together-still”. The Pronoun incorporates the Perfect Participle and the Infinitive into the single concept of

“our” Lord’s Supper.

But then Paul spoke to “them”. The business “discussed” now, concerned others of which Luke, the narrator, acted as observer! Surely Luke would have been one of “them” were the Lord’s Supper taken then – when Paul “spoke”, and he would not have written “them”, but “Paul addressed us”. Luke’s switch from the first to the second person in Acts 20:7 is singularly abrupt and contained in such a closed nexus of statements that different traditions can hardly be supposed as reason for the change. His choice of words is deliberate and definitive in this instance at least.

7.2.2.6.

If I were a Greek

The reader is conditioned to think along the lines set by age-old translations. And the translators as well. The Greek or the Jew reading Greek in Luke’s day would have had no problem to fully understand the phrase differently without a further word. This passage in Acts 20:7 baffled them in no way. For them it was the most obvious implication – simply and shortly contained in Perfect Participle and Infinitive – that Sabbaths were associated with Holy Communion.

Paul and his co-workers after the Sabbath and before Paul would again depart, that evening on the First Day (Saturday evening) would be “assembled still” to have Paul “discuss with them”, “matters”, after they had had Holy Communion – on the Sabbath shortly ago.

Luke’s readers could understand that without serious investigation. The conclusion for us, reached from reading Luke’s spontaneous observation, is serious. It indicates a status quo of Luke’s day – a precedent to us, of liturgical, formal, customary and ordinary Holy Communion-Sabbath-keeping with Christians of the time and territory. Had they not been thus accustomed, the “company” of “disciples” would not have “found ourselves together on the First Day of the week”, but “on the Second Day of the week”. They, in that case, would have “assembled on Holy Communion on the First Day” and would have been found “still assembled” … on the Second Day! – when Paul would have addressed them till midnight because he would have been on the point to depart the next morning which would have been Tuesday.

7.2.3.

Paul’s “Speaking”

Paul “addressed” the company in the upper room not to give a sermon for Holy Communion. Holy Communion was on the Sabbath before. “On the First Day”, “we”, the company, “were still together” after Holy Communion. That was the circumstance “when Paul addressed them”. Circumstantially, it has already been made clear that Paul gave no sermon for Holy Communion. It has already been made clear that Paul’s “eating” before his departure was not the Lord’s Supper. For what reason then did Paul “speak to them”? The answer must come from the contextual historical indications, and not from the contextual indications otherwise because content of any kind of “discussion” is lacking. Not a word of what Paul said is recorded. Some meaning that is not of the nature of “preaching” should be allowed for the word dialegomai in Acts 20:7.

At least the words used to mention the fact that Paul “spoke” should give an indication of the nature of his speaking? The supposition is quite correct. The occurrence of the words used to mention the fact that Paul “spoke” must be investigated in order to determine of what nature his “speaking” might have been. Two verbs and one noun serve as indicators in this regard. In verse 7 the first is translated “preached” – dielegeto, stemming from dialegomai. In verse 9 it is again translated that Paul kept on for long “preaching” – dialegomenou, “the Word” – ton logon. In verse 11 translations say that Paul “preached” a long while – homilehsas, stemming from homileoh.

7.2.3.1.

Homilehsas – “Commune”

Homileoh derives from the noun, ho homilos – a group, band or pact. Homilos again, comes from two words, homou / homos – “together in one place” and ileh – “a company” or “troop”. Homilos is used in Rv.18:17 for a fleet of ships. In 1Cor.15:33 “bad company” or “evil communications”. In verbal form it simply means “To associate with one’s group”. Luke uses the word in this sense ^Lk.24:14-15 where the disciples from Emmaus “came upon one another / grouped / met / crossed roads” – autoi hohmiloun pros allehlous. “Because of all these things that occurred” they probably got separated and (through God’s providence) “found each other” at crossroads on their way to Emmaus.

“And it so happened, even as they, meeting one another / in their accidenting upon one another (en tehi homilein autous) they discoursed (kai sudzehtein), that Jesus himself approached them”. (The same kind of Infinitive as used “To break bread”!) Jesus himself met them “on their way”. They all “came upon one another as they went”, “and recapped / thought over / meditated on” (kai sudzehtein), “the events of the past season” (“all the things that had happened”).

The two words homilein and sudzehtein are not pleonastic or synonyms. They don’t both mean to “discuss” or “ponder”.

In the case of Acts 20:7 homilehsas needs mean nothing but “communed” in the sense of “Paul went back to his group to eat”. After Paul had attended to Eutychus, he “went up (stairs) again and associated (with his comrades) for considerable time till break of day when he departed”. This interpretation is preferable because, If Paul went on “talking” after Eutychus’ accident like he did before, Luke most probably would again have used the same word as before, dialegomai. (At least one could have expected to hear Paul speak on the Gospel-implications of his – alleged – raising of Eutychus from the dead!) What Paul did, he did even as he ate and while he left. Three Participles instead of verbs, “Paul, eating (klasas), being nourished (geusamenos), associating (“communing”) (homilehsas), thus went out – houtohs exehlthen”. To have “talked” all the while even while eating, while being nourished, and while leaving, sounds too much, also since Paul had “spoken” for almost the whole evening! The word should rather be given its literal and etymological meaning, “to group / associate”. Homilehi in Acts 24:26 simply means, Felix “spent time” with Paul. He specifically avoided discussion of matters of faith, but nevertheless called for Paul to “associate” because he “hoped that Paul would bribe him so that he may be set free”.

Except for the one instance in Revelation, Luke is the only writer of the New Testament who uses the word homileoh. Every time he uses it the context dictates a circumstantial meaning – “company”. It in no case need to be interpreted as an equivalent of the English “to converse” in the sense of “discuss” or “debate”. Had Luke meant “discussion” or “debate” with this word, he would have intended the most negative sense possible. The disciples from Emmaus doubted and lacked any understanding. They could not have “debated on the things that happened” like believers or proclaimers of the Gospel! And Felix would have “debated” with Paul with the worst of hidden motives. This type of debate is a far cry from being “witnesses” of the Gospel. Not even reluctantly or with any reserve could homilehsas be allowed the meaning of “preaching” the Gospel because it would imply that Paul in Troas “discoursed” with his companions the way Felix would have “discoursed”. The literal meaning of “grouped” = “enjoyed the company of his friends” is not only preferable but also unconditional.

The “considerable time” Paul after the accident spent with the “company” could not have been very long because almost the whole night had already been spent on genuine “discussions” and it by now was about break of day already. Ef’ hikanon te homilehsas (literally “over considerable” – no concept of “time” necessarily) should be rendered as “preciously / intensely”. The little (time) occasion left before Paul had to leave was of “considerable value”. He used it for “intense companionship” – homilehsas. ^{See also Par. 7.2.3.7.2.4.2.1, -3.}

7.2.3.2.

Dialegomai – “Discuss”

Paul, accordingly, “spoke” – dielegeto, no later than midnight of that Saturday night. Luke records that Paul “stretched his conversation until midnight”. At exactly what time of the evening Paul had started to speak, cannot be established. But Paul “discussed matters” with the company in the light of lamps, which could mean he started talking when it got dark. Paul then “talked (Imperfect), and continued his account till midnight”.

7.2.3.2.1.

Secular Meaning

Dialegomai and logos are used innumerable times outside Scriptures and respectively simply means to “debate”, to “think”, or to “discuss”, and “reason”, “to have word” et cetera. Dialegomai is often used for general applications and still possesses the basic meaning to “investigate” or to “probe”.

Dialegomai < dia, “through / thorough” + legoh – “to say” < logos – “reason”. Paul “extended his speech” – pareteinen te ton logon. ⁷ = “speaking for long” – dialegomenou epi pleion. The similarity between dialegomai and logos is obvious. Both have “mind / reason” at basis.

In Ro.14:1 dialegomai indicates some triviality; in 1Cor.11:34, it means “arrangement”, in Lk.6:11 (dialaleoh), “cavil”, Wisdom 7:20, “counsel”. The noun, dialogismos, means “ideas”, “doubt”. The extended verbal form, dialogidzomai, means, Lk.3:15, “consider”, Mk.8:17, “estimate”, “reckon”, 12:17, “to work out”, “derive”, 20:14, “disagree”. Heh logia < ho logos, in 1Cor.16:2, means “accumulated amount”.

Of significance of whatever meaning the word takes on in context, is the reciprocal nature of the exercise. It is no one way traffic, one man only the subject. “Dia-logue” implies dialogue “between” at least two “parties”, or “groups”. Paul represents the one “party” who “discoursed” with the other “party” of the “group” – his own “group” of “disciples”, “assembled together still on the First Day of the week”. Paul’s was no one-man show of “preaching” on this occasion. The connotation of the “group” (homilos / homilehsas) being subject of the “discourse” is evident.

7.2.3.2.2.

“Explain and Expound the Scriptures”

Says Ds. Momberg, “This specific word used to indicate Paul’s act (dialegomai) is used 13 times in the New Testament, 10 times of which in Acts, and nowhere “to ‘discuss’ travel arrangements”. Especially from contexts where the word is elsewhere used in Acts, may we accept that Paul was busy to explain and expound the Gospel.” (Emphasis CGE)

Ds. Momberg certainly is correct about the meaning of the word dialegomai meaning “to explain and expound”. But to interpret this meaning with reference to the explanation and expounding of “the Gospel”, from “contexts where the word is elsewhere used in Acts”, is unwarranted in so far as the context, here in chapter 20, does not mention or suggest the explaining or expounding of “the Gospel”.

7.2.3.2.3.

Significance for Sunday

There is a certain irony in this argument. The use of dialegomai by Luke in Acts 20:7 where it pertains a situation that occurred on Sunday, with the meaning “to explain and expound the Gospel” has meaning for the occasion and day of the occasion. It indicates Christian worship on that day, and that, indicates that that day, Sunday, is the Christian Day of Worship. Now if the same logic should be applied to the use of the word dialegomai with reference to the Sabbath?!

7.2.3.2.4.

Incidence of Use

Of the 10 times of this word’s use in Acts, two appear in the Troas story, one in Thessalonica (17:2), one in Athens (17:17), one in Corinth (18:4), one in Ephesus (18:19), two in Ephesus again (“upper coasts”) (19:8). One is a negation, which implies custom as in Jerusalem, as in the Synagogue and as on the Sabbath (24:12). One appears before Felix in Jerusalem (24:25).

7.2.3.2.5.

Significance for Sabbath

Of these, for five different occasions, the “explaining and expounding of the Gospel” happened in the Synagogue. Of these five occasions two are mentioned as events on the Sabbath (17:2, 18:4). In Thessalonica (17:2) the Gospel was explained and expounded three times, “on the Sabbath”. In Corinth (18:4) the Gospel was explained and expounded “every Sabbath”.

The Gospel being explained and expounded “in the Synagogue” also indicates that it happened on the Sabbath. Every instance of reference to the Synagogue, even the Athens instance (17:17) supposes an incident that occurred on the Sabbath. Especially Acts 19 where Paul “over a period of three months”, “preached” and “pleaded” on behalf of God’s Kingdom implies “preaching” and “pleading” on the Sabbath because the Synagogue was not frequented uninterruptedly. “Over a period of three months” implies on as many Sabbaths as would occur during the period. According to Acts 19:9 Paul “separated the disciples and daily disputed (dialegomenos) in the school of Tyrannos”. “Daily” stands in contrast with his previous “manner” to preach in the Synagogue, and implies that Paul’s preaching in the Synagogue was not “daily”. If not “daily”, it had to have been otherwise routinely, and how otherwise routinely but regularly on the Sabbath?

“To be drawn together” = “Synagogue” < sunagoh, was a Sabbath’s formality, a Seventh Day discipline of everyone that “synagogued”. Every time the Synagogue is mentioned in connection with the task of “dialogue”, the Sabbath is therefore implied as the day on which “dialogue” took place.

7.2.3.3.

Consistent Meaning

The irony surrounding arguments around the word dialegomai has another facet, already referred to in Par. 7.1.5.2.8. It is said that Paul only argued with the Jews in the Synagogues on Sabbaths and never proclaimed the Gospel on the Sabbath as he allegedly had done on the First Day according to Acts 20. Now this word that supposedly means quibble, cavil and argue where Paul was its subject on Sabbath days, on this single Sunday means “to explain and expound the Gospel”!

7.2.3.3.1.

Consistently Positive

The word means both things. It does mean “to explain and expound the Gospel”. It does mean to “argue”. But the sort of argument implied is positive. The English transcribing, “dialogue”, also gives the true feeling of the word. Dialegomai therefore does not have the negative connotations the word homileoh can take on, as where used in connection with Felix’ toadyism. This supplies the more reason why Luke would not have used the word homilehsas in Acts 20:11 with any meaning of “speaking”, but in the original sense of “keeping or having company”. The old English idiom of “communing” or “conversing” does not necessarily imply discourse. When it does, essentially two-way “dia-logue”, and not one-way “preaching” or “lecturing” is implied.

7.2.3.3.2.

Christian Ethics

“Dialogue / discussion” is necessary for proclamation and the growth of Christian faith and teaching. It was integral of the apostolic missionary “witness” to the Christ. Dialegomai is first used in chapter 17, and indicates the stage of development of Christian consciousness and thinking. It appears at a stage where the Faith had grown into doctrinally accounted for “understanding” and formal “presentation” – “dialogue”. And it is exactly at this point – Acts 17, in the Church’s history that the word appears! Exactly at this point- Acts 17:2, Christian “manner” or “ethics” appears – in the Church of “Synagogue” and … on the Sabbath! “Paul, to the dictates of his (Christian) ethics – kata to eiohthos tohi Paulohi – Dative! went to Church on the Sabbath”. This revolution of ethics was envisioned way back in chapter 6:14 with the stoning of Stephen, and only now has come about.

The new Christian “ethics” of “going to Church” – “on the Sabbath” – became threatened “on the part of certain” Christians, Hb.10:25. Does the letter to the Hebrews have habitual negligence in mind or perhaps the formal “ethics” of Sunday observance? The letter, after all, is addressed to Hebrews, “Spiritual Israel”, as Paul would have called the readers. Hebrews would go to Church specifically on the Sabbath, being an “among yourselves Synagogue-going” – episunagohgehn heautohn. (Literally, “in-of-essence-of-(their)-together-being”, cf. epiphohskousehi – in-the-essence-of-(Sabbath's)-being-light”).

7.2.3.3.3.

Christianity and Judaism

“To be drawn together = to “Synagogue”, was a Sabbath’s formality, a Seventh Day of the week discipline of everyone that “synagogued”. Even the Jews as atheists and idolaters, “Synagogued” on the Sabbath. But in every other instance those that “Synagogued” were Jews of Old Testament persuasion still, as well as Jews of Jesus persuasion. Those that “synagogued” also were Gentiles of Jesus persuasion, proselytes from their former state in heathendom, and who had to become Israelites when becoming Christians. They had to become members of Israel’s Gospel – in the temple (Jerusalem) as well as in the Synagogue (among the Gentiles) during the whole period of initial, Pentecostal, missionary Christianisation or “conversion” of Jews and Gentiles. Being a Christian was seen as being a Jew in the covenant of grace sense of the word in Acts. None of the Christian “Jews” were Judaists. Judaism got “separated” by separating the Christians through “blasphemy” and “cursing”, “opposition” and “persecution”. Judaism got “separated” through “counter reformation”. Cold adherence to irrelevant and obsolete ceremonial “law” made of religion a righteousness of works. Man’s pride is worshiped, not the grace of God in Christ. The Judaists started blaspheming and liturgically to pronounce a curse on Christ, opposing and persecuting the believers right within the same “Church” where all worshiped and liturgically confessed Christ, and so drove out those that “stuck” with Paul and the Gospel. The curse that the Judaists pronounced over Christ in order to drive and keep Christians out of the Synagogue need not to be learned of from rabbinical writings. Implication of the practice is obvious from Paul’s allusions as well as from Luke’s references to the Jews’ blasphemous behaviour and idolatrous partnerships with the heathen. The Judaists had “another gospel”, and were themselves “accursed” thereby, as Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians. The “Synagogue” had become the Synagogue of Christian Jews – not Jews of blood but of inheritance – spiritual inheritance of kinship – children of the Kingdom of God. In fact, in the Acts the Christian Church cannot be discovered anywhere but in the Synagogue and in the Temple. This circumstance provided the perfect milieu for the use of the word “dispute” – dialegomai specifically and especially for the proclamation of “this Jesus whom ye crucified but whom God raised from the dead”. No scenario could be more provocative for its use. Actually, this word has a story of its own to tell. It reflects the history of Christianity in a Jewish and Gentile world. (After the times of the Apostles the Gnostics started to manhandle the concepts of both “to argue” – dialegomai / dialegoh and “the reason” – ho logos.)

7.2.3.4.

The Scriptures

Dialegomai then, means “to investigate thoroughly” by “lecturing” and “discourse”. Of greatest importance for Christian proclamation through investigation and lecturing is the indispensability of Scriptural discipline. This is made abundantly clear in other passages of the word’s use. Scriptural discipline associated with Christian “investigation” or “dispute” is evidenced by, 1. The actual consulting of the Scriptures being plainly mentioned, Acts 17:2. 2. “Dialogue” on the basis of the Scriptures is evidenced through implication of Jesus the Christ, Paul “preaching Christ and him crucified” – “The Way” (19:9). “You search the Scriptures, but they witness of Me.” 3. “Dialogue” on the basis of the Scriptures is evidenced through the implication of the Scriptures’ authority implicated through locality. Paul “dialogued” in the Synagogue. The Scriptures are read in the Synagogue, “every Sabbath”, 15:21. 4. “Dialogue” on the basis of the Scriptures is evidenced through the implication of “the Kingdom of God” (19:8), Righteousness and Judgement (for Paul, “Christ our righteousness”; for Jesus, “I am come as Judgement”) (24:25), being “preached”. 6. “Dialogue” on the basis of the Scriptures is evidenced through implication of the Way’s opposite. Paul “disputed” against unbelief (19:9) and idolatry (17:7), indicating the Faith and Truth naturally through the Scriptures. 7. “Dialogue” on the basis of the Scriptures is evidenced through implication of the meaning to educate, instruct and to debate the word dialegomai. 8. “Dialogue” on the basis of the Scriptures is evidenced through implication of the Sabbath in almost every instance of the word’s use in Acts – study of the Scriptures and Sabbath-keeping being almost synonymous and closely associated, e.g. Acts 13.

Now in Acts 20 the only possibility of meaning of Paul’s act of “dialogue” is the seventh of these. Paul could have used the Scriptures to educate had the education been of spiritual nature. But he needed not to have used the Scriptures at all had the education and instruction been of simply strategic, technical, educational, organisational or managerial nature. Nothing is said or implied in Acts 20 of the eight factors mentioned above that implicates “proclamation” of the Gospel. Paul’s was “dialogue” in its secular sense. He did not “preach” or “proclaim” the Gospel. He might have on the Sabbath before. He had done so through participating of the Lord’s Supper, either as participant merely or more likely as participating preacher – on the Sabbath before.

Paul “investigated and continued to work out at length their business – dielegeto pareteinen te ton logon, until midnight”. Paul in no wise gave a long and wearisome sermon, setting a precedent for modern “preachers” and denominations who hallow Saturday nights and spend them with monotonously noisy but comatose exercise of “tongues” till break of day. As wrong as these movements are, are the more moderate denominations of the establishment with their view that “The breaking of bread denoting a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated” (Paul “preaching” the sermon of course), provides the precedent for Sunday observance.

7.2.3.5.

Proclamation Verbalised and Actualised = Evangelisation

In Acts 17:2, “They came to Thessalonica where was a Synagogue of the Jews. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them (= “assembled” – eisehlthen), and three Sabbath days reasoned (dielecsato) with / to them out of the Scriptures, opening (dianoigohn) and alleging (“setting before” / confessed – partithetamos) that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus, whom I preach (“proclaim” – katangeloh) unto you, is Christ. And some of them were persuaded and consorted (“threw in their lot” / “took part (in the ministry)”, 1:17 – proseclehrohthehsan) with Paul”.

In Acts 17:17 and further, “Paul waited for them in Athens when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. He disputed (dielegeto) in the Synagogue with / to the Jews ¹⁷ … he seems to set forth (“announce” / “proclaim” – katangeleus) … because he preached (“brought glad tidings” – euehngelidzeto) to them Jesus and his resurrection ¹⁸… You bring to our ears (eisfereis eis tas akoas) strange things ²⁰ … Him declare I (katangeloh) to you ²³ … certain men clave (“adhering” – kollehthentes) to him”. ³⁴

Paul proclaimed “God that made the world and all things therein (a clear allusion to the God of the Fourth Commandment), Lord of heaven and earth who “determined the times (of nations) before appointed” (a clear allusion to Daniel 9:24) – everything “pointing to a day in which He will judge the world (He created) by that Man whom He had ordained and of whom He gave guarantee to all mankind in that He raised Him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked and others delayed … Howbeit certain sided with Paul and became believers”. (These were idolaters at first.)

This is the identical message, identical modus operandi and identical effect found in Acts 2:1-4:4 – Pentecost, and in Acts 13 – Pisidia. These are all messages proclaimed on the Sabbath.

In Acts 18, “Paul came to Corinth ¹ and found Aquila ² … and he reasoned (dielegeto) in the Synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded (epeithen) Jews and Greeks ⁴ … Pressed in the spirit (suneicheto tohi logohi – “determined in mind / eager in purpose”) testified (“solemnly witnessing” – diamarturomenos, “with tears”?) to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ”. ⁵

The distinctive features of this day’s proclamation are those of every previous Sabbath’s history in Acts. It is “evangelical” in the truest sense of the word. It was delivered on the Sabbath.

In Acts 18:19, Paul “came to Ephesus. He himself entered (eisehlthohn) the Synagogue and reasoned (dielecsato) with / to the Jews. And they desired him to tarry longer”.

In Acts 19, Paul, again in Ephesus (“upper coasts” ¹⁹), “finding certain disciples ¹ (twelve men ⁷), he asked (eipen) them, Have you received the Holy Spirit, because you are believers? … Then said he (eipen = entreated / commanded) … John said they should believe on Christ Jesus”. ⁴ And he went (eisehlthohn) into the Synagogue and spoke boldly (eparrehsiadzeto) over three months disputing (dialegomenos) and persuading (peithohn) concerning the Kingdom of God. ⁸ … He separated the disciples and daily disputed (dialegomenos) in the school of Tyrannos”.⁹

In Acts 24:12 it is implied that it was Paul’s usual, normal and fixed way of proclaiming Christ “in the temple disputing (dialegomenon).

In Acts 24:25 Paul “disputed / reasoned of righteousness” – indicating not mere bickering but making of his “dialogue”, proclamation.

7.2.3.6.1.

Paul’s “Manner” of “Speaking”

From Luke’s use of this word dialegomai, it is noteworthy that he only uses it as Paul’s “manner” of “speaking” when proclaiming the Gospel. The unbelieving Jews certainly remonstrated vehemently. Luke nevertheless never places this word in their mouths. It must be concluded that Luke never uses the word sarcastically. When Paul “dialogued” on the Sabbath, he proclaimed the Gospel and did not engage in senseless heated change of words with the Jews. He did not engage in any “dispute” that was of no significance as proclamation, and also for the day as such. He used no “idle language” on God’s “holy” day. “Discourse” in each of the events where it is used to say what Paul did, had positive and constructive meaning for the Gospel at large and therefore also for the Day that is so especially provided in God’s design for the proclamation of the Gospel.

7.2.3.6.2.

Complemented

It is also significant to observe from these instances of the word’s use that it is consistently accompanied by several other words, complementing its own meaning and verbalising proclamation. It never occurs in contrast with these other terms and phrases, but fully correlates with them. From this it should again be observed that this word indicates proclamation of the Gospel – on the Sabbath. In Acts 20:7, where dialegomai is used for Paul’s “speaking”, “on the First Day”, no other complementary word is used, suggesting the word’s secular meaning to be intended.

7.2.3.7.1.

Dialegomai – A Sabbath’s Discipline

The concurrence of the word dialegomai and the Sabbath is most obviously “evangelical” in the instances where the Sabbath is specifically mentioned. Every instance of reference to the Synagogue, even the Athens instance (17:17) supposes an incident that occurred on the Sabbath. Especially Acts 19 where Paul “over a period of three months”, “preached” and “pleaded” on behalf of God’s Kingdom implies “preaching” and “pleading” on the Sabbath because the Synagogue was not frequented uninterruptedly.

How is the instance then, of the use of this word in Acts 20:7 accounted for? Didn’t Paul “preach the Gospel”, “on the First Day” as well? Does Luke say for nothing that Paul “dialogued”, “the Word”, that is, “proclaimed the Gospel”?

It should first be emphasised that the contextual meaning of proclamation does not exclude the possibility that the word can elsewhere be used in its literal and basic meaning of “thoroughly to investigate”. There is no law that says, whenever Paul uses the word it must mean proclamation. Only one principle is valid, and that is that Luke never implements the word with negative connotation. The context should be decisive. In each instance of the word’s use in Acts but for 20:7, the context vests dialegomai with the meaning of “evangelise”. Each passage is fraught with semantics. Acts 20:7 obviously differs in this respect. The only factor that can possibly give indication of the meaning of Paul’s “discourse” in Acts 20:7, is the context. Verse seven, consisting of the phrases of Perfect Participle and Infinitive as explored above, shows that the only “Gospel”-event is implied to have belonged to the past, that is, to have occurred on the Sabbath, before “on the First Day”. Verse eleven, consisting of Paul’s returning to his “company” and his “eating to satisfaction”, has no “Gospel-feeling” about it, as has also been shown above. Homilehsas in verse 11 cannot serve as parallel or synonym for dielegeto in verse 7 or dialegomenou in verse 9.

To appreciate the significance of the word dialegomai in Acts 20:7 and 9 it should also be put next to occurrences of proclamation that do not contain the word, as chapter 13 and 16, both instances of Sabbath’s proclamation. Conspicuous about Christian Proclamation through “dispute” – dialegomai, on the Sabbath, is what in the parallel presentation of chapters 2, 13 and 20 above (Par. 7.1.1.4), may be described as Characteristics of Occasion, of Method and of Subject. In Acts 20 commendation lacks most conspicuously, as do dispensation and evocation. In Acts 20 there is no exhortation, no proclamation and no confirmation of Scripture. The passage as a whole is silent on the object of proclamation, Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the reaching of the heathen, and the results of proclamation, especially persecution and growth. The absence of these aspects of Proclamation in Acts 20:7 indicates a secular meaning of the word dialegomai in this passage.

7.2.3.7.2.1.

Meaning for Occasion

Sabbath’s instances of proclamation of the Gospel virtually covers every instance of proclamation of the Gospel in the Acts up to chapter 20. What remains of the entire bulk of content up to chapter 20 after Sabbath’s histories are extracted, is, in terms of volume, very little. When the proclamation of the Gospel is the topic outside Sabbath histories, it cannot be spoken of without reference to the historical incidences of proclamation contained in the passages of Sabbath-histories. These supply the point of departure of the Act's’ consequent narratives. Sabbath-episodes mark the milestones on the Church’s “Way” through history. They form the superstructure of the edifice.

Therefore to allege that proclamation made of Sunday the meaningful day that Christians regard in replacement of the Sabbath because proclamation never characterised the Sabbath as Christian, is a futile enterprise, dishonest and literally, hypocritical. It is of “little critical quality”, not “thought through”, not “dialogued” (dialegomai), not “reasoned” (ton logon), but reckless to say the least as far as it concerns responsible exegesis and pastoral accountability.

Sabbath’s Histories of Historical Proclamation	Context of Historical Proclamation	Proclamation Related	Historical
2, 3-4:4 Jerusalem Pentecost	4:5 to 23 Reactionary	4:24-33 Prayer	1 Prelude to Pentecost
		5:19 – 33 Prison
	7:1-60 Stephen	8:1-40 Phillip
			5:1-18 Ananias and Sapphira
13:14-52 S Antioch in Pisidia		10:1-11:18 Cornelius	5:34-6:15 Stephen
			9:1-31 S 20 Paul’s Conversion
	16:25-40 Keeper. React
16:13-18 Philippi	17:16-34 S 26 Athens		9:32-43 Dorcas
17:1-4 S Thessalonica			12:1-23 Herod
18:1-11 Corinth	S 19:1-12 S 8 Ephesus	11:19-30 Barnabas
Synagogue		14 Travel S 1	13:1-13 Travel
			15:1- 12 S 21 Council
		17:10-15 S Berea
		S18:24-28 Apollos
			18:12-23 Achaia
			19:13-41 Diana
			20:1-16 Troas

7.2.3.7.2.2.

Meaning Within Own Ranks

Only in the company’s own ranks can anything be discovered that suggests occasion for the Holy Communion. Only in its own affairs can reason be seen for Paul’s “discourse” also. “Its own affairs” – ton logon! “Paul discussed their own affairs at length, even till midnight”.

No wonder Eutychus fell asleep. Would he have fallen asleep had Paul proclaimed the “Good News”? Unimaginable! Eutychus was a minor still and had nothing to contribute to the “discussion”; he only had to oblige decisions and directives. “In the room there were many lamps” (“The place” was no open rooftop square as sometimes is suggested.) and the atmosphere must have been choking. “Many lamps” were needed because they were “small” lamps. It was more important to be able to see than to hear! Had Paul to consult maps and perhaps Luke’s “logbook”? So Eutychus looked up fresher air in the windowsill. The window probably was the only access to fresh air. The story will return to Eutychus. Now first back to “own affairs”.

7.2.3.7.2.3.1.

Meaning Within Circumstance

Says Ds. Momberg, “While the disciples were together Paul seized the opportunity to address them”. (Emphasis ours.) Correct. Paul seized the opportunity because he would not find a second – “He was ready / he intended to depart in the morrow”. This is Paul’s reason for addressing the company – not the Lord’s Supper. And, this gives insight into the nature of the company’s “remaining together”, as Ds. Momberg phrased it. It was not to partake of the Lord’s Supper. The partaking of the Lord’s Supper had already taken place according to the syntactical and grammatical composition of the first phrases of the verse as has been explained again and again, before, “within Saturday evening”. Therefore, “within Saturday evening”, Paul is lucky enough to find the “company” (homilehsas), “together still” (sunehgmenohn)!

7.2.3.7.2.3.2.

Ongoing Circumstance of Present Situation

Then “he goes on to talk to them – extensively” – Imperfect! “And he continued the matter till midnight” – pareteinen te ton logon mechri mesonuktiou. Here the significance of Luke’s implementation of the Imperfect comes into play; not with reference to by-gones. He did not “continue” from the viewpoint of the event of the company’s “meeting together”, but, “Paul continued discussion” from the viewpoint of the present, his own speaking till midnight. Every possible detail fits perfectly linguistically as well as contextually.

7.2.3.7.2.4.

Meaning In the Light of “Inspiration”

7.2.3.7.2.4.1.

In the Text

How could anyone not believe in the “Inspiration” of the Scriptures? Ds. Momberg says, “I repeat my stand of earlier … that here (at this place) under Inspiration nothing of the Congregation’s actions on the Saturday is mentioned. For soothe, I am convinced that this text does not want to speak of the Sabbath. Several things are in fact spoken of … and it is my wish that we should not seek any longer for proofs of things that do not appear in the text.” “Under Inspiration”, is “nothing of the Congregation’s actions on the Saturday mentioned”? But certainly implied! While everything “of the Congregation’s actions” on the Sunday, is mentioned! – and everything that could possibly be implied as well. “We should not seek any longer for proofs of things that do not appear in the text.” There “appears” nothing “in the text” that tells of the “Congregation” in the sense of the “Church” generally. Nothing “in the text” tells of any “action” “of the Congregation”. Nothing “in the text” tells of the Congregation’s or of the “company’s” assembling as an event “on the First Day”. Nothing “in the text” tells of the Lord’s Supper being observed “on the First Day”. Nothing “in the text” tells of Paul “preaching” the Gospel “on the First day”. Nothing “in the text” tells of the First Day being endowed with special meaning because of any act of the apostles “on the First Day”. In short, nothing “in the text” “wants to speak” about the First Day particularly! The Sabbath is indeed implied through the very mention of “the First Day”! The trend or implication “in the text”, what it “wants to speak” of, is nothing short of this.

7.2.3.7.2.4.2.

In the Context

7.2.3.7.2.4.2.1.

“Company”

In “this text” and in its context, “Several things are in fact spoken of”, says Ds. Momberg. One is the “company” as such. Why detect the concept of “company” and not “Congregation” from the context? Who was the “company”? What was its “activities”?

The persons that were “come together” are a “company” (homilos) because it was not the “Church” generally that were assembled. The persons are referred to by the pronoun and first person plural declination of the Participle, “we”, and by the third person pronoun, “them”. Paul “held company” with these fellows of his to the very last, “as he thus went out”. ¹¹ Who the “us” or “they” were, must be deduced from the context. The small “band” were those who had assembled on Holy Communion. Only as “Church” could believers assemble on Holy Communion. But the “Church” of “the elect” – “Ecclesia” can be “where two or three gather in My Name”. In this particular instance, “in the text” exists no more than the Church of the persons mentioned by name. The text does not say that any of the “disciples” when they arrived at Troas, “went into the Synagogue”, or, “disputed with the Jews”, or whatever. The text contains nothing of proclamation of the Gospel that could possibly have occasioned a meeting of public evangelical importance anywhere. “Being together” therefore, can only imply the togetherness of those who had arrived and who were leaving again. Could no one else have attended the Lord’s Supper? Any one else could – any one these “disciples” could have met during the week of their stay at Troas, could. But the text does not say so. As far as it concerned the narrator the assembly was the “disciples”’, whom he carefully describes as “disciples”, and lists by name. The context alludes to others. There is Eutychus, for example. And there are the people who attended to Eutychus when Paul had gone upstairs again. (More about that soon.) There is the narrator himself, who refers to the others as “them” whom Paul had “addressed”. But besides these allusions there is no indication in the text of any general assembly of Christians. Even though the Lord’s Supper was observed, the context confirms an intimacy of the event that could only suggest the few as partakers. “We (only, “we” who had arrived and stayed in Troas for seven days) still in company having had formed company (earlier) to partake of our Lord’s Supper (and now were “soon leaving in the morning”)”. There is also an intimacy of the few detectable in the mention of the “many lamps”. No mention is made of “many” people that were together “in the (small?) place”! One could imagine the few disciples circled around Paul as they, in the smoky atmosphere due to the lamps, were examining their situation and planned pending journeys and future objectives of evangelisation. They attentively listened to Paul as their leader, bent over, following his finger on the map as it indicated their planned journeys across the countries of Asia. Paul saw as before him the celebration of Pentecost at the end of his pathways and “planning” – ton logon.

7.2.3.7.2.4.2.2.

“Planning”

Paul “discussed” (dialegeto), “their plans” – ton logon. Ho logos, meaning “business”, 8:21, 15:6, 19:38; “plans”, 10:29, 16:36; “consultation”, 19:40, 20:24. Compare also 20:35, 38, 22:22 and many more.

Chapter 16 vividly sketches Paul’s experience that lead up to his “helping” the Macedonians of Philippi “on the Sabbath”. That experience started at Troas, the very city they found themselves in “on the First Day”. Could Paul have stayed in Troas for one week – “seven days” that ended on the Sabbath – where they “on the First Day “intended to leave in the morning”, “discussing their plans”, and not have thought of Philippi and his worship at the riverside “on the Sabbath” with the Christian women? Will “the log” return Paul to Pisidia where he landed on this road to the Gentiles? Would he ever “finish his pilgrimage with joy”? ^{(20: 24)} He “considered with them (the “company”) – dialegomai autois, at length (in detail investigating) their plans” – pareteinen te ton logon. Paul’s “discussion” must have been a “reminder” and in the Troas narrative creates a sense of nostalgic. (No wonder “while he thought things over for a long time” – dialegomenou epi pleion, Eutychus fell asleep.)

Paul arrived at Troas on his own, the others meeting him there. The events suggest previous “planning”. It seems the “party” of “disciples” stayed in the “upper room” during the seven days they spent at Troas – as “planned”. From their lodging they every day dispersed in several directions each on his own errand. Luke tells nothing of how they busied themselves. Their stay in Troas was only an interlude in their voyage to far places. Then on the last day, which automatically would be the day before the First Day, they observed the Lord’s Supper. It was the “logical” opportunity, the evening “On the First Day after having had Lord’s Supper and while we were together

still, Paul, planning to leave in the morning, addressed them …concentrating on their plans at length”.

This rendering is a simple, pure, precise, literal and complete, “translation”. It contains no interpretation. The context easily and naturally harmonises with each detail and the whole. While it fully satisfies every factual and linguistic aspect of the passage and its context, not one aspect thereof is violated or ignored. To blame on this translation the introduction of foreign and untrue ideas is nothing but a false accusation.

Some commentators even see in the words ton logon an allusion to the possibility that Luke kept a “log book” of the company’s journeys and doings. Dialegomai would then mean, “Paul studied the log book”. The “company”, before, had arranged to meet at Troas. “These going before, waited for us at Troas”. ⁵ They stayed at Troas for “seven days” ⁶ – according to arrangement, “log book”. Now, “on the First Day”, Paul, but also the others, were “ready /intended / planned (mellohn: Refer verse 13, mellontes – “intending”) to depart next morning” – according to schedule, “log book” – Paul on foot, the others by ship – as planned. “We went before to ship and sailed to Assos, there intending (mellontes) (to “log book”) to take in Paul, for so had he appointed (diatetagmenos), minding (mellohn), himself to go on foot” according to “log book”. ¹³ Paul had determined / decided (kekrikei gar) to sail by Ephesus so as (hopohs) not to waste time in Asia because he hurried, planning if possible (ei dunaton) for him to be (eieh autohi) in Jerusalem the Day (tehn hehmeran) of Pentecost – all according to “logbook”. ¹⁶

Volumes have been written on Paul’s “missionary” journeys. Troas was the place where Paul started to return to Jerusalem. Up to Troas it tells how before Paul others, and since Pisidia, Paul, travelled inland, away from Jerusalem. From Troas it is a story of Paul who eventually reaches Rome. The difficult question of Titus’ involvement in Paul’s work alone provided food for thought for many investigators. Invariably the Troas-halt comes into play in their considerations of Titus’ involvement.

Says F.F. Bruce, Paul “expected to meet Titus whom he had sent to report on the disquieting situation in the Corinthian church, at Troas. Although there was ample opportunity for gospel witness in Troas, Paul could not settle down to take full advantage of it because of his anxiety about Corinth”. Pastoral care could very well have been one of the “matters” of “discussion” on the Saturday evening.

Another “matter” that demanded “attention” in Troas, could have been that of charity. Says Bruce, “Among other things that Paul did in Macedonia and Greece at this time must be included the completed arrangements for conveying the collected gifts from the churches of these provinces to Jerusalem, Ch. 19:21. … Originally the plan probably was to be in Jerusalem for Passover, but when the delay caused by the news of the plot made that impossible, he determined at least to arrive there in time for Pentecost, cf. 5:16.” (Emphasis ours.)

Paul could have alluded to this specific “lying in wait of the Jews” in verse 19. He had to “plan”, “minding” such “matters” “to every implication / at length”.

“Paul was not going to make his journey to Jerusalem unaccompanied. A number of Gentile Christians went with him. These were no doubt representatives of the various churches which were contributing to the gift for the relief of the poverty of the Jerusalem Christians.” ^Bruce Again I supplied the emphasis. The disciples at Troas formed a “company”. It goes without saying. Theirs was a “company” of “delegates”, “organised” to “order” of “plan” and “agreement” through “dialogue”. The “meeting” in Troas was no open “public” and spontaneous gathering around the orator Paul proclaiming the Gospel. Such an impression is created artificially and completely looses contact with reality.

It should also go without saying that Paul, for the remainder of the night after having been “planning until midnight”, and after the excitement of Eutychus’ accident, more relaxed, “associated” – homilehsas, till the break of day” and no longer strained himself at “discussion” – not to mention “preaching”. See Par. 7.2.1.2.2.1. and 7.2.3.1.

To accordingly understand Paul’s “discussion” / “dialogue” to have dealt with such “matters” (ton logon) as travel, pastoral care, charity and safety is not at all arbitrary but practical and sober “thinking”. Bruce was in no way answering on another view that clashed with his. He notices these implications unprovoked, which shows its as a matter of fact validity within the entire context and entire textual content. To understand Paul’s “discussion” / “dialogue” to have dealt with such “matters” (ton logon) is not the view of enthusiasts who subjectively see, what they, “want”, “the text to say”, being obstinately blinded to any challenge to their own adulated prejudice.

These texts and expressions reveal the subject and content of ton logon – “their plans” – as Paul “investigated” and “discussed” – dialegeto, and “planned” them – mellohn (intend). Every step “worked out” according to “plan” the “next morning” came into play. Leaving from Troas, boarding ship at Assos, passing by Ephesus, in Miletus sending for the elders of the Church in Ephesus to attend a meeting in Miletus, Paul on this meeting declares, “I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing what awaits me there”. Paul “had his mind set” after “careful consideration of matters”. “I take you to record this day (Write it in the logbook and date the entry) I saying that I wronged no man, I am free of any man’s damnation”. Paul could claim that, because, as he says, “I was always faithful and had stuck with you under whatever circumstances. I served the Lord in humility and with tears often, under temptations and persecutions the Jews plotted against me. You know how I kept back nothing that could be profitable, but announced to you and taught you publicly (in Church) and (privately) in everyone’s own home. I solemnly testified to the Jews as well as Greeks (in the Church and at home) repentance before God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ”. Paul as it were, sums up his whole life in the ministry (three years up to now, verse 31), a ministry that is attested by Luke here in Miletus (Minute the locality.), to have been honest. Paul wronged no man; he never lied to any. His life, of greater part for these three years, as it happened, was a ministry served on Sabbath Days. “ … And it is my wish that we should not seek any longer for proofs of things that do not appear in the text” – or in the context – for that matter. It is a vain objection that Paul did not “plan (travel) arrangements”, “on the First Day of the week” ^{Ds. Momberg} in Troas, specifically, for these “things do appear in the text” as well as in the context, Troas being the historical watershed in the Apostles’ travels. And it is as vain a claim that Paul “preached” the “Word of the Gospel”, “we being assembled to break the bread of the Lord’s Supper on the First Day of the week”, for these “things do not appear in the text” but in translation. These wordings and phrasings are smooth but subtle, premeditated indoctrinating readings that no one could ordinarily discover for its deceiving qualities.

7.2.3.7.2.4.2.3.

Eutychus

The company’s planning for and comings and goings of the past week and Sabbath, the planning for their pending departure and further travels in the short term and in the longer, and the time of night and conditions within the upper chamber considered, “planning discussions” may be imagined possible, but scarcely “proclamation”.

“This Sunday fell almost at the end of the travelers’ week at Troas; they intended to continue their journey next day. They met in the evening – a convenient time for many of the members of the Gentile churches, who were not their own masters and were not free in the daytime – and Paul talked to them. …Eutychus had perhaps put in a hard day’s work from dawn to sunset and now in the stuffy atmosphere not even the words of an Apostle could keep him from falling asleep”. ^{F.F. Bruce} Had the house been Christian or Jewish, Eutychus would definitely not have had a day’s work behind. These considerations are purely speculative and really of no relevance. This view assumes that Eutychus was one of many people who assembled on the First Day to hear Paul preach the Gospel.

The Bezae Cantabrigiensis (Cod. D), “Confuses”, F.F. Bruce says, Tychicus “with the youth” Eutychus. That means, that if Codex D isn’t confusing these names, Eutychus would be one of the “disciples” Luke mentions as passing by at Troas. Eutychus would be one of the “company”.

Eutychus could have been the host’s son – ho pais. That could explain his presence during Paul’s “address” (to “them”, the “company”, the “together” of the “disciples”), as a gesture of hospitality, and his disinterestedness during all the “planning” of the night, allowing him to fall asleep. Eutychus fell from the window and Paul went down to see what happened to him. Everybody thought that Eutychus fell himself to death. The Greek simply says that Eutychus was “taken for dead” – ehrthreh nekros. Paul, where Eutychus had fallen, “fell over him embracing him tightly”. Paul was overjoyed for finding his worst expectations wrong. “Don’t worry”, Paul assured certain persons (shouting to those upstairs or to the inhabitants of the ground and first floor). “For he is alive and strong” – ho gar psucheh autou en autohi estin – literally, “his breath is in him”. Eutychus, being young and strong (neanias), had survived the fall. He surely “had breath”! A miracle did happen on that evening of the First Day. It was not the miracle of Paul who raised Eutychus from the dead. The miracle was the fact of Eutychus who did not fall himself to death. Luke writes that Paul – only – went down after Eutychus had fallen, and that he – only – came upstairs again. He left the young man while still outside. Paul did not take him into the house, whether downstairs or upstairs. Neither did “they” carry the youngster upstairs. The AV says that Eutychus was “taken up dead”, which means his corpse was carried into the house and upstairs. He was not carried upstairs “dead”. He was not “carried” or “carried upstairs” at all. The traditional scene is painted in words of how Paul, like Elias once did, spread his body over the corpse and miraculously “resurrected” it to life again. Other interpreters reckon Paul resuscitated Eutychus and “brought his breath back into him”. Paul revived him not. Eutychus (providentially) “made it on his own (he had the spirit in himself)”. Only Paul took food afterwards. (If Holy Communion had been taken, Eutychus could be expected to have been the one to be mentioned.)

“Translations” present false impressions in order to accommodate the concept of “proclamation”, “of the Word” to many assembled and of whom Eutychus was one. But not “we”, “gathered” on the First Day – “Paul, spoke”. “We” did not “come together” – We were together. “We” did not “come together on the First Day” – We were still together on the First Day and could be together still on the First Day only if we had assembled before it had become the First Day. The Afrikaans Bible has, “The believers assembled” as if many, as believers, eager to hear, from all over, receiving the Gospel “preached” by Paul. Paul did not address “the people” but those of his company who would leave by ship – “The disciples”, says Luke, those delegated and mentioned by name. They (“them”) were the ones, whom Paul “addressed”. “They” were those who arrived and intended to leave again next day. Paul does not “keep on talking” because he was still talking since the Lord’s Supper. He, with everyone “still there”, “conversed (two-way) with them” and kept on “conversing until midnight”. Paul did not “speak-the-to-break-bread”, that is, he did not “address” the sermon for Holy Communion. Paul “conversed” “because he intended to depart the next day” – dielegeto mellohn ecsienai tehi epaurion. Paul “spoke”, not because he had to proclaim, but because he had to “deal with matters” before his departure. After Paul had gone, “They” who “stayed behind” were not the host and his family or any other. “They”, when Paul had left, did not “bring him away”. “They” did not “bring the youngster home” after the supposed sermon that lasted till daybreak. Not, “Bringing him up / in / home the youngster lived”, but, “They left, the youngster living”. “They” weren’t a “Congregation”, “returning home” as if “dispersing” after the same supposed sermon. “They”, “greatly comforted because the youngster being alive (and happy) – dzohnta”, were the “company” who “hurried off – ehgagon, to catch their boat! “As soon as we boarded ship we set sail for Assos”, still on schedule despite the delay caused by Eutychus’ fall.

Only the Western Text contains verse 12 as a bridge between verses 11 and 13 and is omitted by Nestle. With or without verse 12, translations see to it that an atmosphere of Congregational, liturgical worship “on the First Day” is created. Even by means of manipulating the Eutychus narrative. At the same time they make sure that the Congregational, liturgical character of the “Assembly” implied in the introductory phrases are covered up.

In this is evident the conscious endeavour of the translators. In this is betrayed denominational doctrinal prejudice. Everyone should be reminded of the factor of “Inspiration” brought into this discussion by Ds. Momberg. “Great peace have they that love thy law: Nothing shall offend them”. (Christians should be so familiar with the Scriptures they should know where to find this text.) Believers should never engage in questioning obedience and the Gospel as were they opposites or exclusives. The New Testament does not fulfil the Old in any sense of annulling it. The Old complements the New – it is servant to and not master of the New Testament. The Law, only because still binding, waits on the Eternal Covenant of Grace. Had the Old Covenant been opposed to the New, God would have been divided against Himself. Division against itself is the attribute of the house of Satan, not of the Father’s. The Old Testament and the Ten Commandments it contains are as much God's living Word as is the New Testament. But Jesus Christ is God's Living Word Who, being God, not only speaks God's Word like the whole Bible does, but is God's Word like the whole Bible is not. In this relation the Law is less and lower than Jesus the Revelation of God. From Him did the Sabbath come. Anyone privileged to have received the free grace of regeneration and discipleship for living the life of the Body of Christ should return the Sabbath unto Him its Lord in worship. Herein lies the perpetuity and immutability of the Seventh Day Sabbath. It is indeed “made for man” as these freemen in corporate worship of the Lord.