Sabbath and Week?

[Lulav]

Ran into this while looking something up about the crucifixion.

Matthew 28:1

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ
After then the Sabbaths it being dawn towards first (of the week) Came Mary

ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
Magdelene and the other Mary to see the tomb.

How is it that the same word is translated first as SabbathS (Sabbaton)
and the second time it's used in the same sentence it's translated as 'of the week'?

 

[HARK!]

Good question. I've been asking this question for years.

 

[daq]

Ran into this while looking something up about the crucifixion.

Matthew 28:1

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ
After then the Sabbaths it being dawn towards first (of the week) Came Mary

ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
Magdelene and the other Mary to see the tomb.

How is it that the same word is translated first as SabbathS (Sabbaton)
and the second time it's used in the same sentence it's translated as 'of the week'?

Uh-oh... : )

One thing you have surely revealed is the fact that translators (are essentially forced to) do more interpreting than they would like to admit.

 

[daq]

Ran into this while looking something up about the crucifixion.

Matthew 28:1

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ
After then the Sabbaths it being dawn towards first (of the week) Came Mary

ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
Magdelene and the other Mary to see the tomb.

How is it that the same word is translated first as SabbathS (Sabbaton)
and the second time it's used in the same sentence it's translated as 'of the week'?

Mia is a form of heis meaning one or first, so, (I am assuming somewhat here), mian sabbatwn is probably taken by scholarship to be an equivalent phrase to eḥad bshabbat, (אחד בשבת), which, as I'm sure you probably know, is an old way of numbering the days of the week. Whether or not that is actually what is intended by the Greek phrase is another question because sabbatwn is plural. In the LXX there is a question as to whether or not this may be a simple direct transliteration, (into Greek), of the Hebrew word shabbaton, which means rest. However the word shabbat is also rendered in the plural in the LXX as sabbatwn. There is also a word used in the LXX for a week, hebdomos or hebdoma, and it's used in places where we find shabua, (or if you prefer, shavua), but this Greek word is only in the Apostolic writings where it neans seventh, (for example, the seventh day in Heb 4:4, the seventh from Adam in Jude 1:14).

 

[Lulav]

Mia is a form of heis meaning one or first, so, (I am assuming somewhat here), mian sabbatwn is probably taken by scholarship to be an equivalent phrase to eḥad bshabbat, (אחד בשבת), which, as I'm sure you probably know, is an old way of numbering the days of the week. Whether or not that is actually what is intended by the Greek phrase is another question because sabbatwn is plural. In the LXX there is a question as to whether or not this may be a simple direct transliteration, (into Greek), of the Hebrew word shabbaton, which means rest. However the word shabbat is also rendered in the plural in the LXX as sabbatwn. There is also a word used in the LXX for a week, hebdomos or hebdoma, and it's used in places where we find shabua, (or if you prefer, shavua), but this Greek word is only in the Apostolic writings where it neans seventh, (for example, the seventh day in Heb 4:4, the seventh from Adam in Jude 1:14).

Yes, two things threw me, the different meanings given to the same word and the pluralization.

Something a bit off from that but by the second way that word is used, do you think that would be an indication of who wrote Hebrews? I am not of the school of Paul as the writer.

 

[HARK!]

Something a bit off from that but by the second way that word is used, do you think that would be an indication of who wrote Hebrews? I am not of the school of Paul as the writer.

I doubt that Paul wrote the anonymous letter to the Hebrews. Aside from him proclaiming to be an Apostle to the Gentiles, in all of the letters that we could attribute to him; he takes credit for them.

To me, a puzzling part of the letter to the Hebrews is, why would a Hebrew, who was writing a letter to Hebrews, write the letter in a language other than Hebrew?

 

[daq]

Yes, two things threw me, the different meanings given to the same word and the pluralization.

Something a bit off from that but by the second way that word is used, do you think that would be an indication of who wrote Hebrews? I am not of the school of Paul as the writer.

I imagine Yakob the Tzaddik dividing his soul into twelve parts, writing all of it, and sending a portion to each of the tribes: that way I need not worry about whether or not Peter, or Paul, or some guy with the English name James wrote something.

 

[Lulav]

I doubt that Paul wrote the anonymous letter to the Hebrews. Aside from him proclaiming to be an Apostle to the Gentiles, in all of the letters that we could attribute to him; he takes credit for them.

To me, a puzzling part of the letter to the Hebrews is, why would a Hebrew, who was writing a letter to Hebrews, write the letter in a language other than Hebrew?

Good question.

Some say that it is because Greek was the commonly understood language throughout the Empire. And the Jews were still spread out around there as we can see from Acts 2:5

 

[HARK!]

Some say that it is because Greek was the commonly understood language throughout the Empire.

The Qumran scrolls paint a different picture.

 

[HARK!]

I imagine Yakob the Tzaddik dividing his soul into twelve parts, writing all of it, and sending a portion to each of the tribes: that way I need not worry about whether or not Peter, or Paul, or some guy with the English name James wrote something.

Are protesting Catholics still Catholics?

 

[daq]

Are protesting Catholics still Catholics?

It appears that if they protest too much they become merely protestants. I think Yakob wrote something about clanging cymbals.......Or maybe it was Paul. : )

 

[Lulav]

The Qumran scrolls paint a different picture.

Care to expand on that?

 

[HARK!]

Care to expand on that?

Most of the texts are Hebrew, with some written in Aramaic (for example the Son of God Text; in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[9]

Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Very few manuscripts found at Betharaba (Renamed Qumran by the Muslims) were written in Greek. The Zadokites continued to write in Hebrew, until they vacated Betharaba.

 

[Lulav]

Most of the texts are Hebrew, with some written in Aramaic (for example the Son of God Text; in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[9]

View attachment 324452

Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Very few manuscripts found at Betharaba (Renamed Qumran by the Muslims) were written in Greek. The Zadokites continued to write in Hebrew, until they vacated Betharaba.

True. I've seen some of them in person, have you? I couldn't believe the letters were so tiny and back then with no electric lights to read by.

Anyway, they were sheltered on purpose from the rest of the world so I don't think that book of Hebrews was written to them. Also they probably believed as I do that Hebrew is Gods Holy language.

 

[HARK!]

True. I've seen some of them in person, have you?

I have not; but I have been doing studies on them for a long time. Many are available for public view over the internet.

 

[HARK!]

Also they probably believed as I do that Hebrew is Gods Holy language.

It is an amazing language, right down to the otiot.

 

[Lulav]

Uh-oh... : )

One thing you have surely revealed is the fact that translators (are essentially forced to) do more interpreting than they would like to admit.

Yes, take for instance

Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.​

See anything wrong there?

How about here?

Numbers 6:9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it. 10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day. 12 And he shall consecrate unto the LORD the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.​

 

[daq]

Yes, take for instance

Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.​

See anything wrong there?

How about here?

Numbers 6:9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it. 10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day. 12 And he shall consecrate unto the LORD the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.​

Yes and yes, but it is not easy to answer because I read quite literally, so I am not sure what types of things you mean, for example, the lamb is to be the son of a year and I do not understand olah to necessarily mean a burnt offering but rather much prefer the literal meaning of the word, an ascending, (as the verb, to ascend), as in an ascending offering. I just looked at the first passage real quick but there are a lot of these types of things in that passage alone.

So then, what do you see wrong in either or both?

 

[Lulav]

A lot simpler than that I'm afraid.

I am a literal word for word type of reader and am constantly editing my kindle books.

The problem is, and most Gentile Christians either don't read the Torah or if they did they wouldn't see a problem.
But I'm sure you know the sacrifices to our GOD are to be clean ones. Even those who know the story of Noah realize that it was known back then.

However in the King James, (not sure about other versions but this is the upheld standard) it seems the translator wasn't well knowledgable of the Torah themselves or they would have caught this. They have corrected it in the NKJV but still there are many who still read the old version.

The Leviticus passage :6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest

8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons;

It's the same in Numbers except it doesn't mention the turtle doves, just two turtles.

 

[HARK!]

A lot simpler than that I'm afraid.

I am a literal word for word type of reader and am constantly editing my kindle books.

The problem is, and most Gentile Christians either don't read the Torah or if they did they wouldn't see a problem.
But I'm sure you know the sacrifices to our GOD are to be clean ones. Even those who know the story of Noah realize that it was known back then.

However in the King James, (not sure about other versions but this is the upheld standard) it seems the translator wasn't well knowledgable of the Torah themselves or they would have caught this. They have corrected it in the NKJV but still there are many who still read the old version.

The Leviticus passage :6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest

8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons;

It's the same in Numbers except it doesn't mention the turtle doves, just two turtles.

I too saw multiple problems with the translation, including this one; but I just assumed that this one was a typo.