The First Day of the Week by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 4, 1908

“The First Day of the Week”

By Editor

[The discovery is periodically made by some advocate of the Sunday sabbath that the improper translation of the Bible is responsible for the absence of any inspired statement authorizing the observance of the first day of the week as the sabbath. One such writer furnished an article for the Bridgeton (N. J.) Evening News to which a scholarly reply was made by Dr. A. H. Lewis, the former editor of the Sabbath Recorder (Seventh-day Baptist), and as the subject is handled in a clear and convincing way, we reprint herewith the reply in full.—Ed.]

“To the Editor of the News:—

“My attention has been called to an article in your issue of April 1, 1908—‘The Sabbath Question’—which is signed by Edwin Edwards. Mr. Edwards’ contention is that ‘Infidels and Seventh-day Sabbatarians’ have conspired to mistranslate the Bible, and thus prevent the world from knowing that Sunday is the ‘Sabbath’ according to a certain pretended translation which he gives. Since his charge of ‘infidelity’ includes the translators of the Bible from that the Hebrew into the Greek and the Greek into the English during a period of more than two thousand years, it may merit a little attention because of the boldness of its unwarranted assumption, if for no other reason. So far as actual scholarship is concerned, or any evidence that Mr. Edwards has even a slight conception of the genius of the Greek or the Hebrew languages from which the Bible has been translated, the article demands no attention.

“The last twenty-five years have been prolific in new and short-lived inventions to cover the want of authority for calling Sunday the Sabbath. Mr. Edwards joins in asserting that all translators of the New Testament have been ignorant or dishonest in translating so as to give the phrase, ‘first day of the week.’ These pretended critics assert that there is no such phrase as ‘first day of the week’ in the New Testament, and that a correct rendering of mia toon Sabbatoon would be: ‘One of, or first of the sabbaths,’ and that such a translation would indicate that at the resurrection of Christ the ‘old series’ of sabbaths ceased, and a ‘new series’ began. Others say that the phrase indicates that Christ rose on ‘one of the sabbaths’ of the passover week during which he was put to death. It matters little to these inventors what the new theory is, only that it is made a seeming means of escape from the claims of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Such claims are usually made by men who know a little Greek, or none at all. But since they are used to confuse those who have not the opportunity for such investigations as will readily detect the want of knowledge and the sophistry which lie back of them, I shall set forth the essential facts in the case. That the English reader may compare terms more readily I avoid Greek and Hebrew letters, even though the expression of sounds by English letters is sometimes quite unsatisfactory.

“ORIGIN OF THE IDEA INVOLVED

“The idea which gave birth to the phrase mia toon Sabbatoon (first day of the week) is primarily Hebraic. The Hebrews numbered the days of the week, and had no name for any except the Sabbath. They held the Sabbath as the chief day, the one which possessed all the rest. All other days honored it. The Hebrews designated the week as a whole, the seven days as a group, by two names; Shabua, which means a group of seven, and Shabbath (Sabbath). To understand the transfer of the Hebrew thought to the Greek we must begin with the Septuagint. This is the Old Testament translated into Greek from 280 to 150 B. C. This translation was made at Alexandria, where Greek and Hebrew thought were in closest contact, and at a time when both languages were living and vigorous.

“The Greek equivalent of Shabua is Hebdomos, the exact equivalent of the English ‘week.’ If the reader will notice the following passages, remembering that in each one week is the counterpart of Hebdomos (or Hebdomad), in the Greek, and of Shabua in the Hebrew, he will see how the idea was first transferred. Gen. 20:27, 28; Ex. 34:22; Num. 28:26; Deut. 16:9, 10, 16; 2 Chron. 8:13; Dan. 9:24, 25, 26, 27; 10:2, 3.

“This is quite enough to fix the identity between these three words and to link the Hebrew idea, now thousands of years old, with our own as expressed in ‘week.’ In Lev. 12:5, where the English has ‘two weeks,’ the Septuagint has: dis hepta heemeras, or ‘twice seven days.’ But we also find that Shabath (Sabbath), as the name of the specific seventh day of the week, was used as the equivalent of Shabua and Hebdomos, e. g., Lev. 23:15. ‘Seven sabbaths shall be complete.’ Here we have the Greek hepta hebdomos. In Lev. 25:8 it is thus: ‘And thou shalt number to thee seven sabbaths of years, seven years seven times; and the days of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to thee nine and forty years.’ The Greek has hepta anapausies etoon (seven sabbaths of years), ‘and these shall be unto thee’ hepta hebdomos etoon (seven weeks of years). The same rendering is found in Deut. 16:9. This identifies the Hebrew Shabbath with the Greek Hebdomos and English ‘week.’

“Coming to the New Testament, we find the same Hebrew conception of the Sabbath as possessing, and marking the bounds of the week, or that the week lies between two Sabbaths. Since these days which the Sabbath possesses are only numbered they must be designated as ‘first,’ etc., in their order within the bounds set by the Sabbath, or better still, as possessed by the Sabbath. Hence we have in the phrase mia toon Sabbatoon, the ‘genitive construction,’ ‘possessive case,’ by which this ownership of the Sabbath is expressed. This compact Greek phrase may be paraphrased or expanded so as to aid the conception of the reader: e. g., ‘The first of the days belonging to the Sabbath,’ or ‘the first of the days lying between the Sabbaths,’ but the term chosen by the translators is simplest and best, ‘The first day of the week.’

“The great Hebrew scholars of our time, Delitzsch, Bagster, and others, in translating the Greek into the Hebrew New Testament support the ordinary rendering in every instance although they adopt the Hebraic form of expression; e. g., in Matt. 28:1, Bagster’s Hebrew Testament has ‘day first in the Sabbath,’ using Sabbath in its old Hebrew sense as week. John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2 are given ‘in the first day in the Sabbath.’ In Luke 18:12 we have ‘twice in the week’ (Heb.) Shabua, (Greek) Sabbatoon. Hebrew lexicographers give ‘week’ as a secondary meaning of Sabbath. Gesenius refers to Deuteronomy and Leviticus in support of this, and adds that in the kindred dialects, Chaldee and Syriac, it has the same meaning. The Syriac New Testament gives, ‘One in the Sabbath,’ and the Standard English translation of the

Syriac by Murdock gives as its equivalent, in every instance, ‘first day of the week.’ This testimony comes directly from a language closely allied to the Hebrew, and without passing through the Greek. It forms a second and independent line of proof, showing that our English translators have not mistaken the meaning of this phrase.

“In conclusion let the reader note what these inventors of a new theory do:—

“1. They refuse to accept the testimony of more than two thousand years, as to the meaning of Hebrew terms, and of the Hebrew mode of thought.

“2. They charge all Greek translators, from 250 B. C. to the latest revision of our Bible, with ignorance or dishonesty.

“3. They ignore the testimony of the two cognate languages—Chaldee and Syriac—and call in question the accuracy of the English version of the Syriac, as well as the Hebrew and Greek.

“4. The history of their claim shows that it has no standing with translators or commentators; that it is a weak makeshift whereby they seek to escape the force of facts they can not deny, but which they are anxious to evade. Of the character of their pretended scholarship nothing need be said.

“We do not present these facts to defend the translators—Greek, English, Latin, German, or French—from the charges of ignorance or dishonesty. That would be like defending mountain peaks of granite against summer zephyrs.

“My purpose is to place the facts plainly before those readers who have not the chance to consult the authorities adduced, and who might be confused by the noisy demonstrations which these pretending translators make in their little circles. We also ask the reader to note that these claims destroy the popular notion concerning Sunday as the specific day of Christ’s resurrection. For if this phrase is not ‘first day of the week’ there is no mention of that day in the New Testament.

“These facts are sufficient answer to all Mr. Edwards says relative to Acts 13:42.

“Mr. Edwards’ desire to find authority for observing Sunday leads to 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, even though it be translated falsely according to ‘the infamous insinuations of infidels and seventh-day Sabbatarians.’ (By the way, Mr. Editor, that phrase is a glowing type of descriptive rhetoric.) Here is the passage from Paul’s letter:—

“‘Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him in store as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.’

“This text contains no suggestion of a public gathering, but the exact opposite. It is the work of theologians like Mr. Edwards to put such an interpretation into the passage, and not the work of the scholar to draw it from the passage. In support of this are the following facts:—

“The English rendering, ‘Let each one of you lay by him in store,’ clearly indicates a personal work on the part of each man by himself. The Greek is equally plain, and, if possible, stronger.

“It would be difficult to frame a sentence which would express the idea of personal action by one’s self more exactly. It is literally, ‘each one of you, by himself, lay away treasuring up.’ The Latin is: Per unam Sabbatorum unusquisque vestrum apud se reponat recondens, quod bene successerit, etc.

“Literally, ‘Each one of you at his own house lay up, putting away,’ etc.

“Tyndale says: ‘Let every one of you put a syde at home and laye uppe.’

“The Syriac Peshito reads as follows: ‘Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.’

“To this the following may be added:—

“Three French versions read, ‘At his own house at home.’ Luther, ‘By himself at home.’ The Dutch version the same. The Italian version, ‘In his own presence at home.’ The Spanish, ‘In his own house.’ Portuguese, ‘With himself.’ Swedish, ‘Near himself.’ The Douay Bible, ‘Let every one of you put apart with himself.’ Belza, ‘At home.’ Rotherham, ‘Let each one of you put by itself, treasuring it,’ etc.

“Meyer, one of the ablest of modern commentators, says para eautoo tithetoo can not refer to the laying down of money in the assembly. His translation is: ‘Let him lay up in store at home whatever he succeeds in; i. e., if he has success in anything, let him lay it up; i. e., what he had gained thereby, in order that gatherings be not made when I shall come.’ (On Cor., Vol. II, page 111.)

“By such an array of scholarship the vague inference on which Mr. Edwards builds, is at once destroyed. The direction given by Paul is that each man should begin the work of the week by putting aside as much as he was able, for the poor saints at Jerusalem, in order that each having thus decided what he could do, there need be no delay about the matter when Paul should arrive. This order was only temporary and for a specific purpose.

“It may be of interest to the readers of the Evening News to note that the latest books of the New Testament including the Gospel of John were written about the year ninety-five. In none of these is there any trace of the change of the Sabbath nor is the abrogation of the Sabbath law taught in them. The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament sixty times, and always in its appropriate character. Sunday is mentioned but eight times and six of these are in the Gospels in connection with the announcement of the fact that Christ had risen from the dead. It is mentioned but once in the book of Acts and only once in all the Epistles.

“Perhaps your correspondent from Wildwood will say that Christ and his apostles kept the Sabbath ‘simply as Jews.’ If this be true, then Christ lived and taught simply as a Jew and not as the Saviour of the world. On the contrary he was at war with the false and extravagant notions of Judaism concerning questions of truth and duty. If Christ were not a ‘Christian,’ but a ‘Jew,’ what becomes of the system which he taught? If his first followers, who periled all for him and sealed their faith with blood, were only Jews, or worse, were dissemblers, doing that which Christians ought not to do, for sake of policy, where shall Christians be found? The assumption dies of its own inconsistency.

“The popular outcry against the Sabbath as ‘Jewish’ savors more of prejudice and ignorance than of consistency and charity. Christ was in all respects, as regards nationality, a Jew. So were all the writers of the Old Testament, and all the writers of the New Testament. God has given the world no word of inspiration in the Bible, from gentile pen, or gentile lips. Is the Bible therefore ‘Jewish?’ The Sabbath, if possible, is less Jewish than the Bible. It had its beginning long before a Jew was born. It is God’s day marked by his own example, and sanctified by his blessing, for the race of man. Christ recognized each of the other eternal laws with which it is associated in the decalogue—recognized them as the everlasting words of his Father, whose law he came to magnify and fulfil. It tells of pitiable weakness, and unchristian irreverence, to attempt to thrust out and stigmatize any part of God’s truth as ‘Jewish,’ when all of God’s promises and all Bible truth have come to us through the Hebrew nation.’