“THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.”
Is the Greek, “Mian Sabbatone,” of Matt. 28:1, Rightly Rendered “First Day of the Week”?
IT is natural for the human to believe himself wise. He does not wish to admit that he has ever been wrong. If for years he has followed some theological error, he does not wish to learn that it is error, especially if the error be popular. When his attention is called to error, instead of seeking the truth, he is more inclined to substantiate, if possible, the error. How true this has been in the matter of Sunday observance! Instead of seeking to know just what the Bible teaches concerning the Sabbath, men study the Word to find something to bolster up the failing Sunday. Some are frank enough to admit that the Sunday, as a sacred day, has no Biblical foundation or support. Others contend that it has, and in support of that claim the argument has been made—by dishonesty or ignorance in the beginning, we are bound to say,—that the translation of those passages which speak of “the first day of the week” is incorrect, and that mian sabbatone ought to be rendered “the first of the sabbaths.” Is this true? In reply we present the testimony of candid Christian men and eminent scholars, all observers of the first day: One of the instructors of the Teachers’ Training School of New York City, is Dr. Walter Quincy Scott. That training school publishes a paper called The Bible Record. In the January issue of that paper is the following question: “Is it allowable to translate the Greek of Matt. 28:1, ‘At the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the sabbaths’? It seems to me as if we might, and it would be quite an argument in favor of a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, because the resurrection morning stood between the two classes of sabbaths.” In reply to this question Dr. Scott writes to the editor, Dr. W. W. White, as follows: MY DEAR DR. WHITE: Your correspondent asks, “Is it allowable to translate the Greek of Matt. 28:1, ‘At the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn towards the first of the sabbaths’?”
Such a rendering is impossible.
1. Mian is feminine, and sabbatone is neuter. Mian agrees with hameran [day] understood.
Your inquirer remarks on this point (as made by writer in Sunday-School Times), “Neither do they [mian and sabbatone] agree in number.” Of course not; a substantive followed by a partitive genitive can not agree with it numerically.
2. It seems idle to add anything to the foregoing grammatical prohibition of the rendering proposed. But I may add that mian sabbatone is a Hebraism corresponding to the rabbinical designation of the days of the week. They called each day of the festal week a “sabbath,” and indicated each day by its proper ordinal prefixed to “sabbath.”
And in Greek eis is commonly used (as here) instead of protos.
LXX. and N. T. alike use ta sabbata in sense of singular—“the Sabbath day,” and also in the meaning “week.” Mian sabbatone in Matt. 28:1 can not mean anything else than “first day of the week.” The Revised Version correctly translates the verse.
Your correspondent will find ample scholarly notes in Lange’s Matthew, by Schaff.
Yours very truly,
WALTER QUINCY SCOTT. Thus this candid first-day scholar treats what others think would be “quite an argument in favor of a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.” And here is another letter from a professor in a theological seminary (name not given) in the Bible Record for May: EDITOR OF THE Bible Record:
DEAR SIR: The query in the issue of January, 1905, as to “Sabbath or Sabbaths” seems to call for a further warning: The querist asks if, in Matt. 28:1, “Opse de sabbatone, te epiphoskousee eis mian sabbatone,” may not be rendered: “At the end of the [Jewish seventh-day] Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first of the [Christian first-day] sabbaths.” The superb negative answer given should be heralded far and wide. People of excellent intention and deep piety, but with little knowledge, are making such an interpretation in fortifying themselves against “Saturday keepers.” I own two books, and have read two others, in which each writer claims to have made the great discovery of said translation, and has based his book thereon.
These good men had only a rusted smattering of classical Greek, and, in their zeal without knowledge, they stumbled upon this rendering, with a carelessness that few students of a month would make. “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” And more than that, acquaintance with classical Greek is not enough for the reading of the New Testament Greek. One must have large acquaintance with the grammar and the lexicon of the Greek Old Testament, and behind that, as the key to many of its peculiarities and mysteries, of the Hebrew Old Testament, also.
This ought to be conclusive. Let no reader of this paper be alarmed by the ignorant claim which is made concerning these expressions. Truth needs no such support to sustain it.