Claim:
First of the Sabbaths is a Hebrew idiom describing the First Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks. Any first century Hebrew would immediately understand the meaning......as well as being able to tell you when the Fourth of the Sabbaths occurred.....and the fifth and sixth etc.
Rebuttal:
“~First of the Sabbaths~” may be “~a Hebrew idiom describing the First Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks.~” I wouldn’t know because I don’t know Hebrew or the etymology or the usage of the phrase you describe as “~First of the Sabbaths~”.
But this I do know, that “~First of the Sabbaths~” appears nowhere in the New Testament which is Greek of course. The nearest in the NT to “~First of the Sabbaths~” in my opinion must be Luke 6:1, “and it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first [sabbath], that he went through the corn fields. Nestle, ‘egeneto de en sabbatohi diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimohn’; fragments, ‘egeneto de en sabbatohi deuteroprohuohi; ‘sabbato mane’. View NTG Nestle for the very complicated manuscript differences. My explanation may be seen in ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’, but I cannot tell you where exactly after the many years that have past since I wrote it at first.
However, A.T. Robertson remains the best and will never be improved on. I remember one crucial page was missing, but luckily the librarian could supply me with a copy.
672 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
use so far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew
idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at
least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then theN. T.
naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter
to the Hebrew influence. In theN. T. indeed we once have 7rpWTTI
ua{3{3lJ.Tov (Mk. 16 : 9), which belongs to the disputed close of the
Gospel.l Cf., on the other hand, fls J.I.Lav ua{3{3aTwv (Mt. 28 : 1),
1rpwt Hil J.LL~ Twv ua{3(3aTwv (Mk. 16: 2), TV J.LL~ Twv ua{3{3aTwv (Lu.
24: 1; Jo. 20: 1; Ac. 20: 7); Kanl. J.Llav ua{3{3aTov (1 Cor. 16: 2).
There is nothing peculiar in the use of evtavTov Kal J.Lfivas e~ (Ac.
18: 11). Cf. Rev. 12: 14.
‘Prohtos’, “First”, in Mark 16:9
A. T. Robertson, ‘Grammar’,
“Everywhere [in the papyri and Koineh] it is the language of life and not of the books [Asianism and Atticism].” p. 74.
Generally the Gospel according to Mark seems to be written in the language of the people. But ‘prohtehi’ instead of ‘miai’ in 16:9, shows the author of ‘the second ending’, preferred “the language of the books” and did not “deviate… from classical orthodoxy”.
Robertson,
“Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom [while] the vernacular Koineh is utterly free from this vice . . .” of “Attic refinements”. p. 73.
First of the Sabbaths is a Hebrew idiom describing the First Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks. Any first century Hebrew would immediately understand the meaning......as well as being able to tell you when the Fourth of the Sabbaths occurred.....and the fifth and sixth etc.
Rebuttal:
“~First of the Sabbaths~” may be “~a Hebrew idiom describing the First Sabbath of the Feast of Weeks.~” I wouldn’t know because I don’t know Hebrew or the etymology or the usage of the phrase you describe as “~First of the Sabbaths~”.
But this I do know, that “~First of the Sabbaths~” appears nowhere in the New Testament which is Greek of course. The nearest in the NT to “~First of the Sabbaths~” in my opinion must be Luke 6:1, “and it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first [sabbath], that he went through the corn fields. Nestle, ‘egeneto de en sabbatohi diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimohn’; fragments, ‘egeneto de en sabbatohi deuteroprohuohi; ‘sabbato mane’. View NTG Nestle for the very complicated manuscript differences. My explanation may be seen in ‘The Lord’s Day in the Covenant of Grace’, but I cannot tell you where exactly after the many years that have past since I wrote it at first.
However, A.T. Robertson remains the best and will never be improved on. I remember one crucial page was missing, but luckily the librarian could supply me with a copy.
672 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
use so far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew
idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at
least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then theN. T.
naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter
to the Hebrew influence. In theN. T. indeed we once have 7rpWTTI
ua{3{3lJ.Tov (Mk. 16 : 9), which belongs to the disputed close of the
Gospel.l Cf., on the other hand, fls J.I.Lav ua{3{3aTwv (Mt. 28 : 1),
1rpwt Hil J.LL~ Twv ua{3(3aTwv (Mk. 16: 2), TV J.LL~ Twv ua{3{3aTwv (Lu.
24: 1; Jo. 20: 1; Ac. 20: 7); Kanl. J.Llav ua{3{3aTov (1 Cor. 16: 2).
There is nothing peculiar in the use of evtavTov Kal J.Lfivas e~ (Ac.
18: 11). Cf. Rev. 12: 14.
‘Prohtos’, “First”, in Mark 16:9
A. T. Robertson, ‘Grammar’,
“Everywhere [in the papyri and Koineh] it is the language of life and not of the books [Asianism and Atticism].” p. 74.
Generally the Gospel according to Mark seems to be written in the language of the people. But ‘prohtehi’ instead of ‘miai’ in 16:9, shows the author of ‘the second ending’, preferred “the language of the books” and did not “deviate… from classical orthodoxy”.
Robertson,
“Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom [while] the vernacular Koineh is utterly free from this vice . . .” of “Attic refinements”. p. 73.