Sabbaton

Extract from Both Sides, pp. 114-119

ELD. T. M. PREBLE says; “Now it is evident that if the translators had just transposed the word sabbaton, in these nine cases just examined, as they did in the other fifty-nine instances already above referred to, then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject; and we should see that, at the END of the seventh-day Sabbaths - (or at the end of the Lord JEHOVAH’S Sabbaths - which he gave to the ‘children of Israel, to be a ‘sign’ unto them ’ throughout their generations’) THERE would be the BEGINNING of the LORD JESUS CHRIST’S SABBATHS. Or, in other words, where one series of Sabbaths ended, there another series of Sabbaths began.” SBTON 17.1

“If the translators had just ‘transposed [transferred?]’ the word sabbaton,’ in nine cases where it is rendered week in the New Testament, ‘then we should have had clear, blazing light shining on this glorious subject.’” So, then, the “clear blazing light” on the Sunday Sabbath lies in the fact that the word sabbaton is incorrectly translated week nine times in the New Testament! And Eld. P. takes it upon himself to correct the translation, and bring out the blazing light! We are glad the controversy is narrowed down to this point. If left here, it would soon be disposed of; for it will not take long to sweep this objection back into the depths of night from whence it sprung. SBTON 17.2

It is a fact that the word sabbaton is rendered week in the nine instances Eld. P. has referred to. Is this rendering correct? “For some cause unknown to me,” says he, “the translators saw fit to render the word sabbaton by the word week in nine cases out of the whole number sixty-eight.” The translators certainly had a reason for translating it as they have done; and we can tell Eld. P. how he might have “known” what it was. It is to be presumed that he possesses a copy of the common edition of Greenfield’s Greek Testament. If he will look in the lexicon attached to the Testament, under the word sabbaton, he will find the third definition reading like this: “A period of seven days, a week.” If this word in certain relations means week, it is certainly proper so to translate it. And one of the instances to which Eld. P. has referred, renders it necessary to good sense to give it this meaning: Luke 18:12: “I fast twice in the week” sabbaton). Now if the word here means the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, and not the whole week, we have the singular spectacle of the old Pharisee claiming to fast twice in a day of twenty-four hours, which would be of course, between meals! Bloomfield, in his note on this place, says that this fast was on the second and fifth days of the week, according to Epiphanius and the Rabbins. Robinson, under the word sabbaton, says, “2. Meton., a sabbath, put for the interval from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence a se’nnight, week.” SBTON 17.3

From the foregoing it is evident that the word sabbaton sometimes means the whole week. How, then, shall we determine when it has this meaning? Easily enough. Robinson says that it has this meaning “after numerals denoting the days of the week.” We now inquire, Does the word sabbaton, in those places where the expression, “first day of the week,” occurs in the New Testament, follow a numeral adjective denoting the day of the week? We answer, Yes, in every instance. Then no one can deny, without discarding all authority, that in these instances sabbaton means week, and the translation of our common version is correct. The numeral adjective used in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2, is mia or mian; in Mark 16:9, prote. One instance will suffice for the whole, and we will take the first one, Matthew 28:1. The words are mian sabbaton (pronounced with long o, as in tone). Mian is the numeral adjective meaning one, or according to a Hebraism, “first.” It agrees with day, understood. Sabbaton is in the genitive plural, literally answering to the English words, “of the week.” So we have, as plainly as language can say it, “first day of the week.” SBTON 18.1

Eld. P. argues, however, that here the Lord Jehovah’s Sabbaths ceased, and the Lord Jesus Christ’s Sabbaths were introduced, or one series of Sabbaths there ended, and another series of Sabbaths there began. But this little shift in favor of Sunday, involves a fatal violation of grammar which he has apparently overlooked. If his rendering is correct, and first day of the week should be rendered, “one of sabbaths,” meaning one if the new series of Sabbaths then introduced, then the word one, mian, must agree with sabbaton understood. But sabbaton is neuter, and mian is feminine. Grammar will not submit to any such treatment as this. The word mian, being in the feminine gender, shows that the noun understood, with which it agrees, is a feminine noun. And there is no word which can be introduced to supply the ellipsis, except the word which the translators of our Bible have supplied, namely heemeran, day, which renders the sense complete, and being a feminine noun answers to the feminine adjective, mian, and makes the construction harmonious and perfect. We accordingly find in the margin of the Greek Testament a reference from the word mian, saying “Heemeran understood.” And we are forced to the conclusion that Greenfield, Robinson, and Liddell and Scott, in their lexicons, and the forty-seven learned men of England who made our version of the New Testament, are correct in their translation, and Eld. P. is wrong. Another conclusion is no less apparent, namely that this great “blaze” of “light,” with which Eld. P. hoped to dazzle us from the Greek, has proved but another ignis fatuus, which, after leading its victim into inextricable bogs, has - gone out! U. S. SBTON 19.1