Acts 20:7, ‘They assembled’, or,

‘They being assembling still’?

(Book 3 Part 2)

Yehushuan wrote:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “Yehushuan, let's hear what our one eyed genius amongst the dumb, deaf and blind, has to say!”

Calling me out eh? You’d better duck.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: Acts 20:7 does in fact imply, the Lord's Supper, with what is called the Infinitive of Noun Force. But the sentence uses no Indicative finite verb that says, "They assembled for Holy Communion" like one would have done on any normal Day of Christian Worship. No, it uses a Perfect Participle which actually means its very literal and precise rendering with, "After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them."”

GE:

Luke says, “synehgmenohn”— “Because they before had had been assembling and on the First Day of the week were being gathering together still, Paul addressed them,

Therefore, let us discuss,

YS:

“First, it should be agreed upon that you’re not very good at getting your ideas across, but I’ll ascribe that to the difficulty one normally has with a second language.”

GE:

I don’t believe you. You received my idea across easily enough; that, your words, “Calling me out eh?” proved.

But I don’t deny; I do have difficulty expressing myself in English. So, your sympathies with my language skills to me are in bad taste. (My unassuming ways must be due to my German lineage and heroes, like Karl Barth, who had better and more knowledge and insight in the nail of his left small toe than you have in your big, thick skull.)

YS:

“At least we are in agreement that the gathering

they held would validly comprise a Christian Church Service as can be seen here: Acts 2:42 ....”

GE:

Objection! We not in the least “are in agreement .... as can be seen here: Acts 2:42”!

“That the gathering they held would validly comprise a Christian Church Service” I maintain, ‘can be seen’, and must be seen, here: Acts 20:7, and the words, “synehgmenohn hehmoon klasai arton”. It’s not I who am ‘not very good at getting my ideas across’; it’s you who are not able at all to get Luke’s ideas! Deal with the text under consideration; which is Acts 20:7 and context; not the text of eighteen chapters back in Acts!

YS:

“KJV And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And described here:

1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

GE:

I have not denied the Holy Communion was the purpose for and the substance of the service IMPLIED in Acts 20:7. In fact, I am the only one who showed how the Lord’s Supper is meant in Acts 20:7 being mentioned in the word ‘synehgmenohn’. I saw, while you clearly missed to see it and still miss to see it; even after you have read my explanation. (I must take for granted, wrongly, obviously, that you have read; how could you have read what I wrote and not have noticed my explanation for the Holy Communion in Acts 20:7? For that was, what I had written!)

In any case, what’s the point in ‘proving’ the Lord’s Supper in these other texts, here, now? I am the one that must tell you to go back to Acts 20:7 to discover the Lord’s Supper, right in there; not you tell me how to find it somewhere else!

YS:

“You just seemed to be concerned about the time line, having decided that they actually held communion on the Sabbath, and then just decided to hang around afterwards to speak with Paul, no?”

GE:

Again it is quite obvious the ease and clarity with which

I come across in my ‘second language’, English, you having caught my idea I concerned myself “about the time line” quite easily enough. No, surely, you did read! But you knew not what you read, obviously. Or no, you must have understood; you’re saying it --- exactly what I meant, “the time line”. Only problem is, you do not want to see! You won’t budge no inch; because it would mean you must admit you were wrong, and Luke was right. Not that I was right, because I am just telling you what Luke said; just, only, and literally and idiomatically, strictly according to the linguistics of the Greek words used, what Luke said. Do I bring my ideas across clearly enough for you to understand?

Nevertheless, don’t think I cannot perceive your smooth fraudulence. I nowhere and no how ‘concerned’ myself with showing “(they) having decided that they actually held communion on the Sabbath, and then just decided to hang around afterwards to speak with Paul”. I somewhere used the word, ‘accidental’; you make me sound if I said ‘intentional’. These things here stated are your statements of untruths; not mine. I made no statement of an untruth; if I did, quote me, and not yourself!

YS:

“So let’s drill into this verse, Acts 20:7 a bit more where we read (since you used the Westcott Hort text…):
Acts 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου”

GE:

I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?

I referred to one word only in the Greek text “συνηγμενων”, and one phrase only, “συνηγμενων ημων κλασαι αρτον” --- which appears just like this in all known ‘texts’ without any variant; as a Participle and an Infinitive of Noun Force! If you cannot get the idea from this phrase, Paul and company observed the Lord’s Supper on the Sabbath before --- mark the quotation marks and the perfect translation of Luke’s phrase: “They on the First Day of the week being together still as having been gathering before for Holy Communion”, don’t try to intimidate me with a few lines of the Greek language you obviously have no clue about! This very instance of your ineptness with the language is a wise warning to you to stick to your own first language, English, my friend!

Mark too, that I say, “phrase”; and not “clause”. Therefore observe, that I do not use a single Indicative Verb, but Participles, only! Why? Because Luke did exactly and unwavering, just, that! Ja, look at the sentences ---- the only and single, one clause you are here quoting, literally as well as by implication, means, “And on the First Day of the week being together (‘in the Present’ still), having been gathering together for to eat the Lord’s Supper (in the Past already), Paul dealt with them (the individuals of 20:4, on matters of concern).” The next, proper, clausal ‘sentence’, is, “Μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.” Meaning:- “Paul, ready in the morning to depart (on his further journey, verses 1-3; 13-17), continued his discussion until midnight.”

YS:

“Now you’ve provided a partial translation, stating that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:" After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them."

But there are few problems here.”

GE:

Indeed there are --- gross and immoral ‘problems’, to say the least! You, word for word, misquote me, with the view to mislead and persuade your readers away from what I have said, after what you hold for your own opinion.

I ask you here before all our readers, to quote me where I was “stating”, quoting YOU supposedly quoting ME, “that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering””!!!

Everything I ever said was to show that NO ‘Verb’ ‘assembled’ exists in Acts 20:7! Are you blind? No, you are not blind; that we have seen already. So you must be mischievous. In fact, where you will be able to quote me, it will be seen by anyone willing to see, that I was stating --- emphatically --- that the verb “assembled”, in fact, IS, an absolute incorrect and false, ‘rendering’ of the Greek word, ‘synehgmenohn’, because, I, “Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:" After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them."” I challenge you to prove my phrase, “After having had assembled .... having-been-assembled-still,” is a clause; in other words, that I say, ‘synehgmenohn’, is --- what you stated it is --- “the verb “assembled””!

YS:

“First, the word “after” is not in the text. If the author wanted to indicate a time after the stated action (this gathering together) he would have written “μετα δε …” as can be seen in this example: “μετα δε το εγερθηναι με” “but, after my having risen,” (Matthew 26:32 Young’s).”

GE:

Must I really react to this shear nonsense that would make you miserably fail first semester Greek – which betrays competence in Greek you would have scored a round zero for at whichever stage of your education? Compare apples with apples, and not Participles with Infinitives of Noun Force; and not Perfect Participles with Infinitives of Future Noun Force.

If the author wanted to indicate a time --- a present time --- after the stated action (this gathering together --- in the past ---) he would not have written, “μετα δε …” as can be seen in this very implementing of his in Acts 20:7 where he, Luke, used the best of Greek tools, the Perfect Participle, for stating just this idea of a present time, after the stated action of this gathering together in the past!

YS:

“But the author did not write “μετα δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων,” rather, he wrote “εν δε τη μια των σαββατων …” and hence you cannot add in the word ‘after.’ (Please recall it was you who complained about others adding in words. Best you don’t do that yourself. Yes?)”

GE:

First, where “complained (I) about others adding in words”? It’s impossible to translate without sometimes adding in words, as everyone knows. But too often the lazy or shrewd ‘translators’ would add in words only to propagate their hidden agenda.

Then sure, “the author did not write “μετα δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων ημων,” rather, he wrote “εν δε τη μια των σαββατων …””, because if he did, he would have said the silly thing that ‘After the First Day of the week we being together still having been assembling for Holy communion before Paul addressed them.’ Now what would that, have meant for Sunday-holiness! Reckon, then, the Sundaydarians’ claim of a First Day Lord’s Supper incidence

would have been absolutely waterproof!

Poor Yehushuan! Alas, Luke did not employ that added in word, ‘after’!

YS:

“Second, the prepositional phrase “for Holy Communion” is also NOT in the text. Since you desire a “very literal and precise” translation, you must realize that the author actually penned an infinitive form of the verb “to break” {bread} and did NOT write the noun “Communion. (Don’t demand precision from others if you’re going to be sloppy yourself.)”

GE:

I have explained to you this before, so need not to repeat myself. And also this is so sloppy, it deserves no answer. Nevertheless, I could have stressed the relation between the Participle and the Infinitive of Noun Force a little more:

“On the First Day of the week being together (still after) having been gathering together for The To Break Bread (of Holy Communion before on the Sabbath), Paul dialogued with them.”

Yes, the “having gathered together” for this holy purpose, is what makes it beyond a doubt Luke here is speaking of the Lord’s Supper. Like this was no ordinary “breaking of bread”, this also was no ordinary “assembling together”. And in this, I can confidently call on about every good Christian scholar for support.

YS:

“Looking more closely at this verse, then we see a gathering taking place TO break bread.”

GE:

Yehushuan, why do you go on and on to display your hopeless insight, and zero mastery of the Greek language? We don’t “see a gathering taking place to break bread”; we see the present result of that past gathering to break bread, that had taken place. We see it in the Perfect Participle, ‘synehgmenohn’.

YS:

“Acts 20:7 YLT And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight.”

GE:

Yes! Young gives a ‘literal’ translation. Asked you him whether he would say this meant the Lord’s Supper, what do you think would he have answered you? I have no doubt what his answer as a believing Christian would have been.

However, Young, despite he called his translation, ‘literal’, is not translating literally whatsoever.

“the disciples”, are ‘added in’ words;

“having been gathered together to break bread,” is omitting half of the full ‘literal’ meaning of ‘synehgmenohn’;

“was discoursing” would have been ‘literal’ if of a Verb in the Present; it is not ‘literal’ of the Verb in the Imperfect. The KJV, “Paul continued his speech”, is a great improvement in literalness on Young’s.

The word “also” is also an ‘added in’ word, totally unnecessary, that destroys the ‘literal’ clausal construction of the separate sentences, fusing them into a single un-literal, sentence.

Which all --- unintentionally or intentionally, unawares or awares --- is meant and aimed at creating the idea of a Sunday-case of Christian worship by Young, and, sorry to say, which all is a false motive that resulted in a false ‘translation’ altogether.

“The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination (not its beginning, as according to you and your ‘exampling’) and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its uses.” To render this linguistic principle or peculiarity in any other language, inevitably shall involve the use of explanatory ‘added in’ words and even added in phrases and clauses. Professor!

YS:

“Unfortunately, it absolutely is impossible to say that they already HAD broken bread. If I am going TO do something, I cannot be said to HAVE done it. If you read the text closely, you will see they celebrated communion only once, in verse 11. Verse seven declares the intent of the gathering – TO break bread - it can give no indication whether the breaking of bread had

or had not actually occurred.”

GE:

It is not “impossible to say that they already HAD broken bread” because it is implied in the Perfect Participle in combination with the Infinitive of Noun Force --- which you, confuse for a Present Indicative, finite Verb and Infinitive of Intent. The two things are two different things.

If (as you put it) ‘the gathering .... actually occurred’, with “the intent .... TO break bread”, ‘if you read the text closely, you will’ ask, if it was their intention in the first place, why would they wait until after midnight to begin with the Lord’s Supper?

And why would only Paul ‘eat’ (or just ‘taste’), if it was the Lord’s Supper in verse 11?

In verse 7 the ‘breaking of the bread’, was for everyone of “us”, the Participle being in the Plural first person. Is Holy Communion for “them” or for him, Paul? How does one person only ‘break bread’ and keep Holy Communion? That’s how the Roman Catholics do Mass; not how Christians observe the Lord’s Supper.

But strangest of all if the Lord’s Supper is meant on this Saturday night of the First Day of the week, is, Why no word of Paul’s supposed fervent and prolonged ‘sermon’ is mentioned? No word of his ‘sermon’ and no word from the liturgy of the sacrament; not even an indirect reference to it? It’s simply untenable a notion, and ridiculous.

In verse 7 Luke used the words, “to break bread” in the sense of to keep the Lord’s Supper. In verse 11 he added the word ‘geysamenos’ which means Paul ate his fill, something he himself forbid should be done with the bread of the Lord’s Supper.

And nowhere is wine mentioned, which was as prescribed course of the Lord’s Supper as was the bread, the prayers, the song, and the washing of feet. None of these things mentioned, means none of them was part of Paul’s after midnight early breakfast.

‘Verse seven’, does not only “declare the intent of the gathering – TO break bread”; it’s completely your faulty notion. Verse seven, by the use of the Perfect Participle in conjunction with the Infinitive of Noun Force— in the Plural , ‘declares’ the fact the Lord’s Supper had been observed: the Perfect; no Infinitive per se or Future Participle or even Present Participle or whatever --- “If I am going TO do something, I cannot be said to HAVE done it.” In verse seven something, the Lord’s Supper, is “said to HAVE” been, “done”; it is not said they were “going TO do something”. You don’t understand an Infinitive of Noun Force; and you have no idea of how great a characteristic of the Greek language and idiom it is. It is obvious you have never even heard of it.

YS:

“But we do see a verse which speaks about the action of breaking bread. Acts 20:11 YLT and having come up {from finding out about the dead guy}, and having broken bread, and having tasted, for a long time also having talked--till daylight, so he went forth.”

GE:

The more you quote ‘Young’s’, the more evident it becomes how un-literally --- and incorrectly --- he ‘translated’; if I must accept you are quoting Young’s in this instance.

Because where does Luke state that ‘the guy’ was “dead”? Rubbish, man!

Where does Luke make mention of bread being “tasted” or of Paul “having tasted”?

Where does Luke say Paul “talked--till daylight”? ‘Homilehsas’ does not mean to speak; it means to interact with others, for which interaction talking need not be important even.

YS:

“Rather than speculating that communion took place twice, it is clear that the intention of their gathering was TO perform-communion, and that such took place when mentioned in verse 11.”

GE:

It’s you who are arguing from the supposition “that communion took place”, on the First Day; not me. I contend the Lord’s Supper not at all “took place” ‘on the First Day’; but that it had taken place according to the Perfect Participle --- according to which it had had occurred before while ‘they (were) being gathered in the Present (still) on the First Day’, and “Paul dialogued with them”.

YS:

“Finally, let’s look at this word συνηγμενων, translated “assembled” (Douay Rheims) or “gathered” (Young’s) or “came together” (King James).”

GE:

Before you proceed, forget it, if this is what they say, it’s wrong and not true or truth. But you are yet not quoting the “King James” correctly. The KJV says “WHEN came together”, which no finite Verb can be rendered with. “WHEN came together” must be how a Participle may be rendered; unfortunately the KJV does not render the Participle ‘synehgmenohn’ completely, and therefore undeniably is incorrect. No half-fact can be the full fact.

YS:

“συνηγμενων G4863 V-RPP-GPM from συνάγω sunago G4863 A. bring together, gather together I. of persons 2. bring together for deliberation or festivity 3. match, pit one against the other 4. bring together, join in one, unite. (We’ll use A. I. 2.)”

GE:

Exactly! Let me repeat again: ‘synehgmenoon’ is no Verb; it is a Participle; not an Indicative, finite, ‘Verb’! “συνηγμενων .... the Participle, “from, συνάγω ....” the Verb! Can’t you read the word, “from,”?!

YS:

“The conjugation of the Verb is RPP, having a Perfect Aspect; a Passive Voice; and Participle “mood." Being a participle, it has the declension Genitive, Plural, Masculine to show that the verb represents action done by the “we” (Wescott Hort) or “the disciples” (Textus Receptus). So just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together?”

GE:

Timely interruption! You unperturbed go on, calling and treating the word ‘synehgmenohn’ as “the Verb”! It is no Verb; the Verb of the sentence --- its Predicate --- is ‘dielegeto’, Singular third Person, Imperfect Indicative, ‘from’, ‘dialegomai’.

YS:

“.... just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together? First, the “perfect aspect” of a verb refers to a current state resulting from a previous action that is relevant to the present position in the story. In this case, the action of gathering was complete by the time Paul speaks, and the state of them

continuing to be gathered is indicated.”

GE:

“.... just how does such a conjugation represent this act of gathering together?” is a full fledged, conjured, lie! ‘Synehgmenohn’ does not stand for “this act of gathering together”. A Participle – any Participle – tells,

1) adjectively HOW a Subject acted, in this case “Paul, (after) they having been assembling (while) being assembling (still) on the First Day, discussed....”;

2) adverbially HOW a Predicate was acted, in this case, “they being together (still) on the First Day (after) having been assembling (before), Paul discussed....”

So then, what you say here, “First ...” etc, is exactly what I say, except .... except that you corrupt the text once again, you saying, “Paul speaks”. It’s not ‘the time Paul speaks’, Present Tense; it, “in this case”, refers to the original ‘Perfect’ “action of the gathering” that “had been completed by the time Paul ....”, “spoke”:- Imperfect, in the past, ‘dielegeto’. ‘Dielegeto’ --- ‘the time Paul spoke’ having been “our still having been assembling on the First Day of the week”— inevitably, “after” that earlier and original ‘Perfect’ “action of the gathering” that “had been completed by the time Paul ....”, “spoke”.

YS:

“Now there are 417 verbs conjugated as Perfect Passive Participles in the Textus Receptus and 406 in the Westcott Hort, and while I will not pretend to have scrutinized every instance of these (that is, after all, what graduate students are for) I’ve not found one instance where any translator has felt the need to add in the word “after.” (Of course you are welcome to show me one.)”

GE:

I, no graduate student or not, haven’t made of it a study, particularly. But I am able to assuredly state that the concept of ‘after’ shall occur, for it is without exception always implied in cases of the Perfect Participle. Just like I have above every time been able to put my use of such concepts as ‘after’ in brackets, while my statements will make the same and perfect sense without its ‘adding in’ non the less.

I translate maybe the best of the best of first year Greek Grammars, that of JPJ van Rensburg, “The Tempus of the Participium does not in itself express time, but in fact the relation in time between die subservient action which is expressed by the Participium, and the action of the Verb (or Predicate) to which the Participium is subservient. .... Now the Verb of this clause is by English Past Tense, undoubtedly, “Paul spoke”— Lukes does not say ‘Paul speaks’!

The Participium Praesens expresses a subservient action which occurs simultaneously with the main act expressed by the Verb – for which purpose to translate, words like ‘while’ will have to be used. “Tauta legohn akousei” – “While he says it, he listens” ....”. Compare the familiar Scripture, Mt25:10 “while (the foolish virgins) went to buy, the bridegroom came”, ‘aperchomenohn autohn agorasai, ehlthen ho nymfis’.

The Participium Perfectum expresses a condition, which is the result of a subservient action which preceded the main action (“Paul discussed”).” Hence the ‘added in’ words like ‘after’.

Like in the case of the Participium Aoristus, the Participium Perfectum, in order to be translated properly, might find it inevitable to use supplementary words like “after”. “Panta paraskeyasmena legoh” – “I speak after everything had been prepared”. The Greek language itself, often makes use of adverbial words, ‘added’, like ‘hate’-‘while’; ‘hohs’–‘as when’.

Even a concept like ‘because’, may be necessary to be ‘added’, and in the case of the Perfect Participle in Acts 20:7 may be rendered: “Because they before had had been assembling and on the First Day of the week were being gathering together still, Paul addressed them.” Because time, with the Participle in Greek, is absolutely relative, and more often than not, cannot be translated without auxiliary words and ways to express the relation implied in the literal Greek.

The Perfect from both ends, looks at both ends, of an action. Simcox (I’m quoting from Dana and Many, p. 201), says, one “ought, in every case, to look for a reason for one tense being used rather than the other”. In the case of Acts 20:7, why is the Participle in the Perfect, and not in the Present – which is used for simultaneous gathering and being gathered? Because in the case of Acts 20:7,

1) no simultaneous gathering together and being together, and

2) no simultaneous gathering together and Paul speaking,

are intended to be made understood, but separate

1) in the past gathering together and

2) in the present being together are being intended to be expressed by use of the Perfect Participle.

YS:

“In addition, may I call your attention to the fact that while the perfect aspect indicates that the action was indeed completed, the verb having such an aspect is sunago (the action of gathering together) not klao (the action of breaking). Don’t you find it interesting that the author did not write “having broken bread” {they spoke with Paul}, but rather, “having gathered to break bread”? The implication of the action in this verse is quite clear. It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect.... ”

GE:

So that that is a question you should ask yourself, Yehushuan; not me! I find it irrelevant; as you say yourself, “It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect”.

YS:

“.... You obviously don’t understand me. The implication of the action in this verse is quite clear. It is the gathering itself that is perfect in its aspect, not any act of breaking bread (which doesn’t seem to have happened until mentioned in the list of actions in verse 11, all of which were after “midnight.”).”

GE:

“The only implication of the (past) action in this verse” that remained over in the present, was, “our having been gathering together still”. The breaking of the bread had been finished by the nature of its case; something they did, and finished with; but the being together still kept on, even for the night.

Have you experienced something like it? I have; a few times, especially at an occasion like “our gathering together for to wed” (wedding) ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn nymfeyoh / gameoh / hymenaio-oh’. (cf. Mt22:8-9) All the guests from far and near would have arrived for the wedding. Then after the wedding had been finished, everyone or only some “having been staying behind”, would ‘visit’ (‘homileoh’) virtually all night. Sometimes – with us –, in the early hours of the morning we would go to sleep; on the couches, on the floor; anywhere. We may even have breakfast or lunch the next day before the guests would go back to their own. The wedding had been over with the day before; but the party went on until the next day. (The party after the actual wedding could go on for days on end! Cf. Mt22:2-3, Jn2:1.)

Grammatically the same situation as in Acts 20:7 can be seen in Jn20:19 / Lk24:34-35 / Mk16:10 “when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews”, and the Emmaus disciples “found the eleven and others with them”, “as they mourned and wept”, “thus having been thronging together still”, and “told them, the things that happened”. The actual ‘coming together’ of the disciples in the upper room, must have had happened long before the point in time the Emmaus disciples “found” them, or “spoke” to them, “while having been thronging together still”.

YS:

“But we must back up a bit. In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

GE:

Pure rubbish! In the first sentence in Acts 20:7, the first and only clause has its noun in the Nominative case in the name of the Subject of “Paul”.

If I were your professor, I give you nil out of ten; nil out of hundred; nil out of infinity; I fail you summarily! I ban you from my classes! How much worse the pretence, you appointed yourself my professor!

YS:

“since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case.”

GE:

For crying out loud! ‘The noun’ you got from where? I see a Pronoun, ‘they’ in the English. Who is ‘adding in’ his own surmised words and concepts? Yes, ‘they’ do stand for ‘disciples’, but not even ‘they’, appears properly as a Pronoun in the Greek; it also, necessarily, must be ‘added in’ in the translation, BECAUSE ‘they’ – or rather – “we”, also, is implied, right there inside the Participle ‘synehgmenohn’! No, I’ll in disgust leave your classroom and will report you to the dean!

YS:

“This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute....”

GE:

I said before, “in verse 7 the ‘breaking of the bread’, was for everyone of “us”, the Participle being in the Plural first person”. “The genitive use of the participle is not suitable when the noun [or Pronoun— ‘hehmoon’] that goes with the participle is also the subject, object or indirect object of the main verb ....”, J. W. Wenham, ‘The Elements of NT Greek’.

YS:

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

GE:

False: “the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”;

True: “We (the disciples) still being gathering together (on the First Day)....”.

“.... the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant .... action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action.”

How do you call “a relevant .... action” that was “causative” and “done”, “secondary”?

The Genitive Absolute by means of the Perfect Participle is used to indicate a “causative” action, “done”, and, afterwards, going on in its end-result, “we having been gathering together still in the First Day”, so that it ‘may be considered causative in reference to the main action’, “(Paul) spoke”.

“Why was (Paul) speaking? Because the disciples had gathered.” No! “Paul spoke to them”, because they / “we were being gathering together still on the First Day”! The fact “Paul the next day would depart”, while it gives a ‘secondary indication’ why and when “Paul spoke to them”, does not annul the fact “the genitive absolute”, i.e., the Perfect Participle and Pronoun, must still be considered the first causative or explanatory ‘indication’, ‘in reference to the main action’, “Paul spoke to them”, namely, ‘because’ and when “we on the First Day were still being assembling”. But the English (KJV) gives only half of the full fact of the Greek Perfect— “had the disciples” not in the first place in the past “been assembling together”, the opportunity for Paul to address them “{because} we were being gathering together still on the First Day”, would not have arisen.

“Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” No! Hence the Genitive Absolute, ‘synehgmenoon hehmoon’, is used to describe the disciples’ “being-gathering-together-still-on-the-First-Day-when Paul spoke to them”, after their “having been gathering together before”, before “on-the-First-Day-when-Paul, spoke to them”.

YS:

“..... In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

GE:

No! In English, we would read true to the Greek, “And {because} we on the First Day of the week being gathering together (still in the present) after having been assembling to break bread (before in the past), Paul spoke with them.” All you have proved at last, was, that it sometimes may be inevitable to use ‘added in’ words --- “{because}” --- in order to better translate the Greek Perfect Participle. Thanks.

YS:

“An interesting implication was that Luke, the travelling companion of Paul and reputed author the text, along with Paul (the “we”) had been gathered by "them" (the ones to whom he spoke) to break bread IN the first of the week. The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

GE:

“The Textus Receptus”? Boy, you’re bemused!

YS:

“I’ve more, but this is bordering on the ridiculous. Yehushuan.”

GE:

Yehushuan, You have said it!

Were you really addressing me in this post of yours? You meant I should duck? Sir, I am conversant enough in my 'second language' - better than you are in it seems your first language. If you are not talking to yourself herein.

You have not even grasped the first thing I maintained; then built your own straw-man to pepper with chewing gum gems of intellect. I really didn't feel like responding to your pretence, it's so void of substance or relevance.

21 January 2009

Acts 20:7 second consideration

Yehushuan:

Mr. Ebersöhn,

I’m a bit perplexed by your understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect. You give this rambling description of a wedding, which in context would describe an action that is rather imperfect (one is not quite sure when it starts or when it is over). But we’ve been discussing applications of verbs that conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described (whether a shutting of doors or a gathering together) is complete, with said completion still having relevance to the ongoing story.

In John 20:19 a shutting of the doors was due to (δια) the fear of the Jews, a somewhat interesting grammatical construct in that most people presume it was the disciples’ fears, not the Jews' fears that caused the doors to be shut.

“… δια BY MEANS OF τον THE φοβον FEAR των OF THE ιουδαιων JEWS …”

Unless John actually meant to convey that the disciples shut the doors not because they were afraid but because the Jews were afraid.

Regardless, the grammatical construct is NOT the same, in that the Perfect Passive Participle is not tied to an Aorist Passive Infinitive or a Genitive Absolute, but rather to a descriptive clause starting with the word δια, which gives a reason for the action.

But in order to straighten out this mess, we really need to start out with the fact that the subject title of your OP is somewhat inaccurate. Gerhard Ebersöhn in his OP title wrote:... “They assembled”, or, “They being assembling still,”

… but neither you nor I ever used those words. Rather, I provided the translation, “having been gathered (assembled)” while you wrote “having-been-assembled-still”. Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?

Yet we are still confronted by your curious addition of the word “still.” You keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having-been-assembled, but having-been-assembled-still, and declare the addition of this word “still” means that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”.

The problem is that by adding the word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action about to be described, you have created a linguistic artifact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was over. You are imposing the “perfect aspect” of their having-been-assembled onto the action of “breaking bread.” But the verb “to break” is NOT written as a Perfect Passive Participle. (Don't you think it would have been if the author had meant to say communion was over?)

So let’s try it this way. Was the action of assembling together completed before Paul started to “dialogue”? This would seem obvious. Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled. BUT, in order to convey this aspect of a completed past action (their being assembled together) resulting in a current state of their still being assembled, one would need to write: “having-been-assembled-and-still-being-assembled…” and this would result in a translation:

“…in the first of the week we, Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

It seems you wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support your hypothesis that they assembled on the Sabbath to celebrate communion, finished celebrating communion and then remained being assembled until the first of the week to be speaking with Paul . You want the text to say,

“… Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …”

The problem, Mr. Ebersöhn, is that’s not what was written. It doesn’t say what you wish. You can’t just snap a verb in half like a loaf of bread and stuff in other action between the two parts like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to make the language fit your doctrine. That’s what every religious nut tries to do, and we both would be wise to avoid doing so.

Yes, they were Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled. When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.

Acts 20:7 εν IN δε AND τη THE μια FIRST των OF THE σαββατων SABBATHS συνηγμενων Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled ημων WE κλασαι TO BREAK αρτον BREAD ο THE παυλος PAUL διελεγετο WAS SPEAKING αυτοις WITH THEM μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου

They were Having.Been.Assembled in the first day of the week.

But please. I think you’re letting the English helper verbs cause confusion. You read the words “Having.Been” and infer a time value of “before.” It would seem you interpret Having.Been.Assembled as “Assembling before the first of the week.” But a Perfect Aspect does not convey Past Tense, and the word “been” is used in English here to convey passive action, not time reference. The disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others.” The assembling was done to them (they had been assembled - they were assembled). The assembling was passive in nature. If the Verb was a Perfect Active Participle (or more specifically a Perfect Middle Participle), you would read “Having.Assembled.....” If the action was NOT passive (though it is) you would read, “And in the first of the Sabbaths Having.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled (we) to Break Bread, Paul was speaking…” Here, you can see that the assembling is clearly in the first day of the week.

In order to remove the “flavour” of time-value from the conveyance of the passive nature of the action, we need to drop the word “been” and can write, “others having assembled us...” The text would then read:

“…in the first of the week Others.Having.Assembled.Us.And.We.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

See the difference?

All the action of assembling was “IN THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS”

Personally, I have no problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren assembling for Sabbath at the synagogue with their Jewish brethren. What you need to HONESTLY ask yourself is, “Do you really believe the Jews would let the Believers celebrate communion at the Synagogue on the Sabbath?”

Seriously.

They may have assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but here, they assembled in a private house on the first day of the week in order to celebrate communion, and Paul “held a Bible study”. Sounds like a Sunday worship service to me. But I realize that you’ve placed your whole Christian Identity into this Saturday Church Service obsession, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise. That’s a bit unfortunate, since this verse clearly shows that they assembled for communion “in the first day of the week.”

YS:

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

GE:

False: “the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”;

True: “We (the disciples) still being gathering together (on the First Day)....”.

“.... the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant .... action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action.”

How do you call “a relevant .... action” that was “causative” and “done”, “secondary”?

The Genitive Absolute by means of the Perfect Participle is used to indicate a “causative” action, ““done””, and, afterwards, going on in its end-result, “we having been gathering together still in the First Day”, so that it ‘may be considered causative in reference to the main action’, “(Paul) spoke”.

“Why was (Paul) speaking? Because the disciples had gathered.” No! “Paul spoke to them”, because they / “we were being gathering together still on the First Day”! The fact “Paul the next day would depart”, while it gives a ‘secondary indication’ why and when “Paul spoke to them”, does not annul the fact “the genitive absolute”, i.e., the Perfect Participle and Pronoun, must still be considered the first causative or explanatory ‘indication’, ‘in reference to the main action’, “Paul spoke to them”, namely, ‘because’ and when “we on the First Day were still being assembling”. But the English (KJV) gives only half of the full fact of the Greek Perfect— “had the disciples” not in the first place in the past “been assembling together”, the opportunity for Paul to address them “{because} we were being gathering together still on the First Day”, would not have arisen.

“Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” No! Hence the Genitive Absolute, ‘synehgmenoon hehmoon’, is used to describe the disciples’ “being-gathering-together-still-on-the-First-Day-when Paul spoke to them”, after their “having been gathering together before”, before “....when, on the First Day Paul spoke to them”.

YS:

“..... In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

GE:

No! In English, we would read true to the Greek, “And {because} we on the First Day of the week being gathering together (still in the present) after having been assembling to break bread (before in the past), Paul spoke with them.” All you have proved at last, was, that it sometimes may be inevitable to use ‘added in’ words --- “{because}” --- in order to better translate the Greek Perfect Participle. Thanks.

YS:

“An interesting implication was that Luke, the travelling companion of Paul and reputed author the text, along with Paul (the “we”) had been gathered by “them” (the ones to whom he spoke) to break bread IN the first of the week. The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

GE:

“The Textus Receptus”? Boy, you’re bemused!

YS:

“I’ve more, but this is bordering on the ridiculous.

Yehushuan.”

GE:

Yehushuan, You have said it!

Were you really addressing me in this post of yours? You meant I should duck? Sir, I am conversant enough in my 'second language' - better than you are in it seems your first language. If you are not talking to yourself herein.
You have not even grasped the first thing I maintained; then built your own straw-man to pepper with chewing gum gems of intellect. I really didn't feel like responding to your pretence, it's so void of substance or relevance.

Now we can begin with your post above.

YS:

“Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

GE:

Soon you will have explored every linguistic possibility and impossibility for you to make a case of Sunday-worship out of Acts 20:7. The last, before, was the Infinitive; then the Genitive Absolute. Now it's the Passive. Yes, I did see where before you have made mention of the Passive Voice. As if it might make a difference in your favour. But it won't, sorry for you. Because it is meaningless with regards to the fact the disciples “before having been assembling together for to break bread (of Holy Communion) having been assembling together still on the First Day of the week, Paul spoke to them” --- it just keeps on having an Active meaning and the same old meaning still.

So what's your point with your issue with the Passive? You think that will scare the lion out of the bush?

YS:

“Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

GE:

Yehushuan, your answers keep on completely to ignore the fact THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THIS 'VERB' YOU KEEP ON REFERRING TO: “.... the verb in question is passive.....”. IT IS ‘such imprecision’ OF YOURS, that ‘will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?’

Sigh! Why do I torture myself like this?

But let us take your reply from the beginning; I’ll try to be orderly. So here’s what you’re now saying,

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn in his OP title wrote:... “They assembled”, or, “They being assembling still,” .… but neither you nor I ever used those words. Rather, I provided the translation, “having been gathered (assembled)” while you wrote “having-been-assembled-still”.

GE:

First, you never said “had gathered” or whatever to the effect? You forgot what you have been arguing over and over and I over and over told you, was wrong?

You never used the word or words, “They assembled”? Besides you constantly speaking of ‘the Verb’, what about these instances .....

1) “Now you’ve provided a partial translation, stating that the verb “assembled” has a “very literal and precise rendering”:”

..... or are these not your words?

2) “Finally, let’s look at this word συνηγμενων, translated “assembled” (Douay Rheims) or “gathered” (Young’s) or “came together” (King James).”

..... or was it not you who used others’ use of it?

Or is ‘gathered’ not the same as ‘assembled’?

3) “The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

..... or does a Participle mean an “action” like a Verb means an “action” --- I mean, for you?

4) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.”

..... or does the Present Continuous cancel out the fact it’s the Verb to gather?

5) And right here now, and many times else, where you are telling me, “Your title completely ignores the fact that the verb in question is passive, while changing the -ed to an -ing. Such imprecision will never help us understand the facts, now, will it?”

..... or isn’t “the verb in question”, “assembled” / “gathered”, in view of the fact ‘synehgmenohn’ is a Participle and not a Verb?

Your whole argument you base on wrongly considering the Participle like “the action” of a finite, Indicative ‘Verb’. You yourself from the outset are so destroying your own argument. You have no case with which even to begin an argument for “the disciples’ gathering .... in the first day”, a Verb not being a Participle man! Get it into your head!

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn, I’m a bit perplexed by your understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect. You give this rambling description of a wedding, which in context would describe an action that is rather imperfect (one is not quite sure when it starts or when it is over). But we’ve been discussing applications of verbs that conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described (whether a shutting of doors or a gathering together) is complete, with said completion still having relevance to the ongoing story.”

GE:

I give up! How can you say you are ‘perplexed’, but give me a clear explanation of your clear ‘understanding of Greek verb tense and aspect’, of, “.... this .... description .... which in context would .... conjugate as “perfect””?

You think I would loose focus? Because why do you pretend to have lost focus all the time? Just listen to yourself: “.... which in context would .... conjugate as “perfect” to mean the action described is complete”.

It’s not an “action”, “described”, “complete”! It is an “action”, only, implied, as, “complete”— the implication “they before having been assembling together (which action) having had relevance to the Breaking of Bread”;

It is not a “completion”, “said”, but a “completion” implied with the use of the Participle, a ‘completion still having relevance to the ongoing story’ of Paul’s speaking to the disciples. It involves the difference between a Participle and a Verb, which difference you not accidentally, but intentionally, don’t ignore, but underhandedly smother because it proves you a fake.

YS:

“In John 20:19 a shutting of the doors was due to (δια) the fear of the Jews, a somewhat interesting grammatical construct in that most people presume it was the disciples’ fears, not the Jews' fears that caused the doors to be shut.

“… δια BY MEANS OF τον THE φοβον FEAR των OF THE ιουδαιων JEWS …”

Unless John actually meant to convey that the disciples shut the doors not because they were afraid but because the Jews were afraid.”

GE:

Which I never meant to make an issue of. It’s you who ‘rambles’ on and on for no reason. In my OP I make NO case of the disciples who were hiding behind closed doors; I referred to this Scripture because of its use of the Perfect Participle in there; you recognise it? Now answer me again!

But you are the professor remember; not me; so instruct you, me, better, kindly.

YS:

“Regardless, the grammatical construct is NOT the same, in that the Perfect Passive Participle is not tied to an Aorist Passive Infinitive or a Genitive Absolute, but rather to a descriptive clause starting with the word δια, which gives a reason for the action.

But in order to straighten out this mess, we really need to start out with the fact that the subject title of your OP is somewhat inaccurate.”

GE:

At last you woke up to your own voice.

YS:

“.... Yet we are still confronted by your curious addition of the word “still.” You keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having-been-assembled, but having-been-assembled-still, and declare the addition of this word “still” means that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”.”

GE:

No, it’s you, who “keep asserting that the verb συνηγμενων doesn’t mean having-been-assembled”; I don’t anything about a ‘verb’, ‘συνηγμενων’ that does not even exist! If a ‘Verb’, the ‘word’ would not have been “συνηγμενων”; it would have been ‘synagoh’. Now it isn’t, ‘synagoh’ the ‘Verb’; it’s ‘συνηγμενων’, the Participle.

It’s true I “keep asserting that the” the Participle ‘συνηγμενων’, “means having-been-assembled”. I also think it is virtually impossible to make difference between “having-been-assembled”, and “having-been-assembled-still”, only that “having-been-assembled-still” is truer to the real meaning of the Participle which more strictly should be rendered, not, “having-been-assembled”, but, “having-been-assembling”.

Which is the reason why I “chang(ed) the -ed to an -ing.” Because such strictly correct ‘precision’, certainly helps us understand the facts, now, not so? And so I in fact ‘changed’ nothing, but rendered only the real and true meaning of the Participle, “συνηγμενων”. (Cf. Marshall, Nestle’s Interlinear.)

YS:

“The problem is that by adding the word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action about to be described, you have created a linguistic artifact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was over.”

GE:

What on earth could be “The problem”, with “adding the (relevant) word “still” in order to convey this Greek idea that the completed action has resulted in a current state relevant to the action....”? “This Greek idea” you will find in every Greek Grammar— only where it deals on the Perfect or Perfect Participle!

But notice your, “artifact” (sic.) Yeyushuan! Notice that you, “by adding”, “to the action about to be described”, have ‘created a linguistic artefact in the English language from which you incorrectly deduce that communion was’ .... about to begin; was “about to be described”, in the words “Paul spoke to them”! (Only to contradict what you actually are claiming, that Communion wasn’t implied in verse 7, but actually started in verse 11.)

YS:

“You are imposing the “perfect aspect” of their having-been-assembled onto the action of “breaking bread.” But the verb “to break” is NOT written as a Perfect Passive Participle. (Don't you think it would have been if the author had meant to say communion was over?)

GE:

No! I have answered this nonsense of yours. I am not going to repeat. Go back and read what I have told you, Professor! (Or should I rather address you with, ‘Impostor’?)

YS:

“So let’s try it this way. Was the action of assembling together completed before Paul started to “dialogue”? This would seem obvious.”

GE:

Now what are you arguing about?! Everything except what you have argued about yet!

YS:

“Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled.

GE:

So what “is inaccurate”, what is so “curious”, about my “addition of the word “still””, when I wrote, “They being assembling still”?

When you say, “Now were they STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”? This too would seem obvious. Yes, they were still assembled”, it must be OK; but when I say the very same thing, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and say things that are not written.

What’s the difference between “the verb συνηγμενων” to “mean having-been-assembled” and “having-been-assembled-still”, except that the phrase is better with the word ‘still’ than without it?

What else would “Yes .... this too would seem obvious .... they were still assembled .... they (were) STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue”” mean, than “.... that communion was over, that somehow “still” means “afterwards”? Your very own finding!

But when I say it, I “wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support your hypothesis” – your ‘hypothesis’ you yourself have just arrived at in the affirmative but would not admit because it implies “that they assembled on the Sabbath to celebrate communion, finished celebrating communion and then remained being assembled until the first of the week to be speaking with Paul.” How well you understand; how precisely have you explained the working of the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenohn’! But refuse to see with the eye of faith!

However, it’s not so that I “wish to break this verb in half, and insert different clauses out of sync, in order to support (my) hypothesis”. Firstly, I do not “insert different clauses out of sync”; I only ‘insert’ what is required, for clearer meaning; a word or two perhaps, or at most some phrase or phrases; but no “clauses” in order to create an independent sentence like you do— a sentence that says “They on the First Day assembled / gathered / acted getting together to break bread.”

It’s not so, that I, “wish to break this verb in half” (Again, I do not ever, treat ‘synehgmenoon’ as a “verb”!), but it is people who want to create a case for Sunday-worship from it, who do. They recognise only the first and previous ‘half’-circumstance implied in the Perfect Participle, and confuse it for the last, resultant, ongoing ‘half’-circumstance implied in it. People like you use only the first and past-‘half’ implied in this Perfect Participle, and ignore the latter, present-‘half’ implied in it, namely, the resultant ongoing circumstance of “having been assembling still”.

This latter, resultant, ongoing, present-‘half’ implied in the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’, namely, the circumstance of “our having been assembling still when”, was the ‘half’ of it ‘still’ applying “on the First Day of the week”, and when “Paul spoke to them”.

The past and initial ‘half’ implied in the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’, namely, “our before having had been assembling”, gets ignored dead! But one hasn’t said anything until one has said everything the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’ has to say.

To hush “our having been assembling still when” / “they (were) STILL assembled together when Paul started to “dialogue””, and to shout “our before having had been assembling (for to break bread)” only, is telling no accidental half truth, but a full error.

Or worse by far is it to treat the Perfect Participle ‘synehgmenoon’ as if it were a Verb, and to say, “They on the First Day assembled / were assembled to break bread when Paul spoke to them”, because then the error has become intentional and most wicked lie.

Then blindly to go on defending that lie .... well ....

YS:

“You want the text to say,

“…Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …””.

GE:

You have a very bad memory when it suits you, Yehushuan! I refer you to your statements:

“The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day).”;

“In English, we would read, “And {because} we, having been gathered in the first of the week to break bread, Paul was speaking with them.”.

Therefore, again, it’s not I who “want the text to say,

“…Having.(had).Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them …”

(or even worse)

“… Having.Been.Assembled to break bread and Still.Being.Assembled Paul was speaking with them in the first of the week …””— it’s you!

I not once, alleged “Assembled in the first of the week Paul was speaking with them”, because I would never like you do, use “assembled”, an Indicative Verb, for ‘synehgmenohn’, a Participle; I would never like you do, use “was speaking” a Present Verb, for “spoke”, an ordinary Past Tense Verb for the Imperfect, ‘dielegeto’ here in context in Acts 20:7.

YS:

“The problem, Mr. Ebersöhn, is that’s not what was written. It doesn’t say what you wish. You can’t just snap a verb in half like a loaf of bread and stuff in other action between the two parts like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to make the language fit your doctrine. That’s what every religious nut tries to do, and we both would be wise to avoid doing so.

GE:

And so you have been talking of yourself, to yourself, my dear fellow.

YS:

“BUT, in order to convey this aspect of a completed past action (their being assembled together) resulting in a current state of their still being assembled, one would need to write: “having-been-assembled-and-still-being-assembled…” and this would result in a translation, “…in the first of the week we, Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..””

GE:

‘BUT’, isn’t this, “Paul was speaking”, what you have just accused me of doing so absolutely by default? What is it with you? Where has your short term memory gone to?

And where has your memory gone to that exactly this, “…in the first of the week we having been assembling (in the first place, past circumstance,) to break bread, and still being assembling (in the resultant present ongoing circumstance), Paul spoke with them”? Don’t you remember, once again, I did not say, “Paul was speaking”? Don’t you remember, Luke did not write, “Paul was speaking”? Don’t you remember, it’s you who says, “Paul was speaking”?

And since when are you admitting Holy Communion spoken of in verse 7? Don’t you remember you until now have been maintaining Holy Communion is spoken of for the first time in verse 11?

YS:

“Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.”

GE:

Have I ever said differently? This is what I, have said, and have argued for, every inch of the way: “Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled (or rather ‘assembling’) When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.” But I have also consistently and unwavering said and argued, “Yes, they were having been assembled”— When? before when “they were .... still being assembled (or rather ‘assembling’) in the first of the week” and before when “Paul spoke to them”!

YS:

“Acts 20:7 εν IN δε AND τη THE μια FIRST των OF THE σαββατων SABBATHS συνηγμενων Having.Been.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled ημων WE κλασαι TO BREAK αρτον BREAD ο THE παυλος PAUL διελεγετο WAS SPEAKING αυτοις WITH THEM μελλων εξιεναι

τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

They were Having.Been.Assembled in the first day of the week.

GE:

Ja, not exactly. It’s so easy to leave out indispensable factors and aspects concisely implied but nevertheless very thoroughly implied in the single word of the Perfect Participle. You try to fuse the past and the present aspects of the Perfect Participle into one, thus confusing the differently related things of both the breaking of bread and Paul’s speaking into the single time space of the last and ongoing resultant time aspect of the Perfect Participle, of when the disciples “were still being gathering together and Paul spoke to them”. You will not allow the breaking of bread its own time aspect of belonging, the initial and past stage or aspect of the disciples’ “having been assembling (originally)”, “(before) their / our having been assembling (after still)”, “and Paul spoke to them”— “spoke”, the only, ‘Verb’ of the sentence.

Letter for letter literalness won’t help for idiom and syntax. It may only confuse, as is obvious from your struggling here. But admit to truth – simple, common sense truth – Yehushaun would rather die than admit.

YS:

“But please. I think you’re letting the English helper verbs cause confusion. You read the words “Having.Been” and infer a time value of “before.” It would seem you interpret Having.Been.Assembled as “Assembling before the first of the week.” But a Perfect Aspect does not convey Past Tense, and the word “been” is used in English here to convey passive action, not time reference.”

GE:

Would the Perfect then convey a Present aspect of ‘tense’? Of course the Perfect – whether Verb of Participle – conveys time-aspect or in English, ‘Tense’! The Perfect though, in fact conveys dual time-aspect— the first, past: ‘past’ in aspect and time and tense; nothing continuous or ongoing still can be ‘perfect’. The second, ongoing, resultant, ‘present’ aspect or time or tense, even also in a ‘Past Tense’ sense of a ‘perfect’, ongoing condition. Like the Present Past or Past Present in the English language or in any language for that matter. It’s a linguistic phenomenon that cannot be done without. It’s easy; not difficult. If it’s difficult, you don’t understand it yet. And so is our case in hand. The Perfect Participle of Acts 20:7 cuts both ways, implying two time-aspects and relating to two different (impossibly at once) actions, the passed Past of “having” or “being (originally) assembling”, and the resultant ongoing Past of “having” or “being assembling (still)”; the first, when “to break bread”, the last, “when Paul spoke to them”.

YS:

“The disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others.” The assembling was done to them (they had been assembled - they were assembled).”

GE:

Yehushuan, in the Passive Voice, the Subject receives the action. “I am surprised” --- ‘I surprise’ as some languages may have it. No one else do my surprising for me. Who do you think, did the disciples’ assembling for them? ‘Synehgmenohn’ is not a passive with direct or impersonal agent. Maybe ‘synegmenohn’ can be viewed as a Deponent, that is, a Participle with Passive form, but active meaning. If “the disciples did not assemble themselves, but were assembled by “others”, then it would not have been the disciples who assembled or who were assembled, but some others who assembled or were assembled, and Luke would not have been able to write “WE, being assembling”! I don’t want to be rude, but you should catch up your junior school level grammar.

YS:

“The assembling was passive in nature. If the Verb was a Perfect Active Participle (or more specifically a Perfect Middle Participle), you would read “Having.Assembled.....” If the action was NOT passive (though it is) you would read, “And in the first of the Sabbaths Having.Assembled.And.Still.Being.Assembled (we) to Break Bread, Paul was speaking…” Here, you can see that the assembling is clearly in the first day of the week.”

GE:

You are speculating out of touch with Greek idiom. And I cannot see at all, “the assembling” in both its time-aspects of past perfect and present continuous perfect is clearly in the first day of the week”. By nature of its dual time-aspect, the past ‘half’ must have gone before the ongoing resultant ‘half’. I can clearly see how the disciples’ “still having been assembling”, was “on the First Day”; but not how the Perfect aspect of their “having been assembling” in the first place, could also have been at the same time of “on the First Day”, because the Perfect demands “having been assembling together” originally should have been before “still being assembling”, as well as before, “on the First Day”.

To me, here it is clear the implied original act with which their “having been assembling” had or was begun, was before, their “on the First Day having been assembling still”.

YS:

“In order to remove the “flavour” of time-value from the conveyance of the passive nature of the action, we need to drop the word “been” and can write, “others having assembled us...”

GE:

It’s not for you or anyone else “to remove the “flavour” of time-value” of the Perfect, mate! Are you the creator of the Greek language? You cannot sense the most basic ‘flavours’ of linguistics generally, what decide to get rid of what to you is the unsavoury flavour of “time-line” in the Greek Perfect Participle.

You make a lot of noise against ‘adding in’ necessary words, but cut and “drop” indispensable words for a correct understanding and pure ‘flavour’ of the language at will ‘in order to’ say your own unimaginable sottish things like “others having assembled us”.

YS (unperturbed):

The text would then read: “…in the first of the week Others Having Assembled Us And We Still Being Assembled to break bread, Paul was speaking with them…..”

See the difference? All the action of assembling was “IN THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS”.

GE:

Well, thanks, Yehushuan. That just about explains everything; what exactly, I shall rather leave unsaid.

YS:

“Personally, I have no problem with Paul’s Jewish brethren assembling for Sabbath at the synagogue with their Jewish brethren. What you need to HONESTLY ask yourself is, “Do you really believe the Jews would let the Believers celebrate communion at the Synagogue on the Sabbath?”

Seriously. They may have assembled in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but here, they assembled in a private house on the first day of the week in order to celebrate communion, and Paul “held a Bible study”. Sounds like a Sunday worship service to me.

But I realize that you’ve placed your whole Christian Identity into this Saturday Church Service obsession, and nothing I say could convince you otherwise. That’s a bit unfortunate, since this verse clearly shows that they assembled for communion “in the first day of the week.”

GE:

No comment. Comment impossible.

25 January 2008

Gerhard Ebersöhn

PS

Dana and Mantey,

182, “(the) basal significance (of the Perfect ‘Tense’) is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination [[or stopping]] and the existence of its finished results. … It implies a process as having reached its consummation and [[then as to continue]] existing in a finished state. The point of completion is always antecedent to the time implied or stated in connection with the use of the Perfect. It may be graphically represented thus: ___ . -----”. Gildersleeve says it “looks at both ends of the action””.

183, “In the indicative the perfect signifies action as complete from the point of view of present time. Its exact meaning is often difficult to render, because of a blending of the sense with the English simple past. ... the confusion arises from the effort to explain the Greek in terms of our own idiom. It is best to assume there is a reason for the perfect wherever it occurs ...

The fundamental difference between the perfect (more restricted in use than the parallel English tense) and aorist (much wider in range than the English simple past) is vividly illustrated in Col.1:16. We have first the statement, en autohi ektistheh ta panta, “all things were created by Him”, which simply notes the fact that Christ was the active agent in creation, while the last clause, ta panta di’ autou kai eis auton ektistai, “all things through Him and unto Him have been created”, views the universe as a result of Christ’s creative activity – it is a ‘Christ-created universe’.”

184, “The significance of the perfect tense in presenting action as having reached its termination and existing in its finished results lies at the basis of its use.” (Emphasis CGE)

224, “The term ‘Participle’ … includes nearly all parts of speech EXCEPT VERBS …”.

The ‘translation’ presented by yourself renders the participle synehgmenohn as if it were an active, Indicative Verb. Fact is, the disciples did NOT on the First Day “assemble” for Holy Communion. The fact they “assembled”, is IMPLIED – not stated! And because implied through a Participle of the Perfect Aspect of Action, the implicated result is the disciples did not come together at the time of their still having been together on the First Day of the week. They therefore had to have assembled on the day before – “antecedent” – which happens to be the Sabbath Day as always.

John Calvin (Emphasis GE):

Calvin:

7. And in one day. Either doth he mean the first day of the week, which was next after the Sabbath, or else some certain Sabbath. Which latter thing may seem to me more probable; for this cause, because that day was more fit for all assembly, according to custom. But seeing it is no new matter for the Evangelists to put one instead of the first, according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue, (Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1) it shall very well agree, that on the morrow after the Sabbath they came together. Furthermore, it were too cold to expound this of any day. For to what end is there mentioned of the Sabbath, save only that he may note the opportunity and choice of the time? Also, it is a likely matter that Paul waited for the Sabbath, that the day before his departure he might the more easily gather all the disciples into one place . . . . they had appointed a solemn day for the celebrating of the Holy Supper of the Lord among themselves, which might be commodious for them all. . . .”

Gerrhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Acts 20,7, The Third Struggle

Acts 20:7 (for Gerhard Ebersöhn)

by Yehushuan

Mr. Ebersöhn,

I see you managed to get the previous thread on Sabbath Worship locked down before I could post a reply. (Ah well… after all the work I put in)

Not wishing you to think you were being ignored, I would at least like to comment on this one rather peculiar phrase you used - "Infinitive of Noun Force."

From your post, it would seem you contrast this concept of "Infinitive of Noun Force" with something you call the “Infinitive of Intent.”

Now, being unfamiliar with both phrases, I Googled them, only to find just two references to "Infinitive of Noun Force," (both of which were yours) and five references to “Infinitive of Intent” (two of which were about Gaelic).

It is obvious, then, that these are not grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists. In fact, "Infinitive of Noun Force," seems to be some kind of personal creation of yours, which was also a bit confusing since you used Luke 4:21 as an example (but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive).

So as for now, I do not think it would be wise of me to embrace your personally unique concept of “the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force,” since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although I did find one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”:

M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek wrote: In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και acquired additional meanings.

In short, this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form. A good example of this in English would be rather than saying, “I carried the knife carefully not to cut myself," one would write instead, “I carried the knife carefully so that I wouldn't cut myself," ('wouldn't' being the helper verb in the subjunctive mood).

Now (since you don’t seem to like Young’s) we have the verse:

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The phrase “to break bread” is κλασαι αρτον and the verb klasai is an aorist active infinitive. Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….” and contend that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).

Unfortunately many are confused between the concepts of tense and aspect, and since the verb “to break” is conjugated as aorist active infinitive (inside a genetive absolute), I provide the following:

Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek wrote: Because the aorist infinitive has aspect and not tense, it is impossible to translate the aorist infinitive into English. The present infinitive λύειν and the aorist infinitive λῦσαι are translated as "to loosen" in English. However, just because they have the same English translation does not mean they have the same meaning! Instead, the difference in meaning is determined by the aspect. Start paying careful attention to the infinitives you see when you read Greek. By studying the differences between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive, you can start to get a sense of the difference in meaning between present aspect and aorist aspect in Greek.

In other words, klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular – short sweet and to the point, rather than involved with complicated or drawn out movement through time. It does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished. So while an aorist active infinitive cannot be exactly translated, it may be adequately explained.

And while the primary purpose of the clause was not to convey any intent of a subject, the fact is, that since it fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, the disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread. (Even you stated that they assembled "for communion.") And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.

Kindly,

Yehu

PS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?

No, from your use of the word “we”.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them.”

The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.

(I would gently suggest you not read in malevolent intent where none exists.)

GE:

The best answer to your ‘arguments’, is to let you give it yourself. I have not before met an opponent so persistent, headstrong and proud in his ignorance. I have never seen someone so blind in his blindness to his own folly. I have never seen a dead horse being beaten so, Yehushuan, by his own master, than yours.

But not everyone who might read our debate, may pretend to be so informed as you pretend to be. For their sakes therefore, I am obliged to answer you once again. Otherwise I would not further have wasted time on you or your ‘benevolent intent’. You think I trust you? I pray the readers won’t. You could only help them from the edge of the cliff, off and down it.

YS:

“Mr. Ebersöhn, I see you managed to get the previous discussion on Sabbath Worship locked down before I could post a reply. (Ah well… after all the work I put in.)”

GE:

I didn’t lock it down; the moderators did; maybe in sympathy with your agony. Obviously you suffer none; I no longer could be surprised. If you put in less of your own mighty works and listened to others a little, you might still have suffered, but to your own improvement.

YS:

“From your post, it would seem you contrast this concept of "Infinitive of Noun Force" with something you call the “Infinitive of Intent.””

GE:

No, YS, from your posts, it is clear you, confuse the Infinitive of Noun Force for “something you” – not I –, “call the “Infinitive of Intent””.

YS:

“Now, being unfamiliar with both phrases, I Googled them, only to find just two references to "Infinitive of Noun Force," (both of which were yours) and five references to “Infinitive of Intent” (two of which were about Gaelic).

It is obvious, then, that these are not grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists. In fact, "Infinitive of Noun Force," seems to be some kind of personal creation of yours, which was also a bit confusing since you used Luke 4:21 as an example (but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive).”

GE:

“.... since you used Luke 4:21 as an example”— I, “used Luke 4:21 as an example”? As an example of what? I can categorically state I did nothing of the sort!

But credit to you at last, for admitting you “being unfamiliar with both phrases”. But ploughed in another examination, you being unable to point out the Perfect Participle in Luke 24 to which I was referring, mistaking “πεπληρωται” for it; and that, after I g-a-v-e it to you. I never asked you to identify “πεπληρωται”, and I, never claimed “πεπληρωται” is “an infinitive”. Now you try make me, look like the town’s simpleton.

From a basis where one admitted “being unfamiliar with” the things in question, one might have reached some intelligent apprehension. But whereas you from the outset was of the opinion you already knew better than anybody else, I’m afraid we were doomed to be disappointed, and I am not at all surprised by your veering away from the subject-matter to your inventive lightning-deflector, “as an example .... πεπληρωται”. I made no reference to this word. Why you do, only you would know.

YS:

“So as for now, I do not think it would be wise of me to embrace your personally unique concept of “the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force,” since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although I did find one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”....”

GE:

What a compliment to me, Yehushuan, you thought the syntactical phenomenon of the Infinitive of Noun Force was “some kind of.... unique.... personal creation of” mine, of ‘a grammatical concept in normal linguists’— which indeed it is, and which makes it the more confusing why you “used Luke 4:21 as an example’ and observed, “but πεπληρωται is not an infinitive”?

Only because you don’t know what you are talking of or are dealing with— which is thus obvious again in your quoting, “M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek” totally out of context and irrelevantly. I can see it without having seen it. You can’t see it although you have seen it. There’s the difference between us!

So you blunder on, “Since absolutely no Koine Greek linguist recognizes the existence of such, although....”

1) you, ‘found’ abstract reference to but one ‘Koine Greek linguist’ while you stayed ignorant as to so many other ‘Koine Greek linguists’ who do ‘recognize the existence of such’ as the Infinitive of Noun Force; and

2) you, yourself, ‘found’ “one (and only one) reference to “infinitive of intent”” which says nothing for or against “the existence of such” as The Infinitive of Noun Force.

I think it might be wise of you to ‘strive for simplification of analytical expression’ and to go to the library to find some recognised Greek grammarians on this issue, before you embrace your own erroneous conceptions for examples of precision.

Besides, I am not concerned with “grammatical concepts in normal use by English linguists”. I deal with ‘Greek linguistics’, in this case, with the linguistic peculiarity of the Greek language of the ‘Infinitive of Noun Force’.

And may I suggest you stay by printed books on Greek linguistics, and forget ‘googling’. (Nevertheless I am pleasantly surprised “both of .... (the) two references to "Infinitive of Noun Force"” you could find through your ‘googling’, were mine. Thanks; I did not know.)

However, that does not mean anything like you decided it should, “It is obvious, then .... "Infinitive of Noun Force," seems to be some kind of personal creation of (mine)”. Your conclusion non the less only proves the poor research you have done.

I shall be considerate out of bounds for myself and – to see if it’s “some kind of personal creation of” mine or not –, shall refer you to a ‘reference to ‘Infinitive of Noun Force’ from the most understandable Greek Grammar I have come across, that of ‘Dana and Mantey’,

“The Infinitive is an indeclinable Noun .... in historical Greek is used in all Cases .... The Infinitive is a Substantive expressing an act or state ....”. So “an observation of Webster”, from D&M, “.... an incomplete idea .... supplemented by the epexegetical infinitive, expressive of object, design, purpose”.

This is why D&M, IV,187, could declare, “Intelligent expression inevitably occasions at times the naming of an action with substantival relations in a sentence. Here we have noun and verb occupying common ground. This may sometimes be expressed by an ordinary noun of action, but is more forcefully expressed by a verbal substantive. For this function the chief device of language is the Infinitive, which doubtless reached its highest known stage of development and variety of usage in the Greek language.” (Emphasis GE)

YS:

“M. Z. Kopidakis in Introduction to Koine Greek wrote: In the realm of syntax, too, the Koine strives for simplification, analytical expression and precision. “Naked” cases are often replaced by the more precise prepositional structures. The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced: the infinitive of intent by ότι+indicative and the infinitive of purpose by ίνα + subjunctive. The optative mood was shaken, and some of its applications became obsolete. Parataxis and the omission of conjunctions limited the subordinate clauses; therefore, the conjunction και acquired additional meanings.”

In short, this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form. A good example of this in English would be rather than saying, “I carried the knife carefully not to cut myself," one would write instead, “I carried the knife carefully so that I wouldn't cut myself," ('wouldn't' being the helper verb in the subjunctive mood).”

GE:

All this tells me is you are still battling to understand the Passive. I am not sure; all I’m sure of is, this is as much worth to the issue of the ‘existence’ and validity or not of the Infinitive of Noun Force as you being my helper to understand it.

In any case, this is fantastical surmising, “.... this says that if a clause is to express purpose, the infinitive was no longer used, but replaced with ίνα + the subjunctive verb form.” “The infinitive no longer used”? Yehushuan, I don’t think M. Z. Kopidakis would accept this gracefully! You see, you’re like a bull that storms a china shop; you don’t notice or mind that you overthrow everything in your way. So did you overthrow what MZK stated in full, “The accusative gradually replaced the genitive and dative (ακούειν τινά instead of τινός). The infinitive was likewise replaced....”. You never noticed the word ‘likewise’? You tell me you didn’t! ‘Likewise’, that is, ‘like’, “gradually” – not instantaneously, but also and more so, not completely! Not totally, because to this day the Infinitive has not been ‘replaced’, completely. I don’t know if MZK is still with us; I never knew about his ‘Introduction’. But if he still lives, please write him a letter and tell him I dare say he never intended to say ‘replaced’ completely, but only to an extent.

And here, with complements of the occasion, to Yehushuan, is a good example of how I think the Infinitive of Noun Force in the English language would be looking like, if I said, ‘I carried the sword of the word for to cut the nerve of his surmising.’

YS:

“Now (since you don’t seem to like Young’s) we have the verse:

Acts 20:7 KJV And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The phrase “to break bread” is κλασαι αρτον and the verb klasai is an aorist active infinitive. Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….” and contend that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).”

GE:

Yes, I would, but not only for the reason “that communion had already occurred since the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”)”, but mainly because the Participle with which the Infinitive is combined through immediate context, is Perfect, with its dual time-aspect of ‘past’ as well as resultant ongoing past ‘present’. Just to keep proper perspective, please.

However, let us also keep in mind the actual state of things here, that (like also the Participle) the Infinitive, is no ‘Verb’, but rather functions as a Noun! So, you’re already wrong to say, “the verb is aorist (i.e. “past tense”)”.

Rather, this meaningful combination of both the Aorist Infinitive and the Perfect Participle, even more emphatically implies “that communion had already occurred since the [Infinitive] is aorist (i.e. “past tense”).” Yehushuan, you have again helped me to see better, and in better perspective than I before did see. I have until now just overlooked the fact the Infinitive was Aorist. Thank you.

But before we leave from this scene, once again a correction. You say, “Now if I understand correctly, you would rather see this phrase translated “Having had assembled to have broken bread, we….”” No. You do not understand me correctly. I would rather see this phrase properly ‘translated’, ‘literally’, that is, as I have said, with both its time-aspects given their rightful weight or worth, first, past: “We, while having had been assembling to brake bread (“to have broken bread”)....” next, ongoing in the past present, “.... and while after having had been assembling still….”. I want it ‘translated’ in full and to full implication of its dual time-aspect. The KJV does not do it; the KJV verges on the edge of making of the Participle an Indicative Verb. (It daringly hovers over the ‘finite’ brink of the abyss, instead of to keep wise distance from it. See Marshall trying to do it, and I think, succeeding to an extent.) The KJV therefore in my opinion is plainly wrong, though not as intentionally wrong as virtually every modern ‘translation’ is, which / who consciously omit mention of the past and Perfect implication of “having had been assembling at first, before having had been assembling still after when Paul spoke to them”. How does one separate the two aspects? I find it impossible. The Perfect, Participle, Aorist and Infinitive together, will not allow any time-aspect (“time-line”) be separated from the rest together. But we modern people are too lazy and hasty, so that although there is nothing wrong with it, “having had been assembling at first, before having had been assembling still after when Paul spoke to them” to us sounds clumsy and too taxing to maintain our attention.

YS:

“Unfortunately many are confused between the concepts of tense and aspect, and since the verb “to break” is conjugated as aorist active infinitive (inside a genetive [sic.] absolute), I provide the following....”

GE:

Speak for yourself, yes!

YS:

“Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek wrote: Because the aorist infinitive has aspect and not tense, it is impossible to translate the aorist infinitive into English. The present infinitive λύειν and the aorist infinitive λῦσαι are translated as "to loosen" in English. However, just because they have the same English translation does not mean they have the same meaning! Instead, the difference in meaning is determined by the aspect. Start paying careful attention to the infinitives you see when you read Greek. By studying the differences between the present infinitive and the aorist infinitive, you can start to get a sense of the difference in meaning between present aspect and aorist aspect in Greek.”

GE:

So what have we actually learned? I guess that in Acts 20:7 the Infinitive being an Aorist, might better express a Lord’s Supper of the past than an ongoing one of the present, and therefore a Lord’s Supper not while Paul spoke to them on the First Day while they were being assembling still, but rather a Lord’s Supper while they before were having been assembling. Just what I have tried to say all the time, and what you denied.

YS:

“In other words, klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular – short sweet and to the point, rather than involved with complicated or drawn out movement through time. It does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished. So while an aorist active infinitive cannot be exactly translated, it may be adequately explained.”

GE:

Yehushuan, you don’t write your quotation marks; so who is now speaking, “Clayton Croy” in his “Primer of Biblical Greek”, or you? I would say it’s you because to say “klasai does not indicate action that had been completed, but rather indicates that such action is punticular” (sic.) is so evidently contradictory, I cannot think it was Croy who wrote it.

If ‘punctiliar’ “does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished”, then I would be unable to tell what would. Dana & Mantey actually say it is almost inevitable to translate the Aorist with Past Perfect in English.

I recommend, avoid the word ‘punctiliar’ and instead use the words ‘constative’ and ‘ingressive’. They are much clearer and understandable --- to me in any case --- (and spell easier). Be that as it may, fact about the Aorist is, it exactly conveys typical Greek “time information” to indicate that action had been accomplished.

Most ironic that you are the one who brought the Aorist aspect about this Infinitive to the fore; now are the one who tries to wangle its meaning to suit your lost case of a Lord’s Supper indicated by an Aorist Infinitive “klasai”, that “does not indicate action that had been completed”, and that “does not convey typical “time information” to indicate that such action had been accomplished”, but must have been ongoing. Which is just ugly, wrong, and false, but spot on correctly exposes you for the linguistic conman you are!

Once again as well, you should be asked, since when do you propagate the Lord’s Supper from verse 7? You previously denied it, and insisted the Lord’s Supper only ‘exists’ from verse 11 on. So even your inconsistency is consistently fraudulent.

YS:

“While the primary purpose of the clause was not to convey any intent of a subject, the fact is, that since it fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, the disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread. (Even you stated that they assembled "for communion.") And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.”

GE:

So we’re back to square one. There’s no ‘clause’ here, if a ‘clause’ means a phrase that contains a Verb, because there is no Verb involved in this phrase. YS can still not perceive it.

And now, ‘since it’, ‘it’, the phrase ‘klasai arton’?, “fits into the construct of the genitive absolute....”? How does ‘klasai arton’, ‘fit into’, ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’? It rather, ‘links up’ with it, I would say. So, alright, since ‘klasai arton’ fits into the construct of the genitive absolute, ‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’, what was your, conclusion? “The disciples did assemble for the purpose of breaking bread.” There you say it yourself, they ‘did’. But again you suppress all the other factors of the reality implied in verse 7, that they were not presently and ongoing ‘assembl-ing for the purpose of breaking bread’, but “While we before were in the past assembling for to Break Bread, and on the First Day were presently and ongoing assembling still, Paul spoke to them”.

You straight on commences with your old story, “And they did assemble in the first day of the week. And they did break bread in verse 11.” ‘Synehgmenohn’ is no Verb! And back again to no Lord’s Supper in 7, only in 11. You are a hopeless case.

YS:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: I did not use “the Westcott Hort text”. Where did you get that from? From my inability to bring my ideas across?”

No, from your use of the word “we”.”

GE:

From my use of the word “we”? So does the TR not have ‘synegmenohn’, because ‘synehgmenohn’ says ‘we’? So does the TR not have ‘hehmohn’, because ‘hehmohn’ says ‘we’?

YS:

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “After having had assembled for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembled-still, Paul discussed matters with them.” The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

GE:

(Thanks for the opportunity and please allow me to improve what I have written here, to make it read, “After having been assembling for Holy Communion, we, on the First Day of the week (Saturday evening) having-been-assembling still, Paul discussed matters with them”, only to be more correct ‘technically’, thanks.)

YS:

“The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

GE:

I have made double sure; I looked up Nestle Aland’s ‘codices’. I have also checked Wigram’s ‘Variants’. I could find no ‘Variant’ that has the word “the disciples”-‘mathehtai’. By ‘variants’ is meant what is in “the Textus Receptus” but not in ‘the Wescott Hort family of codices’ (they’re virtually the same as NA), and vice versa.

Yehushuan, The TR has ‘hehmohn’; so does NA. I don’t know about W&H, if they have it. It is this Pronoun that implies ‘us’, ‘the disciples’. The Textus Receptus does NOT “have the words “the disciples””!

Honestly and earnestly, Yehushuan, for your own sake, stay away from Greek linguistics and for that matter from all linguistics; you’re just not up to it, my boy.

YS:

Wow, claiming to do all that reading and still getting it wrong? Amazing.

The Scrivener’s Textus Receptus as found in e-sword reads:

Act 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινεν τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

In addition, the Textus Majoris from The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New Testament from Thomas Nelson Publishers reads:

Act 20:7 εν δε τη μια των σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος διελεγετο αυτοις μελλων εξιεναι τη επαυριον παρετεινε τε τον λογον μεχρι μεσονυκτιου.

….. though it does note the variant of ημων in Nestle-Aland 26 and the United Bible Societies’ fourth edition (as in e-sword’s Westcott Hort).

"Double sure"? You might wish to try again, without that whole – bitter old man condemnation prattle. Third time’s the charm. How can you possibly hope to get the interpretation correct, if you can't even track down the exact Greek words.

GE:

Ja. there are as many 'codices' as there are ‘codifiers’.
I am no scholar on manuscripts, but I will say this here quoted stuff from Scrivener’s is a personal commentary of his on the manuscript-sources themselves. Supply the manuscript 'names' with all those funny letters and signs, you know. They are usually accompanying a photostat copy of the original. From those fragments etc. there have quite a few 'Textus Receptus' been compiled. When I speak of the TR I have in mind that of Erasmus, which, if I am not mistaken, Tyndale translated from. If mathehtai/ohn were on that 'TR', NA and Wigram who works on Erasmus and NA, would have indicated it. They do not; so I as an amateur, take them for my authorities. And my feelings tell me Schrivener's is not authentic; until the real thing to the contrary can be shown. I do not accept your source, is what I'm saying. Bring your claims from Erasmus, if you talk of the Textus Receptus. Then I shall admit I'm in the wrong, and you right. Not until then.

In any case, what difference does it make to the meaning of the passage under discussion? I in fact has all the way myself maintained 'the disciples' are meant with hehmohn and the first person plural of synehgmenohn. I have even given the names of those disciples, as they are mentioned in the first verses of chapter 20. You though, carry on if my contending the words tohn mathehtohn are not in the TR shows everything else I'm saying is untrue and incorrect.

Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) named his GNT – published by Cambridge University Press, “The New Testament in the original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version (1894)”. Scrivener also edited the “Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the AV”, (1873). In 1884 he published the “Authorised Edition of the English Bible”.

Written in Greek (of the NT, in other words, in Koineh Greek), his NT was still a ‘translation’, and therefore a commentary on the actual TR or compilation of manuscripts used for the translation of the AV. He ‘added in’ words, like “the disciples” in Acts 20:7.

Now you, Yehushuan, made such a noise when I dared to ‘add in’ words when I ‘translated’ through the medium of another language than Greek (English), but here laud victory, “knowing Third time’s the charm”, too soon, with regards to a truly great scholar who found it necessary to ‘add in’ words even though he translated through the medium of the same language of the original (manuscripts), Greek. I throw your comment back to you, How can you possibly hope to get the interpretation correct, if you can't even track down the exact Greek words?

I shall not again answer you in this fruitless conversation wherein added in cookies, crackers and wafers the lot are of far better value than your contribution to it.

1 February 2009

YS:

Ebersöhn,

Despite your rude and obnoxious bitter old man behaviour, I took the time to find the evidence you demand. The following picture is a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE, which you may download for free at: http://www.lulu.com/content/731315

Now unless you’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick you, I don’t expect THIS source to be challenged without adequate PROOF from you. (And I’m certainly NOT going to buy a plane ticket for you to travel and see the manuscript with your own eyes.)

As can be seen on the first complete line, we read starting with the fifth word, "σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος" (And yes, I underlined the words in red.)

I expect an apology. (And we’ll know just what type of Christian you are from how you respond to this.)

The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus. That word applies to differences between manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy, etc.

I find none of your posts to be honest or earnest, and since YOU have overtly declared that I don’t know what I’m talking about I would suggest that any honest person would surf the above link, download the file (save as target) and actually READ page 362 (it’s near the bottom).

Again, since you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus' own text) says “the disciples,” I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one that’s just one more ad homonym of your bitter old man syndrome).

Yehushuan

PS: The entire forum can now judge just who isn’t “up to it.”

GE:

Whose handwriting is this?

Was Acts written in 1522?

Scrivener --- Erasmus --- what's the difference? Both are THEIR 'New Testaments' --- neither are the manuscripts; and the actual sources of the TR are manuscripts --- written perhaps two to six centuries AD, but not in the sixteenth century!

O Lord, it's hard to be humble!

For those who might be interested.

Yehushuan’s own referred to source, reads,

“Erasmus' third printed edition of Greek New Testament published in 1522. Colophon to Apocalypse contains the date 1522 but the Introduction says 1518. It contains both the Greek and the Latin (Erasmus' own translation) texts in parallel columns.

This is the first printed edition of Greek NT to contain the Comma Johanneum (1Jo5:7-8), howbeit in a rather unusual form. .... This edition was used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (1526), by Stephanus as a base for his 1550 edition and by the translators of Geneva Bible and KJV.”

The mss of the Geek NT can, according to content, be divided mainly into two different groups: a) the ‘Majority Text’ or Byzantium text, about 5200 mss and about 99 percent of which very closely resemble each other; and b) the group of mss that contain the main differences, about 50 of them or 1% of all mss. About 600 mss are capital letters, and the rest are minuscule.

The history of the Greek text from about the fifth century AD for approximately fifteen centuries was dominated by the Majority Text or Textus Receptus. It originated over a vast area north and east of Egypt.

Erasmus wrote his GNT using these mss, and Tyndale wrote his English Bible using Erasmus’ GNT while he for every word and phrase tried to keep to the manuscript readings itself. Tyndale mostly had to work in exile, so how available the real mss were to him, I cannot tell, but he in the end could witness that he translated no single word against his conscience –--- a conscience he most certainly did not weigh against the work of another man, Erasmus, but must have weighed against this centuries old and used source of the original manuscripts, which by the time Tyndale translated his NT, was long known already by the collective name of the Textus Receptus --- later called the Majority Text.

So do I understand things, and so have I maintained throughout this childish bickering about the fatuous and inflated issue about the presence or not of the words ‘the disciples’ in Acts 20:7 in the TR which was started by one Yehushuan for no reason but to find something to glory in to the embarrassment of a Mr Nobody who dared challenge his pretence.

3 February 2009

JB:

Interesting read: So are you saying that you trust this heinz 57 text?

GE:

As I very clearly said, I am no scholar; least in the field of Text and Text criticism. Therefore, I do not understand what you are saying or might be insinuating. All I say is, the TR _is_ NOT, that which is, 'Erasmus', or, that, which is, anybody else's 'NT' based upon 'Erasmus'. So, 'the disciples' or no disciples, it's immaterial! And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'.

That, I do trust, yes!

2 February 2009

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'.
That, I do trust, yes!

You know Ebersöhn this is just pathetic.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: When I speak of the TR I have in mind that of Erasmus, which, if I am not mistaken, Tyndale translated from.

I gave you both the link AND provided the picture of the actual publication used by Tyndale as published by Erasmus. You can plainly see the words “the disciples” even with your bad eyesight.

Hard to be humble? You don’t even know the meaning of the word.

So Acts 20:7 “precisely reads” of us? Does it?

Prove it. I mean SHOW ACTUAL PROOF you poser. Stop pretending. Admit you never Ever saw any of these written manuscripts Erasmus used, and therefore cannot state what any of them “precisely reads.” (Precisely? Your strategy is to lie and then swear to it?)

First you say only the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press, not written) and when shown you’re wrong now you spout off something completely inane about “the real TR”?

THAT’S JUST TOTALLY PATHETIC. (Hope that was large enough for you to read.)

So just tell me what the “real TR” is, and I’ll go prove THAT has “the disciples” written in it.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:…started by one Yehushuan for no reason but to find something to glory in to the embarrassment of a Mr Nobody who dared challenge his pretence.

This is an apology? Hey dude, if you can’t stand to be shown you are wrong then don’t start attacking others who actually know better. You still owe me an apology because YOU wrongly accused ME.

And I formally request of the Father that he hold your feet to the fire for the sake of saving your own soul. (May you be delivered from the pathetic bitter old man syndrome that has you in bondage.)

Yehushuan

GE:

3 February 2009

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, I have been trying to follow this discussion and maybe I missed a few ideas, but I am a simple fella. Just out of curiosity, do you prefer the Byzantine writings over the Alexandrian writings? If so why? Thanks in advance for your response.

By the way, Yehu has thumped on me a few times in Greek discussions. But to be honest I had it coming. But at the same time I learned quite a bit as a result of it.

GE:

But JB, please tell me what you mean with "this heinz 57 text"?
Thanks

YS:

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: But JB, please tell me what you mean with "this heinz 57 text"?

The phrase "heinz 57" is an American colloquialism, meant to express a condition similar to the word "mutt" or "mongrel" - saying that an item is all mixed up having numerous and conflicting varieties of everything all at once, as if a cook took each of the 57 Heinz products (ketchup, mustard, relish etc.) and put it all together in the same pot.
Hope that helps.
Yehu
(One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history.)

JB:

The Lord has laid it on my heart to write this post and I am not sure why but I must be obedient to this prompting. I participate in several forums and have had the privledge to get to know and to debate with many people. But in all the time that I have participated in these forums, there is only one person that I haver come to know on a very personal level. That person is Yehu. I consider him a very close friend. We have not only battled on the forum but we have fellowshipped at the dinner table. I believe that Yehu is one of the humblest men that I have ever met but at the same time very exacting. What I mean by exacting is his sense for detail. We have cried together and laughed together. We have shared victories together and failure together. I have grown to respect him and appreciate his concern for peoples relationship with Christ. I love Yehu and I deeply respect his commitment to the study of Gods word. I have learned more through discussion with him than all the time that I spent in college. And I thank God for him and I thank him for that. God has used Yehu in my life in a mighty way. we may disagree from time to time but for the most part I believe that we both serve the same God.

Thank you Yehu for your commitment and your influence in my life.
JB

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, I believe that Yehu nailed it down for me. Since business has been good and I don't find a lot of personal time, I find it difficult to respond quickly to questions on this forum.
I believe that there were several ideas in the translation process. One of which is the accumulation of many texts from various regions of the world and then are compared. The translators then take what they believe is the best idea and that becomes the translation.

With the advent of the printing press and the need for greed, there was a race that took place to print the first Greek text available to the public on a mass scale. Unfortunately, the race was about money and not the scriptures. Another unfortunate event was that many of the first Greek type sets that were developed were flawed and many of these first mass produced manuscripts were littered with error. What I find most concerning is the fact that after the first production of this Greek text, a much earlier text was recovered and when it was compared to this mass produced text there were many differences. But since this was the standard, these mass producers continued to produce this Heinz 57 text and it became more ingrained in people that this was the original text. To bring about any change at this point would now be a difficult action based on the proud attitude that is seen in people and that attitude still exists today.

This is what I mean by the heinz 57 text.

JB

YS:

Mr. Ebersöhn, All you needed to say was, “Oh look at that, the TR does say ‘the disciples’.”

But you see this isn’t about ME being right. (So why did I press the point?) This is about you being unable to admit you’re ever wrong, because if you did admit you were wrong in this one point, you might also start to wonder if you might be wrong about your basic premise. (And heaven help us we couldn’t have that, could we?) It would be very sad were you to realize that your entire ministry is quixotic. That your mission in life to prove that we should all worship on Saturday is something God doesn’t really care about. You might realize that it’s your mission, not His. (I feel for you.)

But when Paul met with the disciples in Acts 20, they met on the first day of the week and celebrated communion.

It’s hard for you to mount a convincing argument against this based upon the Greek text when you also admit that you have no training in Greek translation. Suffice it to say, your arguments are not convincing. Nor have your insults to my person been beneficial in convincing others.
I’ve shown that you invented a term unknown to any other linguist. I’ve shown that the perfect aspect describes that it was their gathering together which is to be seen as completed action, not their breaking of bread. I’ve shown the initial phrase of verse seven conforms to the genitive absolute which in turn prohibits a conclusion that communion was completed. And if nothing else, the text clearly shows they broke bread in verse 11. What more can be said?

Now I’m not sure what resources you have at hand nearby where you live, but it may be of great benefit were you to toddle on down to University and take a professor of Greek to lunch.

If he disagrees with you, you’ll learn something. If he agrees with you, you may learn how to better present your arguments.

GE:
JB, Am I right, to conclude, Erasmus (as Scriverner's) and "many of the first Greek type sets that were developed were flawed", and that, according to you, "this Heinz 57 text .... became more ingrained in people that this", ('type sets' -- like Erasmus and Scrivener centuries later) was not "the original text"? And, that while we are here concerned with the words, "the disciples" in Acts 20:7 actually being 'type set' (by Erasmus and others), make up one of the 'flaws'; and that "To bring about any change at this point would now be a difficult action based on the proud attitude that is seen in people and that attitude still exists today", though veiled, is an inference to one who on this thread is calling himself "One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history"?

Edited: JB, I shall not mind if you don't want to answer to this post of mine; I think I understand.

JB:
Actually I was responding more directly to your question about Heinz 57. There were many events that impacted the accuracy of the Heinz 57 text. But yes, there were many type set errors.

You asked: “Another question, Do I understand you right, that you 'say', the textus receptus' is, this, Heinz 57 text?” That is what I am saying.

GE:

Then why do some people insist on its' precise content so, if it's worthless after all, being some 'Heinz 57' 'codifice' / codex?

JB:

Some do praise it but not all. There are just as many that don't trust it as those who do trust it.

I believe that this is a very difficult question but it is one that needs to be addressed. I struggle with this idea daily. But the truth of the matter is, we don't have to go very far in our studies to see the textual difficulties that exist among the variant texts. In my Greek Library I have books that address the variant texts and while I might not like them, they are really there. The TR was developed from many manuscripts and documents directly and indirectly. As the translators went through all these variant texts they in fact found contradictions.

The questions should be, "where did the contradictions come from" and "How did they deal with the contradictions in the many translations that existed"?

I believe that the contradictions came from the original autographs. While they were perfect and inspired, they were used to make copies. The original letters or writings would be sent to the Church and after the letters were studied, they would make copies and they sent the copies to other Churches. From the earliest copies, variant texts began to appear. Sometimes the writer would spell wrong or would get lines mixed up. The result is variations.

Another difficulty was when a letter was sent to a community where the language was slightly different. The writer would attempt to translate the letter into a more understandable language for the people with a slightly different language. And what happened with that? They began to develop their own ideas. After many years the result was that many of the letters and texts used to develop the TR were found to be paraphrased and in many case new and added text had been discovered.

How they dealt with these contradictions was through an attempt to develop a consistent theological theme. They would study all the extant texts and then decide which one would best fit the theological idea. After these texts were developed they found there way to the printing press and were mass produced.

What I find to be really sad is that after this mass production of these texts, earlier scripts were discovered but were rejected because they weren't even close to what the translators thought should be right.

You said: “if it's worthless after all, being some 'Heinz 57' 'codifice' / codex?”

That is the interesting thing. I compare the KJV with the NAS and NIV and several others and I see the differences. There are many. I believe that the Alexandrian text played a crucial role in the differences that we see today as I am sure you will agree. There are textual commentaries on the New Testament that show just how graphically these differences are.

GE:

JB, Thanks for these posts.

First, a little light my wife has thrown on the 'Heinz 57' expression --- she is a very bright and sprightly person without whom I don't know how I would have managed in life. She amazes me every day. She always says, "I'm just a nurse", but I haven't met her peer yet intellectually. In any case, she tells me of when she was young, her family was sometimes treated on a tin of 'Heinz all-sorts' sweets. She says she doesn't remember the '57'. But just maybe the tin contained just 57 sweets? So, could this tin of sweets perhaps have been the very original 'manuscript / source' that later on became the 'standard' or 'assized' (Afr., 'geykte') or 'textus receptus' of the expression as used today by everybody not at all knowingly, of its origin? Then that is how I understand what the TR is, and if I'm not mistaken, you as well.

If so considering this post from you, the real TR consisted of the actual collection of mostly not the original but hand written copies of the original. So that:- the first complete handwritten 'text' of one specific preferred choice of these 'scraps' and 'parts', that of Erasmus, is not or was not, itself, the, 'Textus Receptus'. That is how I understand you, from this post, of yours. Erasmus' therefore, was the first tin of all-sorts sweets, marketed being branded, 'Heinz', perhaps?

YS:

The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir which reads: : textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus, translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt."

The words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative case to the nominative, and the term “Textus Receptus” was born.

This was mostly a marketing gimmick intended to sell books, as the publishers declared that their printed book comprised the definitive edition of the Greek text used by the KJV translators in 1611.

In reality, the translators would have had access to all the printed editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (and printed editions of revisions made by other printers) but the SIX manuscripts used by Erasmus (none of which contained the book of Revelation) were not physically available in England, and were never referred to as the Textus Receptus.

Since the Elzevirs' book was published, the term “Textus Receptus” has come to identify any member of the family of the Greek texts (i.e. printed books) used by the KJV translation committee, specifically the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament first printed by Froben of Basel (Switzerland) in 1516.

Again, the term Textus Receptus refers to printed books, not the source manuscripts.

(HEY, you all have access to Google and Wikipedia, why do I have to do all the work?)

Before Martin Luther (circa 1515), the Greek text of the New Testament didn’t really matter, as there weren’t any Protestants. The teachings of the Church were based upon The Apostle’s Doctrine, (cf. Acts 2) which in practice meant Apostolic Authority which in turn meant Apostolic Office (the Bishops and the Pope) because Ecclesiastical Authority was not vested in scripture but rather in the Church Fathers (the living ones being a bit more important than the dead ones).

You did not look to the Bible for your faith; you went and asked your priest.

It is only because of the Protestant Reformation, which relied upon the principle of Sola Scripturae, that the Bible (and hence an accurate and “true” Bible) became important. The Reformation can almost be isolated to one single moment when Martin Luther read in the Greek text that Jesus preached “Repent” rather than “Do Penance” as was written in the Latin Vulgate.

Up until this time, and for nearly one thousand years, there had been only ONE Bible (sort of) which is now called the Vulgate, written in Latin by Jerome, and published between 382, 405. (And remember any such Bible was hand written and hand copied until the first printed edition on a Guttenberg press published in 1445. Yet even by then there were various manuscripts of the Vulgate that differed.)

Since the year 400, the Western Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Eastern Church, or the Orthodox Church) had the Latin Vulgate as its Bible. The Bible was the Latin Vulgate. The name Vulgate comes from the Latin word for common, since by 400 AD, hardly anyone in the Empire spoke Greek anymore. Interestingly enough, Jerome did not create a new Latin translation from any authoritative Greek texts, but rather was commissioned by the Pope to gather up as many Latin Versions as possible and create a standardized version from these.

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, the local priests would make a Latin Translation on his own to use in services. These are known as the Old Latin Texts, and Jerome was to compile these and fix any errors he found.

Again, it is the Protestant principle of Sola Scripturae that created the near psychotic need for an accurate and true and singular Bible that was based on as “original” a Greek text as possible. The fact that there are significant differences between various Greek manuscripts from different regions (not the innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses “we” as found in Acts 20:7) is something that each Believer needs to rectify for his or her own faith.

Oddly enough, while the KJV relied upon the Greek Texts compiled by Erasmus and printed in a book, Erasmus didn’t care about the Greek text. He was on a mission to fix the Latin Vulgate, and included this Greek text in order to show how his Latin was better than Jerome’s.

GE:

Reply to Yehushuan's two last posts above:
Thank you for these; they make me realise the big holes in my canvas on the easel. I especially appreciate your explanation of the very first use of the appellation 'Textus Receptus', and must admit I did not understand it that way simply because I have not properly been informed in these matters. I have always thought 'TR' is the equivalent of a collection of collections of actual manuscripts – I wrote of them as those smaller and larger pieces of writing material that are identified with 'A's and reversed 'R's and stuff in the museums and places where they are preserved. That is why I contended that the 'TR' does not have the words, "the disciples" - since not one of the real manuscripts actually have these words. But as you said above, it was an "innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses “we” as found in Acts 20:7".

I herewith therefore formally admit having been sadly informed regarding the meaning and use of the appellation 'Textus Receptus'.

GE:

Regarding the KJVO ‘issue’,

My viewpoint – for what it may be worth – rests on the assumption no ‘Version’ or ‘translation’ is perfect; but, that each ‘case’ of alleged ‘mistake’ in whichever ‘Version’ or ‘Translation’ should be treated individually.

Like in the case of
Matthew 23:24 —
The KJV has “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”.
Some presume “the KJV doesn't make any sense in this verse” because the Greek – they claim – would say, “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”.

Adam Clark, ‘Commentary on the Bible’,
“Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense.”

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, ‘Commentary’,
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat--The proper rendering--as in the older English translations, and perhaps our own as it came from the translators' hands--evidently is, ‘strain out.’”

John Wesley, ‘Explanatory Notes’, much too arrogantly, declares,
“.... Ye blind guides, who teach others to do as you do yourselves, to strain out a gnat - From the liquor they are going to drink! and swallow a camel - It is strange, that glaring false print, strain at a gnat, which quite alters the sense, should run through all the editions of our English Bibles.”

Robertson, “Word Pictures”,
“Strain out the gnat (diulizontes ton kōnōpa). By filtering through (dia), not the “straining at” in swallowing so crudely suggested by the misprint in the A.V.”

Albert Barnes, ‘Notes on the Bible’,
“Which strain at a gnat ... - This is a proverb. There is, however, a mistranslation or misprint here, which makes the verse unmeaning. “To strain” at a “gnat” conveys no sense. It should have been to strain out a gnat; and so it is printed in some of the earlier versions, and so it was undoubtedly rendered by the translators. The common reading is a “misprint,” and should be corrected. The Greek means to “strain” out by a cloth or sieve.”

I disagree, there is no ‘misprint’ in the KJV. There is – here – no suggestion to ‘straining out’ in the sense of another action than swallowing, like to sieve out. If, as Barnes admits, “This is a proverb”, it’s a proverb for ‘to swallow’ and is not the literal of ‘to sieve’. The section speaks about swallowing with ease or difficulty.... The drinker swallows both wine and gnat though with difficulty and repugnance – he 'strains at' it. But gross impurity – the proverbial ‘camel’ – he swallows and downs like wine without effort and with great relish.

I do not try prove the KJV – whichever edition – is faultless or directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. I only try prove my own point – take it or leave it – that each suspect instance of ‘mistake’, ‘flaw’ or ‘irreconcilability’ or whatever, should be judged on own merit or demerit. I therefore say the Bible, though it contains human error and imprecision (even in the several Greek ‘translations’), it, as the Word of God, is infallible, unerring and absolutely authoritative in all matters of Christian faith, doctrine and walk. And I shall go so far as to say and accept – even to confess – that text-compilations from the ‘differing’ or ‘minority’ manuscripts like the compilations of Westcott and Hort and Nestle and Aland, still contain the infallible, unerring and absolutely authoritative in all matters of Christian faith, doctrine and walk Word of God.

7 February 2009

YS:

You're quite welcome.

Mr. Ebersöhn, Isn’t it wonderful when we’re not insulting one another? Trust me, I have my own large holes in the canvas; I just purposefully stay well away from them which is why I come across as arrogant. I tread very lightly and cautiously around the holes until they can be filled in with concrete evidence.

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote:… simply because I have not properly been informed in these matters.

Not a problem. There must be many things of which I’ve not been properly informed, and it’s always fun to learn. But all theologians such as you and I fight like badgers when backed into a corner – at least until the moment light dawns, and then we will fight like badgers for our new understanding. It is a matter of integrity, and JB knows I will grab onto an issue and bite into it like a bulldog until I’ve chewed it through to the bone.

So let’s see, I think we were discussing the impact of the perfect passive participle of “gathered together”??

(Give me a moment to catch up.)

Yehu

GE:

No Capitulation!

That having been said (my posts of 7 February 2009), which I think explains my position clearly enough, many things from the posts of one Yehushuan may for some still seem undecided, or decided in his favour due to his ‘very exacting sense for detail’. I shall therefore (only God knowing, and I leave it in His hands, if He will), go through the above ‘Heinz 57’ discussion once more, to try to sort out the rotten eggs from the good, which may seem an impossible task; but is very easy in fact. Just place all the eggs in a bucket of Water of the Word and Life, and if in the end they find rest in Him, it’s good; but if they float above the Water of the Word and Life, it’s gone bad already and unrecoverable and must be disposed of (carefully, or the result may be ‘rudely obnoxious’).

The inference was made to, “what resources you have at hand nearby where you live”, in South Africa. Now I have great admiration for the American people, but am not impressed by the innuendos. There is no ‘resource’ (I’m talking of the written word) in the field of human sciences and its categories I am interested in, like ‘divinity’, “textual analysis and history”, that Americans may have access to and may be ‘versed in’, that are not accessible to South Africans. The library I use most is that of the University of Pretoria, a library to be proud of and that compares favourably with any in the world, I would say, although I have not as much entered an overseas one. ‘Sources’ that cannot be reached from Hans Merensky may not be worth finding anywhere else.

It is said I “demanded Evidence”. I, ‘demand’ ‘Biblical’ – not extra-biblical – ‘evidence’, ja. I ask ‘evidence’ evident to all the world and his wife. And I gave, ‘evidence’ – evidence kept back from the poor man for no reason whatsoever than Christian Sunday-worship and the self-esteem of those who place their “whole Christian Identity” into this Sunday “Church Service obsession”. Because this one text, Act 20:7, is – they too easily forget – their only text in Scripture when perverted to lean on.

I am ‘expected’ — unless I’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick me’ — to ‘challenge’ ‘with adequate PROOF’, “THIS source”, “a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”....

To challenge it in what respect? For which reason? Why would I disagree with any of the given data of ‘this source’? I would indeed challenge ‘this source’, unless I’ve gone totally psycho and see Satan hiding underneath every book just to trick me. But I’m not that mad yet.

But here is irony at its best.

I quote, one Yehushuan,

“The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”. (I would gently suggest you not read in malevolent intent where none exists.)”

“The following picture is a portion of Acts 20 (specficially verse 7) found on page 362 of a PDF file of Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE....”.

“Again, since you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus' own text) says “the disciples,” I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one”

“So just tell me what the “real TR” is, and I’ll go prove THAT has “the disciples” written in it.” (“THAT”, “the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press”)

I, confused the Textus Receptus for the actual manuscripts. What does our benevolent ‘gentle’ man do? He claims, “the TR (Erasmus' own text)”.

Note the date, 1522.

For ‘adequate PROOF’, “THIS source”, in fact is, the, “Textus Receptus”, and that ‘THIS’ Textus Receptus indeed contains the words, “the disciples” in Acts 20:7, I quote,

“As can be seen on the first complete line, we read starting with the fifth word, "σαββατων συνηγμενων των μαθητων (THE DISCIPLES) του κλασαι αρτον ο παυλος" (And yes, I underlined the words in red.)” — which is the whole point of our authority in this matter, “One who IS somewhat well versed in textual analysis and history”.

To quote this ‘very well versed’ authority,

“The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”

Please note the date, 1633.

Please note our authority claims “The term Textus Receptus comes from”, this 1633 “Greek New Testament”.

But just before, our authority has claimed “The term Textus Receptus” existed, was in use in, and in fact had been, “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”.

To test if I’m mistaken or dishonest, here’s an honest and earnest statement by our better knowing guru, “.... you can now read with your own eyes that the TR (Erasmus’ own text) says “the disciples”....”.

Jubilating, our ‘very well versed’ authority celebrates victory as were it over the most formidable opponent (meanwhile only me), “I expect an apology.” No sooner, than he repeats demanding acclamation from this non con poop challenger (me), “I expect an apology (a real one – not a fake one that’s just one more ad homonym of your bitter old man syndrome).” And a third time! “This is an apology? Hey dude, if you can’t stand to be shown you are wrong then don’t start attacking others who actually know better. You still owe me an apology because YOU wrongly accused ME.”

In the end, I owe my benevolent and gentle instructor an apology over an "innocuous discrepancy of “the disciple” verses (sic.) “we” as found in Acts 20:7".

The tyrant cannot stand the silent taunting of the contemptible.

He who knows better saith: “The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus. That word applies to differences between manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy, etc. .... I find none of your posts to be honest or earnest....”.

Has anyone heard a word from him who knows less, one word to the contrary? He who knows less (that’s me) did in fact confuse, “manuscripts that have been grouped together by various criteria such as geographic location, style of calligraphy” for being the ‘Textus Receptus’. That, I did. That, said I, and say I still, and shall I say, is not, “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE”.

I also said, still say, and will say, the words, ‘the disciples’, are not contained and do not appear in or on a single manuscript or remainder of a manuscript of the original; not in or on a single first hand, or second, or third hand copied manuscript before Erasmus or before a printed handwriting.

(Except perhaps, in the Vulgate? I’m too lazy to ‘Google’ for the answer. Like the real manuscripts, I have never read the Vulgate, nor intend to. And the Vulgate I won’t and cannot read, not even to save face.)

So that, as it now seems to me, Erasmus was the first person ever to have used the words “the disciples” in his own translation, of the few actual manuscripts which he used to compile his ‘New Testament’ from. None of these few manuscripts (were they five, or six? What does it matter?) contained the words, “the disciples”. And whether or not I personally ever set eyes upon these or any other real manuscripts or photographs of them, changes nothing about my claim they do not contain these words. Until the one so well versed in texts and manuscripts with actual exhibit from before the sixteenth century – at least a photograph of it – the onus rests with anybody but me, to prove the word’s ‘the disciples’ do exist handwritten in Acts where we now posses the demarcation 20:7.

(Can the reader now understand why I won’t be a fundi in text and text-criticism?)

This debate has become a monologue between arrogance and foolishness, because I have always maintained and never denied, the concept of ‘the disciples’ is, first, implied, in verse 7, by the words synehgmenohn and hehmohn; and next, in the context before verse 7, through the disciples’ names being mentioned.

My ‘mistake’ was that I incorrectly thought the actual manuscripts that predated the Textus Receptus, were the Textus Receptus. I admit my folly, and herewith retract and rectify it, with remorse and repentance. I acknowledge my deadly error before everybody, and before everybody do give our well Googled authority due credit for having in this regard steered me back onto the way of his benevolence – a way and a regard he clearly does not understand himself.

My mistake no moment was that I denied the words ‘the disciples’ appear or are contained, in the manuscripts.

Our one so well versed and Googled in these matters is the person who won’t admit fault because it to him seems that he will through admitting weaken his case for a Sunday service supposedly indicated in Acts 20:7. Here are his words:

A) “The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

B) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.””

Now hereby the guy has dug his own grave and written his own epitaph. I shall return to the subject of it with details, a little later.

So having reinvestigated my case, our judge came up with another judgment against his lowly pupil, Gerhard Ebersöhn,

“Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: “And strictly according to the real TR, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, the gathering "_of us_", and "_we_" is the subject implied in both 'synehgmenohn' and 'hehmohn'. That, I do trust, yes!....”

condemning him,

“You know Ebersöhn this is just pathetic.”

Really enlightening!

My lecturer tells me, “The word “variant” does NOT mean Textus Receptus.”

Why does he tell me that? Did I say that in my exam? That is not how I remember my answer. Let’s see. I wrote,

“I have also checked Wigram’s ‘Variants’. I could find no ‘Variant’ that has the word “the disciples”-‘mathehtai’. By ‘variants’ is meant what is in “the Textus Receptus” but not in ‘the Wescott Hort family of codices’ (they’re virtually the same as NA), and vice versa.”

Now here, as far as I am able to discern, appears my vulgar error of having confused the Textus Receptus for the original manuscripts. But I am not able to understand how from this can be concluded that I confused the ‘variants’ for the Textus Receptus. I think I was being done in; I did not earn a pathetic mark. I admit I earned an average, because my actual mistake is very common, one, one should not be surprised to find made by even scholars, more often than not.

Had I further to endure,

“First you say only the Erasmus text is the TR (which was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg press, not written) and when shown you’re wrong now you spout off something completely inane about “the real TR”?

THAT’S JUST TOTALLY PATHETIC. (Hope that was large enough for you to read.)”

Alright, I was WRONG about “the real TR”; so were you, o master! Difference is, now I have mended my misconception; you persist in yours.

Just like you persist in creating false impressions about me, saying, I first said, “only the Erasmus text is the TR”. I never said that; in fact, that was what I have consistently denied, and blamed you of doing; which in fact you have been doing consistently and uninterruptedly until this very second and until this very second have refused to admit has all the while also been wrong and a mistake of yours.

Then again, yes, “the Erasmus text .... was PRINTED BY a Guttenberg [sic.] press, not written”. Who claimed differently? I? No sir! I asked you – rhetorically – “Whose handwriting is this?” Is it someone else’s? So, it’s not Erasmus’? Come on!

Have you not read the web-page? Its comments to this NT ‘of Erasmus’? How they (or he) in the comments describe this was the first time a certain comma was used? Whose invention was this comma? Was it Erasmus’ handwriting, or the printers’? I won’t know. Fact remains, this printed publication was that of Erasmus, and from the hand of no one else.

But thanks for allowing me a little enjoyment; this is a pleasure ....

“So Acts 20:7 “precisely reads” of us? Does it? Prove it. I

mean SHOW ACTUAL PROOF you poser. Stop pretending. Admit you never Ever saw any of these written manuscripts Erasmus used, and therefore cannot state what any of them “precisely reads.” (Precisely? Your strategy is to lie and then swear to it?)”

Prove:-

Experiment need catalysts lying and swearing:-

Thesis:- Acts 20:7 precisely reads, “of us”.

“ACTUAL PROOF”:-

ALL manuscripts: “synehgmen-OH-n”;

Control:-

ALL manuscripts:- “hehm-OH-n”.

Secondary, confirming proof:-

Erasmus: “t-OH-n matheht-OH-n”.

Result:- Found, Acts 20:7 precisely reads, “of us”.

Test:- Does experiment need catalysts lying and swearing?

Conclusion: No.

9 February 2009

So, after all, there remains a need to say something about, the fact or no fact, “.... the TR does say ‘the disciples’.”

If, the TR were editions or – without permission used “codices” –, like and since the “New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”, then, all I say, is, I admit, and I accept, and offer an apology – a real one; no fake one, and undertake henceforth to be careful not to use the appellation Textus Receptus indiscriminately of any manuscript predating it.

If, the TR were the edition or – without permission used “codex” –, of the “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE.... TR (Erasmus' own text””, then too, all I say, is, I would admit, and would accept, and would offer an apology – a real one; no fake one, and would undertake henceforth to be careful not to use the appellation Textus Receptus indiscriminately of any manuscript predating it.

BUT SINCE “The term Textus Receptus comes from the Latin preface of a Greek New Testament printed in 1633 by the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir”, and therefore cannot formally or legitimately apply to “Erasmus’ 1522 Edition of NOVVM TESTAMENTVM OMNE.... TR (Erasmus' own text””, I formally herewith point blank before the entire formal forum confess my stubborn old man syndromic refusal to say an admittance or apology repeating after, “Oh look at that, the TR does say ‘the disciples’”. Never in your life or mine!

Because this is, about me, having been right “about (my) basic premise”, but having been sidetracked and taken with, off the narrow way, and paraded on the broad way the parody before a united (or perhaps not so united) formal board. And heaven help us, we couldn’t have me being right, could we, because then we would have sat with no Scripture at all for our mission in life to prove that we should all worship on Sunday, because God really cares about our worshipping him as long as it’s on Sundays, and might realise that Sunday worship has been our mission in life all along, and not God’s, but all the while has been contrary His care.

Ja, heaven help us, we couldn’t have me being right, could we, or we might start lying and confirming our lying with swearing, “But when Paul met with the disciples in Acts 20, they met on the first day of the week and celebrated communion.”

Have I recently been reminded of Peter and the rooster’s crow? Yea; and his bitterly crying afterwards. Because it was hard for him to war against his conviction, and hard to be tried by fire for the sake of saving his soul. But the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ his Lord and Mighty God and Saviour thus in him gave him a contrite spirit and created in him a new heart.

It has become time I do as I said above I would, “Our one so well versed and Googled in these matters is the person who won’t admit fault because it to him seems that he will through admitting weaken his case for a Sunday service supposedly indicated in Acts 20:7. Here are his words:

A) “The Textus Receptus has the words “the disciples”. The Wescott Hort family of codices has the word “we”.”

B) “The Textus Receptus, however, makes a stronger case for the disciples gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week.””

Now hereby the guy has dug his own grave and written his own epitaph. I shall return to the subject of it with details, a little later.” (‘Internal Evidence’)

It isn’t much in detail I want to say, so I won’t ask too much of your time. What I want to say is much in meaning though, and so I ask so much of your attention as possible, please. It is all, about the conditions and implication for and of the grammatical phenomenon of the syntactical ‘construct’, called an Absolute Genitive.

According to the thrust of our well Googled instructor’s argument, first understand that to “make a stronger case for the disciples’ gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week”, would be to ‘have’, “the words “the disciples””.

But then also understand according to the thrust of his argumentations, to “make a stronger case for the disciples’ gathering to break bread IN the first (day) of the week”, it would have been desirable, in fact, necessary or conditional, to here have an Absolute Genitive. I quote him,

“In Greek, the genitive absolute is used to indicate a relevant secondary action done by another party which may be considered causative in reference to the main action. The main action is Paul’s speaking. Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day). Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.”

“Yes, they were having been assembled and still being assembled When? In the first of the week, NOT the Sabbath.”

I don’t want to tell the reader anything YS hasn’t said himself.

Does YS insist we here in Acts 20:7 have a Genitivus Absolutus?

“In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

YS said, “.... the genitive absolute .... indicate(s) a(n) .... action done by ANOTHER party .... in reference to the main action. The main action is PAUL’S speaking.”

I ask, therefore,

Are ‘the disciples’ the ‘doers’ (the ‘Subject’) of ‘the main action’? THEY ARE NOT. Paul, is. YS said so.

Now, what was this again?:-

“In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. There is no subject in the first clause since the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case. This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

This already, had been a self-destructive misconception! “.... the first clause has no noun” --- conditional to form a ‘Genitive Absolute’; YS stated, “In this sentence, the first clause has no noun in Nominative case. .... This tells us we are faced with what is called a genitive absolute.”

So, “.... the first clause has no noun....”, yet, “....the noun “disciples” is in the genitive case”. How can there be no noun, but the noun is ....? Simply because the very Genitive Absolute tells the words, ‘the disciples’ are supplied in error. Erasmus made a blunder when he inserted – ‘added in’ – the words ‘the disciples’ into the EXISTING Genitive Absolute.

Rule of the Gen. Abs.,

“Only when there is no syntactical relation between the Subject of the subordinate clausal phrase ‘synegmenohn hehmohn’/‘our (the disciples’) having been gathering still’, and the Verb or Predicate of the principle clause or verbal phrase, ‘Paulos dielegeto’/‘ho Paulos dielegeto’.”

YS alleges: “Hence the genitive absolute is used to describe the disciples’ gathering.” False!

The Gen. Abs.— “our (the disciples’) gathering”-‘synehgmenohn hehmohn’— ‘is used to describe’, “Paul spoke”.

It is not the words or the use of the words ‘the disciples’, that “describe the disciples’ gathering”; the words ‘the disciples’ are superfluous, and would effectually have destroyed the Genitive Absolute that in fact and correctly, without them, exists and tells about ‘the disciples’ gathering’. From this very presence of the words ‘the disciples’ it is incontrovertibly clear no original, used manuscripts, would have contained them – words that could not have been in there in the first place, or no Genitivus Absolutus – recognised by even YS – could have existed.

And in the second place – by now really insignificant an inducement – should the words ‘the disciples’ have formed the Subject, it is incontrovertibly clear the words should have been in the Nominative Case, and not in the Genitive; so that one would have had a Verb – an Indicative Verb and not a Participle, and its tense probably would have been Imperfect, and not Perfect.

Therefore, the question, “Why was he speaking? Because the disciples had gathered (in the first day)”, is wrong, and should have read, Question:- ‘Why — since the inserted noun “disciples” is in the genitive case — did Paul, the Subject of the sentence and ‘main action’, speak? Answer:- “Because the disciples (implied, not mentioned – and NOT the Subject of the ‘main action’) in the First Day of the week having been assembling still”. But mainly, “because the next day he would depart”.

I really benefited from my taking my Greek professor to lunch, although I feel for him that he had to forfeit the only Sunday motivation he thought he had from the Scriptures. A big thank you.

10 February 2009 (edited)

Yehushuan » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:38 pm

Gerhard Ebersöhn wrote: No Capitulation!

What the crap does that mean?

Gerhard, come back when you learn to speak English.

Wading through your tortuous expressions is just not fruitful. I have better ways to waste my time.

(Like they say, ya can't teach old dogs new tricks)

JB:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, A little trivia for you:

Heinz 57 is a shortened, popular form of the "57 Varieties" slogan of Pittsburgh's H. J. Heinz Company. In its early days, the company wanted to advertise the great number of choices of canned and bottled foods it offered for sale. Although the company had more than 60 products in 1892, the number 57 was chosen because the numbers "5" and "7" held special significance to Heinz. The number "5" was Henry John Heinz's lucky number and the number "7" was his wife's lucky number. The company now has more than 6,000 products. Prepared horseradish was their first product.

In response to the question "What does the '57' stand for in Heinz’s famous slogan, '57 Varieties?'" the Heinz company's official Web site states: "While riding a train in New York City in 1896, Henry Heinz saw a sign advertising 21 styles of shoes, which he thought was clever. Although Heinz was manufacturing more than 60 products at the time, Henry thought 57 was a lucky number. So, he began using the slogan '57 Varieties' in all his advertising. Today the company has more than 5,700 products around the globe, but still uses the magic number of '57.'"

Although the company does not often use the slogan on its products today, the number 57 remains pervasive in its corporate culture and is known worldwide (although younger generations are markedly less familiar with it). In the United States and Britain, the number 57 is still printed on the packaging of various Heinz products.

The slogan is printed on Heinz pickle pins that are distributed by the millions.

Heinz 57 is also the name of one variety of Heinz steak sauce.

By the way I really enjoyed the discussion

JB

GE:

So did I, JB, thank you, I'll give the ‘trivia’ to my wife to read!

GE:

And another thank you to my lunch professor, Yehushuan. I ‘tools-thesaurus-ed’ his word, ‘tortuous’, and made a beautiful discovery --- for me. And came to a happy conclusion, ‘Heinz 57’, ‘tortuous’, and, ‘Byzantine’ which I have seen used to describe the ‘Textus Receptus’ many times and have always (I think correctly) thought had to do with where the TR originated from, have the same meaning— more or less, 'cosmopolitan', ‘mixed’, or as I noticed someone on this thread has described it, ‘mongrelised’. And this is our best source – someone told us – for knowing the words ‘the disciples’ are, “in the Textus Receptus"!

It was lunch hour, well spent.

GE

10 February 2009

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Private Bag 43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Part Two of Part Three

7.2.

Acts 20, Holy Communion

In the light of this background of the Church’s life of faith it is not at all surprising to find that the Holy Communion was observed on the Sabbath as integral and formal part of the Church’s Sabbath’s worship.

7.2.0.1.

“From the days of the Apostles”

“So much Scripture”

Says Richard Baxter ^{“The Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day”} of the Sunday, “If so much Scripture as mentioneth the keeping of the Lord’s Day, expounded by the consent and practice of the Universal Church from the days of the Apostles, (all keeping this day as holy, without the dissent of any one Sect, or single person that I remember to have read of), I say, if all this history will not fully prove the point of fact, that this day was kept in the Apostles’ time, and consequently by their appointment, then the same proof will not serve to evince that any text of Scripture is Canonical and uncorrupted; nor can we think that anything in the world that is past, can have historical proof”.

“So much Scripture … expounded … all this history … by the Apostles’ appointment … kept … practiced … consented” … that even the Canonicity and uncorruptedness of all Scripture and historicity or genuineness of the Scriptures could depend on it, is supposed of the First Day!

“So much Scripture” and “all this history” “fully prove the point of fact, that this day was kept in the Apostles’ time, and consequently by their appointment”, says Baxter. Dr. Hawkins though, in his “Bambton Lectures for 1840”, Sermon 5, remarks, “Add then but a few recognitions in the Christian Scriptures themselves of the actual observance of the Lord’s Day even in the age of the Apostles, and with their sanction, nay, apparently with the implied sanction of our Lord Himself and of the Holy Spirit, and we have all the proof which we really require of its Divine authority”.

“So much Scripture” and “all this history”! says Baxter. “But a few recognitions”, says Hawkins. Acts 20:7 and 1Cor.16:2 – two unrelated and incidental “Scriptures”, “and we have all the proof” “we might require” but not God. If Baxter had said of the Sabbath’s histories and Scriptures, “so much Scripture” and “all this history”, it would have made sense and would have contained some truth. But this acrobatics in exegesis serves to illustrate how completely general opinion can be cultivated on artificially sweetened water only. From “but a few recognitions in the Christian Scriptures themselves”, a huge leap of the imagination is taken to the other side of the abyss “of the actual observance of the Lord’s Day (Sunday) even in the age of the Apostles”. These “few recognitions” now, are supposed to “fully prove the point of fact” and to provide “all the proof which we really require”, of the “implied sanction of our Lord Himself” of the Apostles’ “keeping” of the First Day of the week. “Apparently”, i.e. obviously, also of “the implied sanction of the Holy Spirit” of their “observance” of the First Day as the Lord’s Day. That, not only instils unwarranted magnitude to the “few recognitions” but minimises the massive bulk of “recognitions in the Christian Scriptures themselves” of not only the “implied”, but the actual, “sanction of our Lord Himself and of the Holy Spirit” of the Apostles’ observance of the Sabbath of the Seventh Day, as the Lord’s Sabbath Day.

Of course “the Universal Church from the days of the Apostles, all without the dissent of any one Sect, or single person”, will be silent on dissent or sects on the question of the First Day as against the Sabbath as Day of Worship. For the simple reason that no dissent or sect ever existed on the question. No such question ever arose. If so much Scripture as mentioneth the keeping of the Sabbath, expounded by the consent and practice of the Universal Church within the days of the Apostles, all keeping this day as holy, without the dissent of any one Sect, or single person, I say, if all this history will not fully prove the point of fact that the Sabbath Day was kept in the Apostles’ time, and consequently by their appointment, then the same proof will not serve to evince that any text of Scripture is Canonical and uncorrupted; nor can we think that anything in the world that is past, can have historical proof.

7.2.0.2.1.

New Testament Liturgy

Good Christians have worshipped not knowing they worshipped liturgically, that liturgy was their tool and horse for handling and carrying the Gospel message. Good Christians have worshipped excellently while even underestimating the vital importance of liturgy for their devotion and veneration of the Lord. Said Spurgeon, “Certain weaklings have said, “let us have a liturgy!” Rather than seek divine aid they will go down to Egypt for help. Rather than be dependent upon the Spirit of God, they will pray by a book! For my part, if I cannot pray, I would rather know it, and groan over my soul’s barrenness till the Lord shall again visit me with fruitfulness of devotion. If you are filled with the Spirit, you will be glad to throw off all formal fetters, that you may commit yourself to the sacred current, to be borne along till you find waters to swim in. Sometimes you will enjoy closer fellowship with God in prayer in the pulpit than you have known anywhere else. To me my greatest secrecy in prayer has often been in public; my truest loneliness with God has occurred to me while pleading in the midst of thousands. I have opened my eyes at the close of a prayer and come back to the assembly with a sort of shock at finding myself upon earth and among men. Such seasons are not at our command, neither can we raise ourselves into such conditions by any preparations or efforts. How blessed they are both to the minister and his people no tongue can tell! How full of power and blessing habitual prayerfulness must also be I cannot here pause to declare, but for it all we must look to the Holy Spirit, and blessed be God we shall not look in vain, for it is especially said of Him that He helped our infirmities in prayer.”

The use and benefit of liturgy could not be described or defined better. Liturgy is not a book of prayers. It is not “cold”. It is the sum of Christian worship in action outwardly. The strong who knows his own weakness will certainly employ liturgy in his worship. He would rather say, If you are filled with the Spirit, you will be glad to submit to all formal upliftment, that you may commit yourself to the sacred current, to be borne along till you find waters to swim in. Instead of images and icons your help “if the supply of the Spirit be scant” will be nothing but the Spirit in the invisible operations of its power.

Liturgy constitutes formal worship. It projects through order, form and atmosphere the object and content of Christian Faith and Congregation. Liturgy channels the thoughts and spirit to God the Holy Spirit and Christ. God chooses to so work and to be so worshipped. He is not served or honoured where the instruments He provides for implementation in His worship are neglected, despised and discarded. The moment the Body which is Christ’s is realised, liturgy comes into play. Congregation of Believers immediately and primarily pre-supposes liturgy. Congregation of Believers in Worship of the Lord already is liturgy. Prayer, song, confession, praise, study, proclamation, are not only enriched but conditioned by formal order, sacred nature, sequence and recurrence. Wherever The Church comes to life in the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ, liturgy appears. It not only accompanies all aspects and events of worship but is an indispensable aspect and in itself event, of Christian worship. “If we are to be much in the spirit of prayer, we need sacred oil to be poured upon the sacred fire of our heart’s devotion; we want to be again and again visited by the Spirit of grace and supplication”, says Spurgeon, not conscious that he actually pleads for the necessity of liturgy.

Christ Jesus’ Death and Resurrection are the centre and gravity of Christian Worship and therefore of Christian Liturgy. For this very reason of its nature and essence, it is wrong to identify liturgy with restricted ceremonies and rites of Christian Worship, such as sacrament, confirmation and consecration. Liturgy

constitutes formal Christian Worship as a whole and in all its forms, events and aspects.

Where and when Christian Worship celebrates its Lord’s great deeds of redemption, its celebrating is liturgical – its celebration is liturgy. Thus when and where the Church proclaims the Gospel, teaches the people, makes disciples, baptises, eats the Lord’s Supper, or celebrates the Lord’s Day, liturgy is central and fundamental. Liturgy witnesses to each and every practice of the Church as Christian practice and Christian Church.

The ancients were wise to expect of the simple as sufficient to know by heart the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23 and perhaps the Apostolic Articles of Faith. The ancients were wise to expect of the ordinary folk to attend the sermon and the sacraments and no more. The same thing each time by the power of the Holy Spirit makes of it the blessed Tidings of Salvation to the poor in knowledge and understanding. The simplest of liturgy each time becomes new and refreshing to the wisest and greatest of believers. The Spirit does it. “The Lord is the fortress of my life” – that steadiness which is the variety and spice, “the strength of my life”. Liturgy is what the Lord provides to transfer that help and comfort of the Holy Spirit in real life to the soul of the believer in Jesus Christ.

Not least, but first and most important, liturgy witnesses to the institution and practice of the Lord’s Day as Christian practice and Christian institution. First and foremost in any and all of its church-life is the Chrurch’s congregation – its assembling in the Name of Jesus its Lord. Whenever the “there” of Christian Congregation and Worship occurs, there and then the “when” of Christian Congregation and Worship occurs. The Church is the Lord’s Body where, and, when, it congregates and worships. “Where”, asks the Heidelberg Confession, “is the Church?” It answers, “Where the Gospel is proclaimed and the sacraments are observed correctly”. That happens and ought to happen “every Sabbath Day” when in the faith of Jesus the Resurrected Lord the Church congregates and worships.

So, if one wants to find the when in the Church-life of authentic and authoritative Christianity – in the Apostolic Congregation – one must find Christian Worship of the Resurrected Jesus first. And where one finds that – Worship of the Resurrected Jesus, there shall one find the Christian When – the Christian Sabbath Day. Liturgy unmistakably pin points the Christian Day of Worship and Rest – the formal, orderly, regular and set Christian Day of Worship and Rest – the formal instrument and channel of the operations of the Holy Spirit.

Apostolic, New Testament, Liturgy, proves the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God is the Lord’s Day. F not, the Scriptures and the Gospel aren’t proclaimed truthfully and correctly. Then the sacraments aren’t those of Christ. Apostolic, New Testament, Liturgy, proves the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Lord thy God is the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ Resurrected from the dead. That was its Sabbathly message, its Sabbathly devotion, its Sabbathly worship – that, and nothing but that. It had, no, other message, no other occasion, no other devotion, no other worship. NOTHING but Jesus Christ RESURRECTED from the dead!

“Christ's resurrection tells me, not only that Christ died to pay the penalty of my sins, but also that He lives to empower me to live victoriously. Some Christians focus on Christ's crib and others on His Cross, but ultimately it is His resurrection that gives us the reassurance that "He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). The resurrection tells me that Christ is not on vacation recovering from the exhaustion of His earthly mission, but He is actively working at the right hand of God (Eph 1:20) to bring to consummation the redemption he accomplished on this earth.” S. Bacchiocchi, News Letter.

Christ's resurrection therefore tells me, that Christ rose from the dead “in Sabbath’s-time” – in liturgy-time!

From Bacchiocchi’s words, “Christ's resurrection tells me, not only that Christ died to pay the penalty of my sins, but also …”, the first thing to be noticed, is that “Christ's resurrection tells …that Christ died”. Jesus’ resurrection, is confessed, “from the dead”. His resurrection and death are Christ’s one act. The one without the other cannot be – not in the case of Christ. But if we could imagine the one without the other, that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then death would have been His only and single act – and we would have been left without hope or comfort. Then Jesus’ life and ours would have been no different – only a prelude to death. And if we could imagine the one without the other the other way round – Jesus’ resurrection without His death – then we would have to imagine … the impossible! The fact and truth that Jesus rose from the dead confirms His death as divine and divinely willed and acted. Then Jesus’ death and resurrection are the phases or aspect of His eternal and planned and executed council.

Jesus’ resurrection makes His death the Christian’s joy in God’s salvation. Were Jesus not raised from the dead the Christian’s joy would be grief, his worship, anguish, like the heathens’. Were it not for Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, Christianity, the Faith of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ, would never have been. The Church – the liturgical assembly of the saints – would never have appeared in history. Its worship would not have been – If Christ were not raised from the dead. (Not the other way round, as if Jesus Christ were the mental projection of some first century enthusiasts, as if the Church were the creator of the Christ-idea.)

So the worship of the Christian Faith proclaims as well as reflects nothing but Jesus’ death and resurrection from the dead and death. The Church’s very existence in essence and in form is about Jesus’ deeds of redemption, and his resurrection first and foremost is that redemption verily, ultimately and comprehensively.

The worshipping Church is the elect living and acting the faith of Jesus Christ – the Faith of Jesus Christ Crucified and Risen. Its every aspect, its core and circumference, its past and future, its constitution and formal manifestation, all, proclaim, witness, praise and worship the only begotten Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth – the Risen Lord. And that is liturgy – the collective word for the event of Christian worship. There is nothing the Church does that is not based on the truth of the Risen Lord and that does not proclaim the Risen Lord. The cause for congregation, is the Risen Lord. The object worshipped, is the Risen Lord. He is praised with song. He is prayed to. He, the Word, is preached. He is remembered and confessed and worshipped in and through sacrament. It is the Risen Lord worshipped or it is not the Christian Church, not the life of the Faith of Christ, not the system, not the order, not the reality, not the Spirit … NOT THE DAY OF HIS WORSHIP! And then, while it is Church, the life of the Faith of Christ, and the system and the order and the reality and the Spirit of the Resurrected Christ – then, the very reality of the Sabbath Day, is there!

Now see the Church a living unit and unity in Jesus Christ, and you see congregation, worship, prayer, song, confession, preaching, sacrament – order! You see the Church an event of the Holy Spirit. You see it distinguished, separate and separated from any kind of creation and collectivism, even distinguished, separate and separated from individual members and believers – you see the Body which is Christ’s. And, you see formal Christian worship – liturgy! Christian worship and liturgy are almost identifiable. And they definitely are inseparable. The life of each is caught up the one in the other.

Now see this Church in its beginnings, directly coming into being from the events of Christ and the Holy Spirit, as portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles – as portrayed in the Scriptures! See all the things already mentioned: congregation, order, sacrament, witness, charity … the how and the where of the Christian Faith. Then notice one other thing. Not something different or strange, but something that intrinsically and essentially is Christian Faith and worship. See Christian Faith and worship as truly and basically as the Church’s congregating, as truly and basically as the confessing of and the witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ through prayer, song, or sacrament. See the Church’s keeping of the Sabbath Day!

Ultimately it is His resurrection that gives us the assurance that He is able to save those who draw near to God through Him. Ultimately it is Jesus’ Resurrection that gives origin to the Church and its worship and the way it worships. Ultimately it is Jesus’ Resurrection that gives origin to liturgy. Liturgy tells Who the Lord the Church worships, is. Liturgy tells: It is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Liturgy tells Christ rose from the dead in Sabbath’s time exactly because liturgy tells the Lord worshiped is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ – every Sabbath Day! Why did the Church congregate and worship? How did it worship? Whom did the Church worship through form and order? Of course it all is summed up in one word, the Risen Christ! Therefore did the Church assemble and therefore the Church worshipped. And therefore it was on the Sabbath every time the Church assembled and worship and practised the content and intent and extent of its Faith.

If ever anything proves the fact of Jesus’ resurrection “in Sabbath’s time” it is its going to Church on the Sabbath! The early Church had no liturgy but its Sabbath liturgy – which was a resurrection liturgy through and through. Every aspect of Christian worship of the Apostolic Church was one concerning the Risen Lord Jesus. It came together for no other reason, through no other cause, by no other Power. It used each Sabbath’s hours for no other reason, through no other cause, by no other Power. In fact, liturgy – Christian Faith’s formal worship, is the only word the New Testament has to say about the Sabbath Day, the Seventh Day of the week.

The attempt of false teaching to lay this foundation for the Sunday comes down to this single factor, the factor of liturgy. Could liturgy be ascribed to the Sunday, it, instead of the Sabbath, should be or would have been the Christian day of worship-rest. It shows that in principle the argument of liturgy is absolute and final. When applied to Sunday sacredness the argument is full proof. But when applied to the Sabbath it is ridiculed.

The factor of liturgy even proves which is the false claim. Whenever claimed for Sunday, the proof of liturgy is invariably denied the Sabbath. Whenever claimed for the Sabbath, the argument of liturgy for argument’s sake should also be allowed for Sunday – one should then only have to present those instances of liturgical worship by the Apostolic Church on Sunday. But if one fails to present such evidence, of course the argument of liturgy won’t help Sunday. Liturgy must then support the Sabbath.

But if the argument of liturgy be denied the Sabbath by arguments for the Sabbath, something drastic must be wrong. Returning then to Bacchiocchi’s nice sounding remark here quoted, it no longer sounds that nice. Christ’s resurrection one now can see, is separated from its moment of truth and effectiveness: Christ's resurrection is separated from His empowering to live victoriously. His resurrection is something else than His making intercession and ability to save. His resurrection-life was short lived and lost effect. Jesus’ resurrection presumably disposes not of everlasting power to draw near to God. Jesus’ resurrection is not His working at the right hand of God nor the consummation or the accomplishment of salvation. The resurrection merely tells me that Christ is not on vacation recovering from the exhaustion of His earthly mission – which implies a “heavenly” benefit that precludes from his resurrection that very benefit. In stead of keeping focussed on Christ’s resurrection this applause loses sight of it. And seen in the context of its statement – why the Passover should not be celebrated liturgically – this applause precludes the Christian Sabbath its only reason of validity for the People of God, namely Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, His entering into His own Rest.

The apostles immediately after Christ’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit proceeded to institute a form and content of worship in order to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection by a distinctive liturgy. This development is obvious in each and every contexts of the mention of the Sabbath in the Acts as well as Gospels. Nothing but Christ’s resurrection on the Sabbath Day can account for the phenomenon.

Indication of this development – the apostles’ immediate proceeding after Christ’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit to institute a form and content of worship in order to commemorate Christ’s Resurrection by a distinctive liturgy, enjoys biblical and historical support, because in the Apostolic Church the Resurrection was seen as an existential reality experienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Saviour, and consequently as a liturgical practice associated with formal worship. Although the name "Day of the Resurrection" does not appear in the New Testament its documents imply the commemoration of Jesus' resurrection on the Sabbath (e.g., Acts 2, 13, etc.).

“If the primitive Jerusalem Church had pioneered and promoted Sundaykeeping because they no longer felt at home with Jewish Sabbathkeeping, we would expect to find in such a church an immediate break away from Jewish religious traditions and services. But the opposite is the case. Both the book of Acts as well as several Judeo-Christian documents clearly reveal that the ethnic composition and the theological orientation of the Jerusalem Church were profoundly Jewish” says Bacchiocchi. But he fails to notice how profoundly the Jerusalem Church was the Resurrection Church! The fact that the primitive Jerusalem Church did not pioneer and promote Sundaykeeping but felt at home with Jewish Sabbathkeeping, proves that they accommodated their Resurrection-Faith within Sabbath-keeping. Luke's characterisation of the Jerusalem Church as "zealous for the law"

(Acts 21:20), hardly allows for the abandonment of the Church’s chief reason for existence, its Faith of the Risen Christ!

Bacchiocchi’s argument therefore is irrelevant. He gets side-tracked by his occupation with the Sunday-issue, an issue that was non-existent in the Apostolic Church (as we know it at least) and therefore cannot be brought into consideration rationally. The existential difference between Jewish and Old-Testament worship on the one hand and Christian worship on the other in the same Temple and in the same Synagogue and on the same Day of Worship had nothing to do with the Day as such, but with its significance for the different faiths. The one party observed it religiously and legalistically. The other celebrated and observed it for being The-Day-Of-Its-Worshipped-Lord – The Day-of-Christ’s-Resurrection-From-The-Dead and all that that implied. The most practical implication of all that, was that the Sabbath and its observance by the first Christians, liturgically implicated and indicated the Christian Faith’s Saviour’s Day of Resurrection.

7.2.0.2.2.

The New Testament “Church” Day

“Despite the fact that the Sabbath did not shift from ‘Saturday’ to ‘Sunday’, there is a thorough relation between the Seventh and the First Day of the week … There is a certain transfer of emphasis between the Old Testament Sabbath’s appreciation and Jesus’ practice of the Sabbath.

In the Old Testament emphasis undeniably falls on the rest day. There is of course sporadic mention that the sabbath also is a day for congregation. Thus, e.g., the expression in Leviticus 23:3, ‘a holy day of celebration’ (Afrikaans Translation) should rather be translated ‘a holy meeting’ (‘convocation’, AV) as in Exodus 12:16. But the whole idea that the Sabbath in particular is Church Day, a day to assemble, to praise the Lord and to listen to his Word, we do not find in the Old Testament. In fact, it could not. The Jews outside Jerusalem (before the exile) didn’t have a place to gather.

What is striking is that what we know about the first congregations’ celebration of the First Day exactly correlates with what Jesus did on the Sabbath (and actually all his life) : They as Congregation assembled (Acts 20:7) and in particular chose the day for charity (1Cor.16:2).” ^{Prof. Adrio Koenig, Sondag., p. 48 / 49}

What we know about “the first congregations’ celebration”, through consideration (above) of their Congregational assemblies, exactly correlates with what Jesus did … on the Sabbath (and actually all his life) : They as Congregation assembled on the … Sabbath! Now isn’t that striking!

Notice the preconceived idea, “what we know” … already! “Our knowledge” is not derived through consideration of “the first congregations’ celebration”. We have decided beforehand it is the First Day. The very same tactics are used to start Prof. Koenig’s argumentation: “Despite the fact that the Sabbath did not shift from ‘Saturday’ to ‘Sunday’, there is a thorough relation between the Seventh and the First Day of the week … There is a certain transfer of emphasis …” that in the end applies to the First as thoroughly as it is preconceived that there exists a thorough relation between the Seventh and the First Day of the week. The outcome is taken for granted even before a single Scripture has been cited or considered in support of the assumed “undeniable” and “certain” attributes of the First Day. Meanwhile Prof. Koenig actually talks of the Sabbath!

The Professor certainly and undeniably is strikingly confused. He contradicts his own assertion, “In the Old Testament emphasis … falls on the rest day. There is … mention that the sabbath also is a day for congregation. Thus, e.g., the expression in Leviticus 23:3, ‘a holy day of celebration’ (Afrikaans Translation) should rather be translated ‘a holy meeting’ (‘convocation’, AV) as in Exodus 12:16. But the whole idea that the Sabbath in particular is Church Day, a day to assemble … we do not find in the Old Testament”.

Prof. Koenig, nevertheless, correctly asserts that in the Old Testament the Sabbath has not reached its full status of being “Church” Day. That status, again as he correctly asserts, had only been granted the Sabbath through its New Testament application, appointment and observance by Jesus and the New Testament Church. The only problem facing his assertions is to indicate the relevance of it all to the First Day while denying the relevance to the Sabbath Day!

But Prof. Koenig is too assertive. Says he, “The whole idea that the Sabbath in particular is Church Day, a day to assemble, to praise the Lord and to listen to his Word, we do not find in the Old Testament. In fact, it could not. The Jews outside Jerusalem (before the exile) didn’t have a place to gather.”

Before the exile there had been the Temple; and before the Temple there had been the Tabernacle; and before and after the Tabernacle there had been the home “to gather”. And before it all there had been Eden where God had met with Man and Eve. In fact, the very absence of repeated mention of “in the Temple (or Tabernacle)”, “on the Sabbath Day”, each time Congregational and Devotional assembling happened, is surest indication that Congregational and Devotional assembling “in the Temple (or Tabernacle)”, “on the Sabbath Day” was the usual, the normal and the Institutional. For example, only one Psalm (in some manuscripts) is called a Psalm “for the Sabbath Day”. Now does that mean only this Psalm had ever been sung on the Sabbath and on no other day? “Certainly” just the opposite! It implies, as implies the very nature of the Psalms collectively, that the normal, usual and institutional thing was to sing Psalms especially on the Sabbath Day. The same sort of indication is found in the very act or event of assembling. The exercise of “assembling”, “calling / call together”, “convocation”, “reading” (all from the Hebrew word miqra), or of “chance”, “event”, “happening”, “befall” (all from the Hebrew word miqreh) supposes some Day–For-Coming-Together. This day or days are often deemed “holy” and its gathering, “holy”, implying their special and Institutional character. Therefore they are reckoned “Feasts”. (Lv.23:1) These Days when very special were announced by blowing of the trumpet! (2Chr.29:28-29) These Days’ were accentuated with “proclamation” of God’s Word (Lv.2:2) . “Prayer” and “song” marked these Days as Days of Congregational worship, Neh.8, 2Chr.29:28-29. They are most intimately connected with the act of observance of “rest” where specifically the Sabbath of the Seventh day is the Day, as in Lv.23:2-3. The Fourth Commandment invokes God’s people to “remember” the Sabbath Day. The Sabbath Day is “separated”, “the Seventh Day”, implying perpetual recurrence. Through “remembrance”, the “remembrance” as a matter of course and perpetual recurrence is implied of the Congregated People through Worship of the Creator and Redeemer. Thus to “remember the Sabbath Day to keep it specially (holy), implies its as a matter of course and perpetual recurrence being an institution “for ever” for assembling and worship.

The conclusion is inevitable that we most definitely do find in the Old Testament the whole idea that the Sabbath in particular was Church Day, a day to assemble, to praise the Lord and to listen to his Word. In fact, it could not be otherwise. Wherever outside Jerusalem the Jews would find a place to gather, even if it had to be “by the rivers of Babylon … in a strange land.” ^{Ps. 137} And, seeing Prof. Koenig and all the others think the Sabbath is so Jewish, would “we (Jews) sit down being come together there singing and weeping while we remembered Zion”, also not have “remembered” the Sabbath Day “to keep it holy”? We most definitely would.

But as Prof. Koenig further demonstrates (not quoted here) we need not doubt about the Sabbath’s observance when it comes to the lifetime of Jesus and the apostles. And if their times may have any bearing on our observance of the Sabbath, may not the remotest time, the time of creation? May not the same obvious and meaningful scarcity if not total absence of direct reference to a keeping of the Sabbath Day during patriarchal times explain its continued observance by at least the faithful since creation? It was the same Word proclaimed in New Testament times after all that was proclaimed through creation when on the Seventh Day God rested. Would God not “again speak of the Seventh Day” that in it “He entered into his rest”? Was not “the Gospel preached to them as well as unto us”? ^{Hb. 4:2} Would God not finally speak through the same Word that “in the Sabbath” He would rise and enter into his glory, the glory of his finishing and rest “in the fullness of time”?

In the light of this background of the life of faith of the Church of all time then, but more than any time, in the light of the time of the life of faith of the Church of the New Testament, it is not at all surprising to find that Holy Communion was observed on the Sabbath as integral and formal part of the Church’s Sabbath’s worship.

7.2.0.3.

The Usual Explanation But Not the Usual Day

The usual interpretation given to Acts 20:7 may be represented by the Living Bible’s version, “On Sunday we gathered for a communion service with Paul preaching”. So how could it be alleged that the Holy Communion was actually celebrated on the Sabbath? Translators do their best to make such a finding “from the Scriptures” impossible. Yet it can be discovered even from translations of the Scriptures here in Acts 20. Marshall’s interlinear literal rendering of verse 7 of the Nestle Selection of Apparatus unveils certain definitive facets of the meaning of the Greek. He has, “On the First of the week having been assembled = as we were assembled to break bread Paul lectured to them being about to depart on the morrow”.

Says Ds. A.J. van Staden, ^{The Sabbatarians and the Bible, HAUM, Cape Town, RSA 1975, p. 31} “According to this text (Acts 20:7) Paul that Sunday not only proclaimed the Gospel, but he also served the Lord’s Supper. … The (Sabbatarian’s) argument that this gathering was an exceptional assembly, also does not satisfy, because the fact that they (the congregations) on that occasion celebrated the Lord’s Supper, raises the idea that it was a gathering at the usual time. Hoekema justly asks, “if there was no special significance in the day on which the Christians met, why should Luke take the trouble to say, as he does, ‘on the first day of the week’? This item of information could well have been omitted if it conveyed a fact of no importance. That Luke mentions it, shows that already at this time Christians were gathering for worship on the first day of the week.” (The Four major Cults, p. 166).” (Emphasis CGE)

Traditional Christians across the board seem to have memorised some explanation for Acts 20:7 along these lines. They without exception base their conclusions on the assumptions that, 1, Paul “preached” and administered Holy Communion; 2, that the Congregation assembled on Sunday. These basic suppositions will be dealt with now. But consider first the question put another way,

If, this gathering had been a fortuitous assembly rather than “exceptional” – a gathering directly due to the apostles’ itinerary?

If, the assembled “on that occasion” did not congregate nor celebrate the Lord’s Supper?

If, Paul did not “preach” or “proclaim the Gospel”?

If, here “congregation” not in the sense of “Church” is the case, but “congregation” in the sense of “the company”?

If, “When being still together on the First Day having had assembled for Holy Communion, Paul “addressed them” the “company”?

When would “the usual time” then have been but on the Sabbath before? “The usual time” then would naturally be the day the Church was accustomed to meet on, as had been the case right through the Acts and throughout the history of the Apostolic Church many times over and over again (as has been shown). This instance agrees to the letter grammatically speaking, “when being still together on the First Day we having had assembled for Holy Communion” … the Sabbath before!

The conclusion is perfectly justified, Had the day on which the Christians met no special significance, why should Luke take the trouble to say, as he does, “being still together on the First Day having had assembled for Holy Communion before”? This item of information – the invariably ignored Perfect Participle, could well have been omitted if it conveyed a fact of no importance. That Luke mentions it shows that at this time Christians were all along gathering for worship on the Sabbath Day that naturally comes before the evening of the First Day. “First Day”, being the “Jewish” denomination for the “Jewish” day, “first” in the time-cycle of the “Jewish” “week”, and reckoned the “Jewish” way from evening to afternoon inclusive.