σαββατων

Yes. Thank you. I have looked at Lightfoot. I also contacted William Mounce (Basics of Biblical Greek) and he said simply that both he and his father describe it as a Hebraism. I suppose that makes more sense. Thanks again.

Jeff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297808#Comment_297808

I'll take a look. Thank you.

Jeff

As an observer of the Sabbaths, plural, including the one that began this evening (Friday night) at sundown, which is the seventh and last of the annual sabbaths--the Last Great Day, which is also known as the Eighth Day of the Feast--I am surprised that I can't ever recall anyone discussing σαββατων (the Greek word) in context with its Hebrew counterpart. The Greek word is an exact transliteration of שַׁבָּתֹון which is Strong's 7677. It is used in Exo. 16:23, Exo. 31:15, Exo. 35:2, Lev. 16:31, Lev. 23:3, Lev. 23:24, Lev. 23:32, Lev. 23:39, & Lev. 25:4-5 (each verse). Attempting to give the Greek "version" of the word a meaning that is beyond what the Hebrew word means would be a severe mistake.

Interesting that you are tackling Col. 2:16 (and :17 as well, I must assume). This pair of verses is one of the greatest shames in the history of Biblical translation. I don't know of a single English version of this pericope that gives a reputable and legitimate translation of the Greek. If there was ever a passage that was beset by dogma, it is this one.

Just so you know, there are a number of different reasons why the word is used in the plural rather than the singular...not the least being that there is more than just one Sabbath, by which I mean more than one KIND of Sabbath. To establish this for yourself, read Lev. 23, the whole chapter. Each of the מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ (holy convocations) upon which work is forbidden is a Sabbath, one of seven yearly Sabbaths. To read a bit more about this, you can check out my page on the moh'adiym (appointed times -- i.e. "seasons") at http://www.gospelinthestars.com/the-seasons/. "Greek-speak" aside, it is wholly appropriate to speak of Sabbaths in the plural, and I feel quite sure Paul meant the plural concept in Col. 2:16.

EDIT: Ah, I see you added the comment by Mounce while I was typing my reply...and yes, "Hebraism" is an appropriate way to describe the word.

Rick Brannan

Hi Jeff.

I'm guessing you've already looked in BDAG if you've got it, that might be one place to start. Also the article in TDNT is lengthy and a good historical survey that might provide more insight to your issue.

If you have a resource with the text of the Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle to Diognetus 4.1 and 4.3 use plural Sabbath similarly. The first instance is accusative (second is genitive), but both instances have stuff like fasting, new moons, and references to food in the immediate context.

Hope it helps.

I'm not sure who to contact at Logos, but I need some guidance. I'm finishing my doctoral dissertation and currently focusing on Colossians 2.16. The Greek word for sabbath in this verse is σαββατων, which is plural. There are 9 occurrences of that form in the New Testament and all of them translate the plural Greek noun with a singular English noun sabbath, the sabbath, the sabbath day, or the first day of the week.

What I've found so far is that since the other coordinating nouns, festival and new moon, are singular, σαββατων is also translated as singular. Douglas Moo in his commentary in the Pillar series states that σαββατων is regularly
translated as singular reflecting the underlying Aramaic word שׂבתא

But that really doesn't explain it very well to those of us less initiated in the nuance of Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew.

Any insight?
Jeff Trostle

I would agree with Rick that you should CAREFULLY and EXHAUSTIVELY review the BDAG entry. I will, however, make an observation. Σάββατον (sg) generally indicates the sabbath. In the plural (σαββάτων) it may either mean more than one sabbath as in σαββάτων τρία (three sabbaths) or it may mean "week."

Tim Finlay

Jeff, if you have not already done so, you should look at Troy Martin's work on Colossians. It was a monograph in the supplement series to JSNT if memory serves. He has a considerably different take from most people on Colossians 2:16-17. He also regards the "heresy" being addressed in Colossians as related to the Cynics rather than some form of incipient gnosticism. Whether you agree with him or not, it is an important work on the verses in question and probably relevant to your dissertation.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297833#Comment_297833

Thank you for your response. I read the article on your page. All very interesting. I've found this to be a complex issue and so far Mounce's opinion seems to be the most satisfactory one. The issues lying behind the usage are all fascinating. Thanks for your insight.

Jeff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297842#Comment_297842

Ok. Thanks.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297833#Comment_297833

Interesting that you are tackling Col. 2:16 (and :17 as well, I must assume). This pair of verses is one of the greatest shames in the history of Biblical translation. I don't know of a single English version of this pericope that gives a reputable and legitimate translation of the Greek. If there was ever a passage that was beset by dogma, it is this one.

Out of curiosity, could you reply with how you'd translate the verses? And perhaps a comment on why you think the standard English translations are such a shame and filled with dogma?

Thanks,

Donnie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297911#Comment_297911

Okay, briefly...notice the Greek below, specifically two things: 1) "shadow of things to come/about to be" & 2) "the body of the Christ".

ἅ

ἐστιν

σκιὰ

τῶν

μελλόντων

τὸ

δὲ

ὅς

εἰμί

σκιά

ὁ

μέλλω

ὁ

δέ

which

shadow

of the things

about to be

the

but

ORRNPN

V3SPAI

NFSN

ANPG

VPAPNPG

ANSN

CCV

σῶμα	τοῦ	Χριστοῦ	.
σῶμα	ὁ	Χριστός
body	of the	Christ
NNSN	AMSG	NMSG	SJ

Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993, c1979). The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (527). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.

Now look at how the NASB translates it:

17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the ¹substance ²belongs to Christ.

¹Lit body ²Lit of Christ

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Col 2:17). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Now look at the NKJV:

¹⁷ ^vwhich are a shadow of things to come, but the ²substance is of Christ.

²Lit. body

The New King James Version. 1982 (Col 2:17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Now the NIV:

¹⁷These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Col 2:17). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Now look at the NET:

¹⁷ these are only³³ the shadow of the things to come, but the reality³⁴ is Christ!³⁵

³³³³ tn The word “only,” though not in the Greek text, is supplied in the English translation to bring out the force of the Greek phrase.

³⁴³⁴ tn Grk “but the body of Christ.” The term body here, when used in contrast to shadow (σκιά, skia) indicates the opposite meaning, i.e., the reality or substance itself.

³⁵³⁵ tn The genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou Christou) is appositional and translated as such: “the reality is Christ.”

The NET Bible (Col 2:17). (2006). Biblical Studies Press.

Now the NCV, a real stinkbomb:

¹⁷These things were like a shadow of what was to come. But what is true and real has come and is found in Christ.

The Everyday Bible : New Century Version. 2005 (Col 2:17). Nashville, TN.: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Tally?? 0/5. The actual meaning of the verse? Just what the Greek says: "which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body of the Messiah." The whole sentence, minus the superfluous prepositional phrases and subordinate clause, is "Let no one judge you...but the body of the Messiah." The point is that members of His body, which Paul elsewhere says are responsible for judging matters within the body, should only concern themselves with the voice of the members of the body, not those voices which are from outside the body. The point is NOT that we shouldn't care what others think under any and all circumstances...it's just "whatever we think in our own heads and hearts" is cool with Him.

The other thing is that the verse doesn't say, "these things aren't important"... it is saying exactly the OPPOSITE: "let none of your Gentile friends and neighbors condemn you for KEEPING the Tohraah's commands regarding kosher and the moh'adhiym" (see my previous post).

Again, the context is that you shouldn't let people NOT IN THE BODY (who wouldn't have a problem with people NOT keeping Tohraah) judge you for doing things they don't understand or may think to be strange or oddball. Only concern yourself with what you in the Body know to be true and in accordance with the word and practice of Yeishuu`a.

Now, a brief look at the twisting of Scripture that has plagued this verse in virtually all English translations. In every case the translators insert their own dogma into the text, specifically the concept that the things commanded are replaced by Jesus. Some translations even brazenly change the timing so that "things to come" becomes "things that were/was to come" (i.e. switching future for past tense), since this makes their doctrine "clearer" for their sheep to understand.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298571#Comment_298571

And just to keep things "kosher" [:P], the use of sohma as "body" is confirmed only two verses later (Col. 2:19), which indicates clearly the context of v. 17.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298571#Comment_298571

Tally?? 0/5. The actual meaning of the verse? Just what the Greek says: "which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body of the Messiah." The whole sentence, minus the superfluous prepositional phrases and subordinate clause, is "Let no one judge you...but the body of the Messiah." The point is that members of His body, which Paul elsewhere says are responsible for judging matters within the body, should only concern themselves with the voice of the members of the body, not those voices which are from outside the body. The point is NOT that we shouldn't care what others think under any and all circumstances...it's just "whatever we think in our own heads and hearts" is cool with Him.

This is not correct. "The body of Christ" is an appositive of "a shadow of things to come" το … σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ <—> σκία τῶν μελλόντων. The connective δέ does not here serve to contrast the two. Note Runge A Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament <logosres:discgrmrgrknt;ref=Page.p_28;off=-7>.

EDIT: Sorry about the unedited post — I pasted the wrong link in. It is now corrected.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298591#Comment_298591

This is not correct. "The body of Christ" is an appositive of "a shadow of things to come" το … σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ <—> σκία τῶν μελλόντων. The connective δέ does not here serve to contrast the two. Note Runge A Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament <logosres:discgrmrgrknt;ref=Page.p_28;off=-7>.

"The connective δέ does not here serve to contrast the two." Hmmm, how odd...because for you and Runge to be right, it would HAVE to contrast the two.

I reassert my statement and add that either you or Runge or both of you are wrong. The context supports my understanding. Plus, if you and Runge are right, that makes Paul's statement both wrong and heretical.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298605#Comment_298605

I reassert my statement and add that either you or Runge or both of you are wrong. The context supports my understanding. Plus, if you and Runge are right, that makes Paul's statement both wrong and heretical.

Now we're reading the text according to our own perceived theological interpretation?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298606#Comment_298606

I reassert my statement and add that either you or Runge or both of you are wrong. The context supports my understanding. Plus, if you and Runge are right, that makes Paul's statement both wrong and heretical.

Now we're reading the text according to our own perceived theological interpretation?

Consider

“Ὁ νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτὸν στῦλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ θεοῦ μου καὶ ἔξω οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἔτι καὶ γράψω ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ μου καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως τοῦ θεοῦ μου, τῆς καινῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ μου, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ καινόν.” (Revelation 3:12, NA27)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298606#Comment_298606

Now we're reading the text according to our own perceived theological interpretation?

Well, I don't think immediate (2 verses away) and broad (the whole epistle) context equates to "interpretation"...besides, both within the letter and within the NT, sohma virtually ALWAYS means "body". Mainly, because that's what it means. The only place it is translated "substance" etc. is in this verse. That isn't proof in itself, but it is extremely strong indication of "fiddling" with the text.

I'm signing off for the night, but we can continue later. [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298611#Comment_298611

both within the letter and within the NT, sohma virtually ALWAYS means "body".

But not the physical body of Christ

“Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.” (1 Corinthians 10:16–17, NA27)

“Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους.” (1 Corinthians 12:27, NA27)

“πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ,” (Ephesians 4:12, NA27)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298614#Comment_298614

both within the letter and within the NT, sohma virtually ALWAYS means "body".

But not the physical body of Christ

“Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.” (1 Corinthians 10:16–17, NA27)

“Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους.” (1 Corinthians 12:27, NA27)

“πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ,” (Ephesians 4:12, NA27)

Yes, on this point I agree, and it is this usage that I assert is used in Col. 2:17--the "body" of disciples who does His (the Head's) will and walks as he walked (1 Jn. 2:6).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298622#Comment_298622

both within the letter and within the NT, sohma virtually ALWAYS means "body".

But not the physical body of Christ

“Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.” (1 Corinthians 10:16–17, NA27)

“Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους.” (1 Corinthians 12:27, NA27)

“πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ,” (Ephesians 4:12, NA27)

Yes, on this point I agree, and it is this usage that I assert is used in Col. 2:17--the "body" of disciples who does His (the Head's) will and walks as he walked (1 Jn. 2:6).

OK, as I understand you, you are asserting that rather than having someone else judge the believer regarding matters, he is to be judged by the church

The whole sentence, minus the superfluous prepositional phrases and subordinate clause, is "Let no one judge you...but the body of the Messiah."

We can stipulate that if the final section of the section is to be understood to assert that the Church (the body of Christ) is to judge then σῶμα in σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ would need to be nominative — which I agree it is. If, on the other hand, σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be understood as an appositive to σκία τῶν μελλόντων it would likewise need to be nominative. Our disagreement then is not regarding the accidents of the text (i.e., the cases and numbers) but rather regarding the overall structure of the sentence. I would contend that σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ is too far removed from the main verb κρίνετω to function as its subject without having the verb repeated. You would leave the average Greek scratching his head wondering what you were trying to say if that were your meaning.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/298632#Comment_298632

OK, as I understand you, you are asserting that rather than having someone else judge the believer regarding matters, he is to be judged by the church

The whole sentence, minus the superfluous prepositional phrases and subordinate clause, is "Let no one judge you...but the body of the Messiah."

I would contend that σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ is too far removed from the main verb κρίνετω to function as its subject without having the verb repeated. You would leave the average Greek scratching his head wondering what you were trying to say if that were your meaning.

LOL...we are talking about the same Greek language and the same apostle Paul, aren't we? I don't perceive either of the aforementioned as being particularly accustomed to behaving with the kind of concern for "nearness" that you are suggesting. Of the languages I am familiar with, Greek is by far the least concerned with such things. But the sentence is not that unusual, even in English. It is a bit "run-on", but that's par for Paul's "course of habit". As an English teacher, I teach students to do exactly what I have suggested should be done to this sentence: remove the "helpful" but "unnecessary" prepositional phrases, and the subordinate (relative) clause that gives further details of those phrases, leaving the core thought--in essence, "Let no one but the body of Messiah judge you." Could it be phrased in a less cumbersome way? Sure, if someone other than Paul were speaking. But on that note, the better word to use rather than σῶμα, in order to suggest "tangible substance", would be ὑπόστασις. (cf. Heb. 11:1) I acknowlege the fact that the sentence is awkwardly phrased, whether one looks at it as I suggest or as you suggest. But the amount of "construction" needed to arrive at the conclusion you and Runge (and most others) settle for makes me confident that my take (as literal as it can be) is the correct one.