σαββατων

Jeff

Does this extract from NIGTC on Colossians 2:16 help?

"Characteristically Jewish also is the practice of referring to the “sabbath” in the plural, τὰ σάββατα, as here (Lightfoot 192; BAGD s.v. σάββατον 1bβ). It is true that the most unusual practice of maintaining one day in seven as a day of rest proved attractive to sympathetic Gentiles (Philo, De vita Mosis 2:21; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2:282; Juvenal, Satirae 14:96), but a critical or judgmental attitude on the subject, as here, is much more likely to express a traditional Jewish attitude, defensive of identity and covenant distinctiveness.

But if sabbath is so clearly a distinctively Jewish festival, then the probability is that the “festival” and “new moon” also refer to the Jewish versions of these celebrations. The point is put beyond dispute when we note that the three terms together, “sabbaths, new moons, and feasts,” was in fact a regular Jewish way of speaking of the main festivals of Jewish religion (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:3; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Isa. 1:13–14; 1 Macc. 10:34; Ezek. 45:17, and Hos. 2:11 in reverse order, as here; see, e.g., Sappington 163; Aletti, Épître aux Colossiens 193 n. 112)." (Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon : A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Paternoster Press, 1996.)

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.

Jeff Trostle said:

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."

David Paul said:

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

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.

George Somsel said:

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.

George Somsel said:

David Paul said:

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)

David Paul said:

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)

David Paul said:

George Somsel said:

David Paul said:

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

David Paul said:

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.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but you are still wrong.