<< MAIN PAGE – www.biblestudents.co.za
John 20v1 “early darkness”
GE:
God willing I want to reproduce here the discussion between John317 and myself on the translation and interpretation of John 20:1, extracted from another page and here presented, ordered to incidental sequence for the purpose of giving an uninterrupted overview so that EACH MAN can make his own and decisive conclusion about the matter from a complete impression of the discourse.
Of grave and immediate consequences is the translation of John 20:1 with very, very far reaching implications and consequences.
God be with you as you may read.
Krause:
Most people walk in and out of your life,
but FRIENDS leave footprints in your heart.
Moderator:
The subject is toxic.
GE:
I am God’s dog; I live on the crumbs that fall off his table loaded with the Bread of Life!
Man, and am I having a feast! The guests at table wipe so much Bread off the table they scarcely taste a crumb themselves!
It’s fine with me to go sniff for God’s Word on the forum’s trash heap … just fine, thanks!
Ja, I must scavenge among a lot of real toxic stuff from the regulars’ smartly decorated tables; and sometimes even dig the Word out from under their vomit over me.
The Word’s crumbs though have marvellous healing properties and never get bad or taste bad.
I’m a dog in my seventh heaven … won’t swop for any other
place on earth!
You are all cordially invited to come over for the Feast on the threads’ trash heap, fellas! Discovered nice bones there buried deep or lying scattered all over! Just the stuff for a Bull Terrier!
… and of course, it’s JUST THE PLACE FOR THOSE WHO LIKE A DOGS’ BRAWL!
Gail:
???
GE:
???
GE:
A Bull Terrier is the best and dearest thing the English ever made!
Moderator has proved,
One,
That ‘toxic’ is more ‘Christian’ than to “welcome” a person with “open arms” with “access denied”;
Two,
That point has been made; that point has been taken;
Three,
That it has become time to thank the Lord and sing praises to his Name, for his Word is alive and well and makes itself heard where it matters most;
Four,
That the same awareness is becoming more widespread by the day.
Therefore, thank you, clubadventist for the improvements you have achieved and your preparedness to accommodate persuasion contrary your own. It shows the real, Christian spirit of discourse!
“There is no fear in love.”
Only one thing disturbing about the present ‘categorization’ –
beggars can’t be choosers I suppose – Truth will have to tolerate his next door neighbour, Heresy. I assume the age of ‘theological discrimination’ too, has seen its end among its offspring of ‘integrated theology’ —while I have always been staunch conservative.
Yes; disappointing; if I don’t admit I must lie.
Mark in 16:9 derives from John 20:11-17. And there, it says “Mary HAD HAD STOOD AFTER at the grave …”. So when Jesus appeared to Mary, it was not her first visit at the tomb; she had had before gone to the tomb —much earlier in the morning of the night. So in Luke 24:1,10 we read that Mary and other women had gone to the tomb “in the deepest morning of night carrying their spices prepared and ready … but they FOUND NOT the body”.
Therefore midnight, and Jesus “was risen”, already!
But John 20:1,2 tells, “Mary Magdalene on the First Day of the week BEING EARLY DARKNESS STILL, comes to the sepulchre, sees the stone is rolled away from the tomb; runs back …”
Therefore “EARLY DARKNESS STILL” – “being DUSK yet on the First Day”, that is, just “after the Sabbath” as it says in Mark 16:1 AFTER SUNSET —and Jesus “was risen”, already!
So WHEN did Jesus ‘arise’?
“… WHEN suddenly there was a great earthquake LATE ON THE SABBATH MID-AFTERNOON towards the First Day of the week.”
“… WHEN suddenly there was a great earthquake LATE ON THE SABBATH MID-AFTERNOON towards the First Day of the week … EXPLAINED THE ANGEL to the women …”
Matthew only, says, “Explained” / “Informed” / “Answered” / “Enlightened”, ‘apokritheis’.
Matthew only, tells the circumstances, accompanying events, day and time of day Jesus Christ must have arisen / must have been
raised from the dead.
“… and God the Seventh Day rested.”
J317:
So, do you believe that instead of its being dawn, the text says it was dusk, BEFORE it got really dark?
Why do you translate “early darkness”?
As I tried to explain to you before, the Adjective / adverb prohi (early) modifies the verb erxetai (coming).
Prohi (early) doesn’t modify skotias (darkness).
So Mary was coming early in the morning. It wasn’t the early part of the dark as you think. It was early morning. It was early on the first day of the week. In fact, the word prohi (Strongs #4404) means “morning.” See Matt. 16: 3, “and at morning [prohi]…” Also see Matt. 20: 1, “… early in the morning [prohi]…”
Prohi occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and all ten times it is translated “morning” or “early morning.”
In Acts 28: 23, it is translated, “…from morning [prohi] till evening…”
Could you please explain according to the rules of Greek grammar and translation why you believe John 20: 1 should be translated “early darkness”?
GE:
Well, thanks, you said it, not I —
“… the adjective/adverb prohi …” which means ‘Prohï’ (early) modifies Verb, “Mary was _coming early_”, ‘erchetai prohï” AS WELL AS the Noun, ‘erchetai MM prohï skotias eti ousehs’ (darkness) Genitive “early-OF-darkness … when yet / still”.
Then TOO, the Adverb ‘prohï’ (early) modifies the nearest and most relevant adverbial modifier, the following Participle, ‘ousehs’— ‘prohï ousehs’— ‘BEING early still”.
And vice versa, the Participle, ‘ousehs’, modifies “the adjective/adverb prohi”— “BEING : early”, ‘prohï ousehs’.
BUT ‘being early’ WHAT “still”? —“being early darkness
still”! It wasn’t the early part of the dark as I think; it was the early part of the night – ‘dusk’ / ‘early dark’ – as JOHN thought and could not help think, and, KNEW.
Why should I tell you the record if you can read it yourself?
Does Jesus appear to Mary at this visit?
Who, after this visit, goes to the tomb and “returns home again” from the tomb, and no Appearance still?
Does Mary even know if the body was still in the grave?
No! She knew nothing at all, what, that Jesus allegedly appeared to her because the time mentioned describes the time of the Resurrection supposedly?
Ag, and so I can go on with impossibilities all night and won’t arrive at anything constructive that happened.
So, No! Mary was the person who discovered the grave was opened. She was the one who informed everyone else of it.
Mary Magdalene set in motion every event that after her discovery happened.
She was the one who informed everyone else of it.
Absolutely logically that the women found one another and set off to anoint the body THEY ALL THOUGHT WAS STILL IN THE GRAVE “spices prepared and ready” Luke 24:1
Ag, hundred … thousand and one factors get involved … which all COLLIDE in catastrophic chaos if the tradition of one visit of everybody together at the tomb and Jesus at once resurrected and appeared is taken for granted. No wonder unbelievers and atheists prefer the Last Events and Resurrection to tear the Christian faith apart.
J317:
It was early morning. It was early on the first day of the week. In fact, the word prohi (Strongs #4404) means “morning.” See Matt. 16: 3, “and at morning [prohi]…” Also see Matt. 20: 1, “… early in the morning [prohi]…” In Acts 28: 23, it is translated, “…from morning [prohi] till evening…”
Let’s go real slow and look carefully at this again.
You’re not understanding what you’re reading in Greek or in Marshalls interlinear.
The Interlinear is giving you the translation of the Greek words, and it is giving you the word order of the Greek, but that is not the same as a translation. The translation is given to you in the side of the page. The translation puts the Greek in good English; the interlinear does not.
GE:
I understand; don’t you worry! ‘Words’ can have only so many meanings; they can’t have infinite infinitely different meanings.
It is not a true ‘translation given in the side’. [By the way, I don’t have an edition with a ‘translation given in the side’.] It cannot be a true ‘translation given in the side’ if it means something contrary the literal that is truthful even to the Greek word order! Though it may satisfy your expectations of what a true translation should be, if it’s contrary the syntactical meaning of the Greek, it isn’t a true ‘translation given in the side’.
The ‘interlinear’ that is “the translation of the Greek words”, translates Greek words in precise and perfectly understandable English. The ‘translation’ “in good English” is whispering its abracadabra wishes for fancies to come true, not openly – of course not! – but, with prejudices and objectives ‘in the side’ —those namely that you identify with because you unconditionally accept the traditional meaning attached to John 20:1,2 which is that it records Jesus’ resurrection which it DOES NOT.
J317:
The Greek word order doesn’t matter.
GE:
Precisely!
Neither does the English in this case. What matters in this case is omission of concepts, context, facts and functions and data of different sorts and nature and insertion of others and opposites in their place. Our whole conversation so far has been a case study and prime example.
J317:
The Greek word order doesn’t matter. It isn’t like English. In Greek, the words can be in almost any order, and it wouldn’t matter.
GE:
Exactly, again! Greek word order (not always) wouldn’t matter. In John 20:1 it does not matter.
Why? Because Greek uses Inflection. It uses the Genitive of a Noun for example – as in the case of John 20:1. You IGNORE the Greek flat; and squeeze your presumptions in front of the reader’s nose to read, instead.
J317:
What matters in Greek is the change in the prefix and the suffix of the words, because they determine the relationship among the words. Greek is a highly inflective language, meaning most words in the Greek change their spelling according to what relationship they have to the other words in the sentence. English isn’t a very inflective language. In English, word order is crucial, whereas in Greek it is not.
GE:
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/580595.html#Post580595
A partial truth because NT Greek has progressively become an analytic language already(, meaning word order has become important for its understanding).*
[*Here both J317 and GE were seriously mistaken. See last part of discussion on phrases and clauses.]
“… the relationship among the words …” in John 20:1
is that of a phrase or clause;
of a subordinate phrase or clause with a meaning its own
within the context of the Sentence,
functioning Adverbially as a WHOLE
—not as independent “Greek words”
—“the relationship among the words” in the Sentence
with Verbs, “she comes”, “she sees” and “then she runs”
SIMPLY having been that of a Predicative Adjective with Adverbial meaning,
“On the First Day of the week Mary comes (… sees … runs) being early darkness still” LITERALLY,
‘Maria erchetai prohï skotias eti ousehs … blepei … trechei’
J317:
How would you translate the following sentence—
alektora phonesai tris aparnesee me
Some people might transliterate it this way: alektora phonhsai tris aparnhsh me
Please translate the above, placing the punctuation marks where they belong.
GE:
Why? Are you not satisfied with the KJV in Matthew 26:75?
How do you expect me to translate the clause without the Adverbial Preposition ‘prin’, “before”?
Stop the pedantry. It’s off topic.
“And He went out, and wept bitterly.”
O Jerusalem! O Jerusalem! Church of my parents and my youth!
J317:
I want to slow down the exchanges so that we make sure we’re both understanding what the other is saying. Let each post look at a smaller number of issues.
Up to this point, you often only answer one of my questions after I have asked you several. And you also appear to me to have a misunderstanding of what you are reading in the books you refer to, including the Greek NT text.
J317:
“….Mary comes early, it being yet dark, to the tomb.”
GE:
No; “Mary comes to the tomb on the First Day of the week, being early-of-dark still …”
J317:
Gerhard, can you find a single English translation of the NT that gives the reading “being early-of-dark still”? If so, please quote it and give the title of the translation.
GE:
It is no habit of mine to read as many Versions as possible; on the contrary.
When I read translations it will be half a dozen or so which I have on my shelves. I seldom if ever shall google for more versions. I use the Greek; and shall rather use dictionaries, commentaries and grammars before I’ll resort to any translation
I’m not acquainted with.
My ‘field of study’ has been limited to certain ‘subjects’ of special interest to me. So I don’t say I have much of a knowledge of Greek generally — far from it. I’ll also not claim I have a good or wide knowledge of the Bible. But on my subjects – in my field of study – I don’t stand back for anyone, God my only help and witness … through his Word his Written Word.
I am not bound by denominational bias; but I am bound by Protestant Confessional Faith and Reformation principles, the Apostolicum … Canons of Dordrecht … Sola Scriptura … Solus Christus … TULIP … you know them. I’m Reformed and Boer, through and through. But Christian first and last. “O that I may know HIM, and, the POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION” —THEN I shall be a believer of the Sabbath, “the day the Seventh Day Sabbath-of-the-LORD GOD”. O Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!
THEREFORE, dear John 317, whether I can find a single
English translation of the NT that gives the reading “being early-of-dark still” or not, I believe what “IS WRITTEN”; and that in John 20:1,2, is, p-r-e-c-i-s-e-l-y: “early-of-dark still being “, quote, ‘prohï skoti-AS eti ousehs’; title: ‘The Gospel of John’; author: John. Publisher and Sponsor: God.
Could you find easier or plainer, more down to earth or better understandable words in any language?
But don’t forget the context and chronological implication and physical facts of who and when and where and what, and without even thinking of this unequivocal time-phrase or clause, one is FORCED to SEE, that John 20:1,2 is the FIRST in a series of events that occurred consecutively THROUGH the night of the First Day of the week.
J317:
Prohi occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and all ten times it is translated “morning” or “early morning.”
Observer:
Came – to see the sepulchre – That is, they set out at this time in order to visit the tomb of our Lord, and also to weep there, John 11:31, and to embalm the body of our Lord, Luke 24:1. St. Matthew omits Mary Salome, mentioned by Mark; and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, mentioned by Luke. The other Mary was the wife of Cleopas, and mother of James and Joses, mentioned before, Matthew 27:56. Were not Mary and Salome two distinct persons?
J317:
Lattimore translated Mark 16: 1,2 and 9 this way:
And when the sabbath was over, …. And very early on the
first day of the week they went to the tomb…. [9] Then after he had arisen early on the first day of the week…
John 20: 1– “Early on the first day of the week, when it was still dark….”
As Lattimore says in his introduction to the Gospels, he kept as close to the Greek as possible.
GE:
Lattimore saying in his introduction to the Gospels, he kept as close to the Greek as possible, says with the word “possible”, that he could not translate other than what he understood or believed.
His translations of Mark 16:1, 2 and 9 is nothing wrong with although he could have translated in greater detail. But the main idea is correct … AND WAS ACCORDING TO GENERAL BELIEF. Lattimore translated John 20:1 while he held to the same GENERAL opinion under Christians for centuries before and today still.
That general conception is a single and simultaneous with the Resurrection visit at the tomb of all the women involved together.
INNUMERABLE contradictions discrepancies enigmas call it what you like are the DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of such a view and have been the subject of innumerable vehement ‘scholarly’ debates especially recently since “Who Moved the Stone?”.
The only way these contradictions can be explained — none are resolvable — is to have them all REMOVED; and the only way to do that, is to let every Gospel tell its own PART in the Drama. No Gospel gives the whole story. Each writer decided for himself which ‘sources’ he would use. Those who wrote later than Mark, knew about the Gospel or Gospels before them, and tried to fill in wherever they thought necessary. The solution does not lie in reconciling repetitions but in filling in the bigger historic whole.
That’s my view for what it may be worth to whomsoever.
And my view ALLOWS THE BETTER AND PRECISE AND ONLY POSSIBLE LITERAL AND CORRECT translation of John 20:1 —which the predominant traditional view FORBIDS … and PREVENTED Lattimore to make.
The literal Greek is, ‘prohï skotias eti ousehs”. ‘Skotias’ is a Noun, Possessive, therefore, “being the early-OF-DARKNESS still” which is dusk after sunset before proper dark-of-night.
That makes perfect sense, because Mary’s discovery of the
moved away _STONE_ set off all the hustle and bustle of that night’s subsequent visits to the tomb. John 20:1-10 records the ‘EVENING’S’ events; John 20:11-17 records the Sunday morning’s events WHEN a gardener would come to his garden to begin his work —sunrise, when “risen, He early on the First Day of the week appeared, first to Mary Magdalene.” Mark 16:9.
Observer:
NOW after the Sabbath was ended and it began to dawn, on the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene to the sepulcher, bearing the spices which she had prepared, and there were others with her. And as they were going, they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?
GE:
… an unholy witches’ decoction of,
1) Mark 16:1
because it says “after the Sabbath”
—but, not that Jesus rose,
but, that “the women went and bought spices”;
and of,
2) Matthew 28:1,
because it says “it began to dawn, on”
—but actually, literally, “in the Sabbath’s being-mid-inclining-daylight unto / towards / before the First Day”.
Therefore Matthew does not say, “it began to dawn, _on_”
—but, “it began to dawn, _towards_ the First Day”;
And Matthew does not say, “on the first day of the week”
—but, “on the Sabbath Day”;
and Matthew does not say, “after the Sabbath”
—but, “on / in Sabbath’s-time”;
and of,
3) John 20:1,
because it says “came Mary”
—but not, “bearing the spices which she had prepared”
but, “sees the stone taken away, then she runs”;
And John does not say, “it began to dawn”
—but, “while being early of darkness / dusk still”.
and of
4) Luke 24:1,
because it says “on the first day of the week bearing the spices”,
—but not, “Mary Magdalene”,
but, “it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary of James and other women” (verse 10);
and of,
5) Mark 16:2,
because it says “on the first day of the week”
—but not “as they were going, they said”
—not even “when going they might anoint Him”
—because that was “after the sabbath” verse 1;
—and not, “as they were going, they said”,
but, “They come at the tomb … and looking up at it observed the stone was cast up, out of the door, away from the tomb … and they said among themselves, Who will (have rolled) the stone away for us, it is so large?!”
What God has joined together let no man separate; what God has separated let no man patch up together!
Also as far as the TIMES-of-day the visits of the women at the tomb were made —
First was John 20:1, “While being early darkness / dusk / evening still”
Then Luke 24:1, “Deepest morning of the night”
Then Mark 16:2, “Very early before sunrise”
Then Mark 16:9 / John 20:11-17, “Early on the First Day” = John 20:11-17 “… gardener …” (begins work)
Last Matthew 28:5 further “Jesus met them” – the women other than Mary Magdalene.
BEFORE ANY, Matthew 28:1-4.
After sunrise on Sunday morning, “… EXPLAINED the
angel to the women … Late in the end of the Sabbath Day BEFORE the First Day there was a great earthquake … and told them … He is not here, He is risen ….”
J317:
John 20: 1 says that the women came to the tomb early on the morning of the first day of the week. It is obvious that Christ had risen a short time before they came to the tomb.
Matt. 28: 1: “Now, the sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week, there came Mary….”
GE:
John 20:1 does NOT say “the women”;
John 20:1 does NOT say that “the women came”;
John 20:1 does NOT say that “the women came to the tomb early on the morning”.
And it is not so “obvious that Christ had risen a short time before”. Mary for sure did not get that impression; “a short time before” is a very relative concept.
Now, be so kind as to give us the Version you quote Matthew 28:1 from?
And please give us its date of publication?
It would also help if we might know who served on the translation committees.
For your information, dear John, here is the Greek of John 20:1, “Tehi de miai tohn sabbatohn Maria heh Magdalehneh erchetai prohï skotias eti ousehs eis to mnehmeion kai blepei ton lithon ehrmenon ek tou mnehmeiou, trechei oun …”
“blepei ton lithon … ek” —“sees the STONE … away”;
“prohï skotias eti ousehs” —“(the) early OF-dark still being” = ‘dusk’ = “being early darkness (before proper darkness) still …”
So yes, although Mary did not realise, that was a relative “short time” after Jesus had resurrected. To be exact, a little more than three hours. Here is the old so much more trustworthy KJV of Matthew 28:1 about “when suddenly there occurred a great
earthquake, “Late in the end of the Sabbath” from …
‘sabbatohn’:
“Sabbath’s” / “Sabbath’s-time” / “of-the-Sabbath-Day’s” / “in the Sabbath” / “on the Sabbath”;
‘opse sabbatohn’:
“late” / “ripe” / “full” / “fullness” / “extended” / “slow hours” —all at the hand of REAL incidences of use.
Yes in fact “after” in Philostratus who perhaps could be interpreted as though he used ‘opse’ in Ablative, which means 100% = “late” / “ripe” / “full” / “fullness” / “extended” / “slow hours” = Genitive — NO SINGLE EXCEPTION ever before and until Philostratus who made NO SINGLE EXCEPTION ever having used Ablative if not Genitive —NOTHING different than plain Genitive in the end!
It’s not what I say — it’s what all ‘old’ lexicons and actual ‘sources’, etcetera say. It is also what ‘new’ real lexicons etcetera
say with ONE exception ever.
Now guess which is the exception? The exception is “in _our_ literature”, “In uns. Lit.” (Bauer), in fact in our Christian New Testament —in Matthew 28:1.
Surprising?
Not really. What would anyone expect if the whole world believes Jesus rose on Sunday? Who would care about what is really written?
So there you have your reason for and basis of the insect you are quoting for Matthew.
J317:
There’s absolutely no connection between the “skirt of
Rome” and the translation, “first day of the week,” in John 20: 1 and 19.
John 20: 1 says that the women came to the tomb early on the morning of the first day of the week. It is obvious that Christ had risen a short time before they came to the tomb.
Matt. 28: 1: “Now, the sabbath having passed, as it was growing light toward the first day of the week, there came Mary….”
Luke 24: 1: “On the first day of the week, as the dawn was just breaking, they came to the tomb…”
Mark 16: 1 and 2: “And the sabbath being past, Mary, the Magddalene, and the mother of James, and Solome, purchased aromatic spices in order that, having come, they might anoint Him. And very early in the morning of the first day of the week they came to the tomb, the sun having risen.”
While it’s true that none of those verses contain the words “Jesus was resurrected on the morning of the first day of the week,” they all do offer strong circumstantial evidence that Christ’s resurrection took place at the beginning of the first day of the week.
God did allow some changes to made, but none of those changes alter the fundamentals of the gospel or would cause
anyone to accept false doctrines.
It is likely that Mark did not write verses 9 to 19, and that these verses were added because it was thought that Mark 16: 8 ended the Gospel too abruptly. We can accept added verses because they agree with the rest of the Gospels. They were probably added sometime in the first century and by someone whose authority the believers accepted. I accept them as authentic even if Mark himself did not write them.
Do you really believe that God inspired men to write the truth of the gospel of Christ only to allow it to be altered and perverted by Satan?
GE:
God allowed changes to the Scriptures since the twentieth century and the “increase of knowledge” unprecedented in the history of mankind more than ever before and CERTAINLY a sign of the soon Return of Christ for ANY Christian. Those changes are NOWHERE so thorough and complete – and OBVIOUS AND MEANINGFUL – as in the Scriptures regarding the days and the times of the days in the Last Week before and after Jesus’ Resurrection.
Open your eyes to reality!
Those changes ALTERED the fundamentals of the Gospel and CAUSED MILLIONS – no, BILLIONS of CHRISTIANS UNKNOWINGLY to accept the false doctrine built upon and around the single FALSE PRESUMPTION of a ‘Sunday-resurrection’.
J317:
I’m not talking about changes in translations. I’m talking about changes in the manuscripts so that they teach false doctrines.
GE:
Yes. I agree …
… one exception though, John 19:39. Compare the TR and
the CT. (I’m talking of the ‘chronological’ Scriptures.)
I know what I am doing. And I can challenge anyone in the world today on every smallest as well as biggest ‘point at issue’.
J317:
Prohi occurs 10 times in the New Testament, and all ten times it is translated “morning” or “early morning.”
GE:
Yes, of course, predominantly like in any language ‘early’ is ‘the morning’. But not exclusively the forenoon or before sunset ‘early’. It can be “very early in the morning before sunrise”, ‘lian prohï anateilantos hehliou”, Mark 16:2; or it can be “deepest of night morning” just after midnight, “orthrou batheohs”, Luke 24:1;
J317:
Luke 24: 1 uses prohi to refer to “early dawn” or “very early
in the morning.” There’s no evidence that it refers to just after midnight.
The women didn’t come to the tomb just after midnight. The women bought spices after the end of the Sabbath, when the sun set that day. They left home to go to the tomb when it was still dark, and when they arrived at the tomb, it was still early dawn on the first day.
This is in accordance with Mark 16: 11; John 20: 11; Matt 28: 1 and Mark 16: 2.
GE:
‘Prohï’ can be when a gardener would begin his day’s work, sunrise or just after sunrise, “early”, John 20:11-17 = Mark 16:9; or it can be even after sunrise ‘early’, like when Jesus must have appeared to the OTHER women AFTER her;
J317:
Yes, in all those examples, prohi refers to early morning; NOT twilight, late evening.
GE:
‘Prohï’ can or may be early before noon in the mid-forenoon, epaurion, early when today the sky is red and lowring”, Matthew 16: 3
J317:
Verse 2 refers to “evening” [or late afternoon] [Gk opsia] whereas verse 3 refers to “morning” [Gk prohi] (See NASB, ESV, Rotherham, NIV, KJV, Robert Young’s Literal, etc.)
GE:
‘Prohï’ can or may be early afternoon, ‘deileh prohïa’;
J317:
Please quote the verse where you find this and give the
reference.
GE:
‘Prohï’ can or may be early in the rainy season, James 5:7;
J317:
This “early” is a translation of a different word, the adjective proimos.
The main point is that prohi never refers to the late evening or twilight.
GE:
‘Prohï’ can or may be early time of the fruit-season, ‘prohïa karpimoh.
J317:
Could you please quote the verse and give the reference?
In any case, this is no evidence that prohia refers to late evening or twilight.
GE:
‘Prohï’ can or may be even get a late, early rain Hosea 6:4b.
J317:
Again, the word here is the adjective proimos, not the adverb prohi. All of this evidence merely supports the conclusion that prohi NEVER refers to the twilight but always to the early morning.
It says “being dark still,”
GE:
Beg your pardon, it does NOT say, “being dark still”;
it says, “being EARLY of-dark / darkness still”, ‘PROHÏ Skotias eti ousehs’ —which precisely was when Mary came to the tomb.
J317:
Yes, Mary Magdalene did come to the tomb while it was still dark, but it was in the early morning shortly before sunrise, NOT at twilight.
This is according to both the NT and the writings of Ellen G. White.
I can see why it’s important for you to claim Mary came to the tomb “early of dark,” or at twilight– because it would mean for you that Jesus’ resurrection occurred on the Sabbath. However, no matter how you slice it, there’s no valid biblcial evidence for a Sabbath resurrection.
GE:
Or ‘prohï’ may be ‘early before noon’ “in the mid-forenoon”,
‘epaurion’, “early when today the sky is red and lowring”, Matthew 16:3; or ‘early afternoon’, ‘deileh prohïa’; or it can be ‘early in the rainy season’, James 5:7; or ‘early time of the fruit-season’, ‘prohïa karpimohn’. You even get a “late, early rain” Hosea 6:4b.
More important in John 20:1 than the number of incidences of ‘prohï’ elsewhere, are context, common sense and chronology.
J317:
prohi (early morning) can’t modify both the verb, erchetai, and the noun, skotias.
GE:
Just above you have argued about >>the adjective / adverb prohi<<. Now you argue >>prohi (early morning) can’t
modify both the verb, erchetai, and the noun, skotias<<.
J317:
It doesn’t say “being early still.” It says “being dark still,” i.e., Mary came to the tomb early in the morning while it was still dark.
GE:
I am very sorry, but it isn’t true.
J317:
It doesn’t say “being early still”.
GE:
Correct; it does not say “being early still“; it says, “being
early of-DARK / DARKNESS still“, ‘prohï SKOTIAS eti ousehs’.
J317:
It says “being dark still,”
GE:
It does NOT say, “being dark still“.
It says, “being EARLY of-dark / darkness still“, ‘PROHÏ Skotias eti ousehs’ —which precisely was when Mary came to the tomb.
‘Prohï’ not only functions as an Adverb; it also functions as an Adjective like here in John 20:1 where like a Substantive it qualifies and describes the Noun in immediate context and sequence, ‘(to) prohï (tehs) skotias’, “(the) Early of (the) Darkness’.
‘Prohï’, “(the) Early” in John20:1 functions as an Adjectival Substantive the equivalent of ‘(heh) prohïas’, “(the) early-of-night” / “(the) early-of-dark”. ‘Prohï’ is general— any time period has its ‘Early’, or early part. ‘Prohïas’ is specific— it denotes the “Early-of-night” only. Both ‘Prohï’ and ‘Prohïas’ are Substantives or Nouns; the only difference is their orthography or construction; ‘Prohï’ functions without a Suffix (analytically) and ‘Prohïas’ functions by Inflection through its added Suffix.
It is the very same thing happening with “(the) dark”, ‘(heh) skotias’ from “(the) dark(ness)”, ‘(to) skotos’. ‘Skotos’ is any darkness; ‘Skotias’ is ‘the darkness’ e.g. of the night of the plague.
It is the very same thing grammatically happening in Luke 24:1 with ‘orthrou batheohs / batheos’ < ‘(ho) Orthros’, ‘(tou) Orthrou’, “of (the) Early”; ‘(tou) Batheohs’ < ‘(to) Bathos ‘, “(the) Depth”. ‘Orthrou’, “Early” is specific of the night its morning; ‘Bathews’, “Depth” is general— it can be the Deep / Depth of hell.
J317:
Prohi always means “early morning,” NEVER early night or early dark or dusk.
GE:
John, it’s like Samie’s “week” that is never from ‘sabbaton’.
If it were a snake, a black mamba, you would have been dead by now, so recklessly holding the thing in your hands! John 20:1 is once and although once is not always, it never is never.
Re: J317,
There’s not a single translation in any langauge that says Mary came to the tomb while it was “still early darkness,” i.e., dusk. The reason no Bibles say it is that it’s an invalid, impossible, unreasonable translation.
GE:
Marshall:
“Now on the first day of the week Mary the Magdalene comes early darkness yet being to the tomb” ‘The Interlinear Greek – English New Testament’ Samuel Baxter and Sons Limited London 1958 … not even TRIED to find it … sat with it right next
to me.
J317:
The reason no Bibles say it is that it’s an invalid, impossible, unreasonable translation.
GE:
“Invalid”?
No! everything so far said, testifies to its validity.
“Impossible”?
If the easiest, that is, straight forward LITERAL translation is “impossible”, then yes, its “impossible”.
“Unreasonable”?
I can start now with three hundred million contradictions and stuff of the ‘unreasonableness’ of the Sunday morning early version —in fact have pointed out about five or six already.
John317 hasn’t answered to one so far.
So why should I spoon-feed him more?
J317:
Please read the English translation. What does it say? Please quote it here.
GE:
I did, you just quoted my quote for your reply!
I QUOTED for you Marshall’s _English_ translation and I gave you the source you could very well have yourself, the Nestle Interlinear with Marshall’s translation …
J317:
Yes, “….Mary comes early, it being yet dark, to the tomb.”
GE:
No; “Mary comes to the tomb on the First Day of the week, being early-of-dark still …”
‘Prohï’ is Adjectival because of the Noun’s Possessive Case —the ‘early’ part or and quality of the dark is that “OF the dark” … and – NOT DENIED – but secondary, ‘prohï’ is ALSO Adverbial, telling Mary comes early to the tomb, “it being yet EARLY dark.”
Use your quotation marks as though you are quoting God’s Word —with respect; which you are NOT doing, dear John317, but are doing with cunning!
J317:
It doesn’t say, “Mary came to the tomb, it being still early darkness.”
GE:
O not?!
Marshall thinks so, “Mary comes early darkness yet (still) being”.
And so did John: “Maria erchetai prohï Skotias eti ousehs.”
‘ousehs’, “BEING” – ADJECTIVAL Participle – “being” WHAT?
“Being early dark still”.
Silly is it to want to say, “Mary being early dark still comes …” if ‘Mary being’. But perfect sense is it to say, “Mary – being early dark still – comes …” if “dark being early”.
This is becoming tedious.
I must admit, you do succeed in testing my patience; but God help me you won’t succeed in letting me fail my patience or the simplicity of my faith.
I haven’t come to ClubAdventist forums to receive acclaim. If I not instead received sarcasm and ridicule I would have known my mission failed.
J317:
As I said before, “early” [prohi] is a reference to early morning, not to late evening or dusk.
GE:
Yes, ‘early’ per se. As I before referred to Bauer (also Blass Debrunner), if ‘early’ is used as a Noun, for example. In German it would be with a capital letter, “Early”, ‘die Frühe’. Then “Early” is a synonym for ‘Morning’ / ‘the morning’ —Matthew 16:3 John 18:28.
But that does not make right what is wrong.
By the way, I never said ‘prohï’ stands for “late evening”. “Late evening” no longer is ‘dusk’; “late evening” is not, to quote myself or Englishmen like Marshall, “(while) being early dark still / yet”.
So, “Would [I] agree that in those verses, —Matthew 16:3 John 18:28 prohi refers to the morning and not to early darkness?”
Why would I not agree?!
J317:
The Greek word order doesn’t matter. It isn’t like English. In Greek, the words can be in almost any order, and it wouldn’t matter. What matters in Greek is the change in the prefix and the suffix of the words, because they determine the relationship among the words.
GE:
I missed one important aspect in our last discussion on John 20:1 and the time of day Mary went to the tomb the first time.
It was the factor – the functional factor – of Greek PHRASES or and CLAUSES.
You and I stared ourselves blind at the individual words that make up the Time-Phrase, ‘prohï skotias eti ousehs’ while we neglected to take cognizance of the phrase in its – and as – its
whole.
FUNCTIONALLY the phrase acts Adverbial Phrase-of-TIME with regard to the Verbs of the Sentence, “comes”, “sees”, “runs”. “Mary comes … sees … runs WHEN (literally) early-of-dark still being”.
WITHIN the phrase, the subordinate phrase, “being early-of-dark” functions as Substantive Adjectival phrase, “early” being applicable to “(the) dark” … “(the) early dark”.
First thing Dana and Manty discuss about clauses and phrases is their “Structural Relation” … which means the implicit importance of their analytical word-order.
We have before us one of the best examples in traditional exposition of an “elusive thought” that got misplaced and therefore misinterpreted, the thought “being early dark (dusk) still” transformed into ‘being early morning still’.
“The clause [clausal phrase GE] is a unique element of syntactical structure and cannot be adequately comprehended until all its phenomena are presented in a single systematic view.”
“A clause [or clausal phrase GE] is simply the employment of a circumlocution by which we convey a meaning that we cannot readily express with a single word …”
“A clause [or clausal phrase GE] may sustain the relation of a SUBSTANTIVE and be used as subject or object of a verb [or Verbal Participle GE].
“A clause [or subordinate clausal phrase GE] may have the function of an ADJECTIVE, and be used to modify a NOUN.”
Now haven’t I done these things with my parsing throughout our conversation EXCEPT for having properly taken note of the subordinate phrase in its full structural functionality … which we here and now do address?
I remember that John317 attempted to ascribe exclusive Adverbial functionality to the word ‘prohï’, “early”, isolated by itself as functioned it not within a phrase or clausal phrase; and neither he nor I gave account of its WHOLE as “unique element of syntactical structure”.
Mark 16:1,
“When the Sabbath had passed” the fourth day had had begun.
John 20:1.
“While early darkness still on the First Day of the week Mary comes to the tomb.” “Thursday Evening” and “Friday Morning” were the SECOND day and not “the first day” of “the three days”;
… and
“Friday Evening” and “Saturday Morning” were “THE third day” and not “the second day” of the “three days”;
…and
“Saturday Evening” was “after the Sabbath”, “on the First Day of the week while early dark still”.
So that Wednesday “evening” and “night”, “Jesus had His baptism of fire (blood) in the Garden of Gethsemane, and this (began) the 3 days and nights sign of Jonah.”
1971 NAV
die môre [added]
vroeg [‘prohï’]
terwyl dit nog … was [‘eti ousehs’] …
donker [changed from Noun Genitive ‘skotias’ to non-existent Adverb]<<
Two falsifications by ‘adding’ and by ‘changing’.
1963 Louis Segond >>dès [added] le matin [added] comme il faisait encore [‘eti ousehs’] … obscure [changed from Noun Genitive ‘skotias’ to non-existent Adverb]<<
Three falsifications by ‘adding’ and by ‘changing’.
Luther 1914
da es noch … war [‘eti ousehs’] …
finster [changed from Noun Genitive ‘skotias’ to non-existent
Adverb omitting Adjective ‘prohï’]
Three falsifications by ‘omitting’, ‘adding’ and ‘changing’.
NKJV “early [Noun Genitive ‘skotias’],
while it was still [‘eti ousehs’] …
dark [added non-existent Adverb]”
With ONE falsification succeeding in the same falsifications that needed more ‘additions’, ‘changes’ and or ‘ommission’!
MASTERLY!
The English’ centuries of practice, superior scholarship and more ‘translations’ than in any other language, delivered much desired undesirable results!
But the Afrikaans
ANTV 1979 and BA 1986 sixth edition, second print, proudly,
beats the English in mischievous dealings in the interest of Sunday-sacredness in and with the Word of … who cares … God!
>>Die Sondagmôre [“on-the-Day” corrupted into ‘in-the->>morning’] vroeg [non-existent fraudulent adverbial innovation]
>>toe dit nog … was [‘eti ousehs’] …
>>donker [doubled non-existent fraudulent adverbial innovation to replace the Noun ‘skotias’]
John317, I have here lying around me on my desk and scattered on the floor of my study, several more ‘translations’ I have not looked at. For what would I? They will be the same.
Why?
That is what is really important here!
Why?!
Because they without exception want the text to “harmonise with the Synoptics”.
And why must John “harmonise with the Synoptics” in this place?
Because Jesus rose only once, and the women came to the
tomb only once, and they all – also “Jesus Himself, so sanctified the First Day of the week as the Christians’ Sabbath”.
… and John317 of clubadventist —is he for, or against them?
This familiar claim, John 317, I am SURE you must have read in Sundaydarians’ literature, not only a few times, >>He rested on the first Sabbath after finishing His creation of a perfect world.<<
But whereas John317 meant the Seventh Day Sabbath, they – the Sunday-worshippers – would have meant Sunday.
Is John317 for or against Sunday-worship??
J317:
You conclude that all the translators are either ignorant or are refusing to translate it correctly in order to deceive people.
GE:
You misrepresent my animadversions on purpose John 317.
I am the one who recognises the translators’ SKILL!
SKILL in misinformation thanks to their very thorough understanding and knowledge of NT Greek!
In other words, I distrust the VERY CLEVER translators.
In other words, I accuse them of dishonesty.
I accuse them of dishonesty in their OWN interest and in the interest of SUNDAY-WORSHIP.
I will not – God help – compromise in the smallest or largest point of contention.
Now let me tell you, I do NOT consider the placing of comma’s worthy to be reckoned even under the smallest of points of contention as far as the present issue is concerned. You miss the woods for the dead timber as you miss the smallest twig for the woods.
What underlies the FRAUD found universally in John 20:1,2, is no matter of translation; but of Sunday-sacredness.
But John317 will never admit it or he must contradict his church and its sacred writings.
THERE, John317, lies _your_ dilemma.
J317:
If you don’t like people to “misrepresent” your position or your motives, then don’t do it to others, Gerhard.
I only repeated what you told me– that you believe the translators are dishonest and that they purposely mistranslate the Bible.
GE:
You also said that I said that they are “ignorant”, which I NEVER said or would say! On the contrary, I would allow the translators no excuse or mitigation ‘ignorance’ would have given them.
J317:
You talk about reading the Greek and reading Marshall’s Greek-English interlinear, yet your posts show that you don’t even understand what you’re reading.
You would be better off taking classes in the language you want to understand, before claiming to translate the Bible more accurately than thousands of translators who have studied and taught Greek and NT theology for many, many years.
GE:
“For many, many years” never, never having faced the issues OF TODAY and never, never having been PROMPTED by enquiring MIND and always, always been indoctrinated and brain-washed by traditionalists and pedantic authoritarian instructors and dictators more blunt and dumb than they themselves. Like the Seventh-day Adventist church, I do not share the bright picture John317 sketches of Christian leadership, education and religion in the past AND ESPECIALLY IN THE PRESENT!
To flatter undeserving quasi learned men for their courageous pretence under the convenient protection of their numbers and status, is not going to decide for me, the right or wrong of any translation or, text.
Again I shall call on God my only Help and Witness … through HIS WORD THE SCRIPTURES. You may deride me, John317. Do it! For me it is like receiving a nod of approval from Jesus.
If you had not opposed me, I would have been disappointed and discontented with myself.
J317:
… It seems to me you are making a lot of judgmental statements about people you don’t even know.
But if you are right about all those translators of the Bible– most of whom are teachers of translation in the top universities– why should anyone trust what you are doing and saying, since you demonstrate that you know far less about translation than the men and women who’ve devoted their lives to helping to spread the gospel through translations of God’s inspired word?
GE:
This is a good post of yours, John317.
Let me answer,
First, you, John 317, are making a lot of uncritical, flattering and unjustifiable statements about people you don’t even know —or perhaps know better than you pretend.
Next, you are now – as you have done times before – making one specific judgmental statement about me, as made I my ‘judgmental statements’ about the persons of those ‘people’, and, more importantly, as made I my ‘judgmental statements’ about their work, across board.
Which, both, are not justifiable accusations, dear John317.
Their salvation is none of my concern; their human fallibility is my concern, since it affects their work of translation.
Even then, not all their work, but specifically these ‘people’s’ work of translation of the Scriptures which regard the Christian
DAY of Worship, is my SOLE concern.
Have you heard or read one word from me about anything
else than the INVOLVED Scriptures and passages from the Gospels that have to do with the times and days and seasons of Jesus’ last passover?
Whenever I say something beyond these Scriptures, I try to say it by way of Confession of Faith —Protestant Christian Faith. I restrict myself as good as I can to those Scriptures I have studied in the Text, in Context, in precedent, and in history and etymology.
I am not so foolish as to poke my nose in other people’s business or specialities. For that I enjoy the benefits of all the great men of God since the Apostles and Reformers of whom I am most ardent student and follower.
Mark my words, if there is one man living who RESPECTS AND ADMIRES great and mighty in the Lord God men, it’s me, Gerhard Ebersöhn.
We all know those men all. But how many so called translators have you known, John317? They ‘work’ in the dark holes of the papacy, ever since the age of increased knowledge, from about the beginning of the twentieth century. Because they have the power over the minds of men exactly through the Word of God the WRITTEN, PUBLISHED, SPONSORED AND SPREAD, ‘new’ and yet more ‘new’, ‘TRANSLATIONS’ of the Bible.
And _you_, John317, know it.
Pkrause:
This is how I see it:
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Miryam from Magdala went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.
GE:
Thank you, PKrause that you _say_, “This is how I see it” and not, ‘This is how it is’.
Now if it were the way you see it, it would have read something more or less exactly like in Mark 16:9 where it is unambiguously written, “Early on the First Day He appeared”, ‘prohï [early] prohtehi [on the First (Day)] sabbatou [of the week] ephaneh [appeared]”.
In other words, in John 20:1 it would have been ‘prohï de tehi miai tohn sabbatohn erchetai Maria’, ‘early on the First Day of the week comes Mary’.
Or like in Mark 16:2, ‘kai lian prohï [and very early] tehi miai tohn sabbatohn [on the First Day of the week] erchontai [they come]’.
AND of course, WERE it the same, ALSO the events and persons, would have to be the SAME —but they ARE NOT!
Your mistake as everybody else’s who ‘translate’ like you proposed, is SIMPLE:
The Predicative Adjectival clausal Phrase ‘prohï-skotias-eti-ousehs’, “(the)-early-of-dark-still being” –
which CAN only function in WHOLE –
functions Adverbially and modifies the Verbs in John 20:1,2,
telling when Maria “sees” etcetera.
But this ONLY correct alternative, is
determinedly DESTROYED by being torn apart and the unwanted
essentials of literal syntactical wholeness and soundness,
simply being DISCARDED with.
Cabalo:
Folks, the MAIN point is that He is no longer in the tomb!!! BTW, if He arose on Sat a.m., it seems odd to me that He would wait until Sunday to make the fact known.
GE:
The “MAIN point” in this dicussion is NOT, “that He is no longer in the tomb!!!” Everybody here BELIEVED that since they are Christians and is NO ‘issue’ whatsoever for them.
Neither is it any ‘point’, here, “if He arose on Sat a.m.” or not; or, if “it seems odd” to you whatever.
You are off topic and off the track and off the posts like Morne was the past rugby season with his boot … and it cost us the Super Fifteen and The Championship … and him his popularity.
Vertaling van Johannes 20:1,2 … en sommer van Lukas 24:1,2 …
‘Riglyn Werkwyse 1’
KABA ‘Vertaling’ nie ontvang nie. Daarom ‘lewer die leser’ die uwe, Gerhard Ebersöhn a.d.h.v. die AB 1933 en NV 1986, ‘kommentaar op ‘gedeelte’
“terwyl dit nog donker was“ / “die Sondagmôre vroeg, toe dit nog donker was”
“terwyl dit nog donker was“ is korrek vir so ver dit die ‘Bron’ weergee. Maar dit gee nie die ‘Bron’, ‘_prooï_ skotias êti oesees’, volledig weer nie. Volledig, sou die ‘Bron’ korrek weergegee gewees het met “terwyl (dit) nog _vroeg_ donker is“ / “synde nog _vroeg_ donker”.
“die Sondagmôre vroeg, toe dit nog donker was” is gladnie “getrou aan die Bron” nie.
“terwyl dit nog _vroeg_ donker was“, is “_vroeg_ donker”, d.w.s., ‘skemer’ vóór heeltemal “nag” / “donker”, o.t.w., “Saterdagaand”
Die ‘gedeelte’, ‘prooï skotias êti oesees’, “terwyl (dit) nog vroeg donker is”, ontleed, is ’n Predikatiewe Byvoeglike Naamwoord,
IN GEHEEL Ondergeskikte Bywoordelike Frase van Tyd, van toepassing op die Werkwoorde van Hoofsin “kom”, “sien”, “hardloop”
‘skotias’ SNW Onderwerp van Ondergeskikte Bywoordelike Frase van Tyd
‘oesees’ Deelwoordelike Werkwoord van Ondergeskikte Bywoordelike Frase van Tyd
‘êti’, “nog” BW v.t.o. ‘oesees’, “synde”
‘prooï’ Byvoeglike Naamwoord vir SNW ‘skotias’, “(die) donker / nag”
Byvoeglike Naamwoord vir SNW
1) by wyse van Genitief Verbuiging, ‘skotias’, “_van_ donker / nag”
2) a.g.v. woordorde van / posisionele verhouding tussen BNW ‘prooï’ en SNW ‘skotias’
3) afleibaar uit kontekstuele logiese en kronologiese historiese opeenvolging van gebeurtenisse binne groter geheel van perikoop waarin Maria “op die Eerste Dag van die week … na die graf kom … synde nog vroeg-donker … die KLIP (vir die eerste keer) van die graf af weggerol, sien, en (terug) hardloop”, WAARNA sy Petrus en Johannes (én die ander vroue) gaan vertel, en Petrus en Johannes na die graf gaan kyk en weer “huistoe keer”. Dit alles verloop VOORDAT “die vroue met hulle speserye voorberei en gereed” om die liggaam te salf, volgens Lukas 24:1,2, “DIEP NAG (‘orthroe batheoos’) na die graf gaan en die klip waarneem (soos Maria voor die tyd aan hulle moes verduidelik het) en (vir die eerste keer) in die graf ingaan MAAR, die liggaam nie daar kry nie!”
Johannes 20:1 vertel van die ontdekking dat die graf oopgemaak was – deur Maria op haar eie;
Lukas 24:1,2 vertel van die ontdekking dat die graf ‘ontruim’ was – deur “Maria en ander saam met haar” Lukas 24:10.
Nóg Johannes 20:1,2, nóg Lukas 24:1,2 vertel van dieselfde persone, van dieselfde omstandigheid, van dieselfde tyd van die nag, van dieselfde gebeurtenis … van die Opstanding.
Vertaling MAG NIE die gedeeltes wil sinkroniseer en identifiseer NIE. Dit sal nie “getrou aan die Bron” wees nie, maar ONTROU.
“Darkness from the sixth hour”
John 20:1, standard translations questioned
John 20:1,
Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ἔρχεται πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον,
‘Tehi de mian tohn sabbatohn Maria heh Magdalehneh erchetai PROHÏ SKOTIAS ETI OUSEHS’,
Years ago I came across this text in Jeremiah, 15:9. I forgot about it, and just the other day while sorting out old papers, found it among them.
Quote
<epedu ho hehlios autehi eti mesousehs tehs hehmeras>QE
<Her sun is gone down while it is yet noon>
‘epedu’ – ‘had gone under’
‘ho hehlios autehi’ – ‘her sun’
‘eti’ – ‘still’ / ‘while’ / ‘yet’
‘mesousehs’ – ‘being [‘ousehs’] middle [‘mes(os)’]
‘tehs hehmeras’ – ‘of the day’ …
… “WHILE BEING noon” exactly like WHILE BEING noon / “middle of the day”, it was or became darkness from the sixth hour [noon] until the ninth hour [mid-afternoon] on the day that Jesus died.
Now, compare the meaning of “while being still”- ἔτι οὔσης ‘eti ousehs’, “noon / midday”, ‘mesos’< ‘meso(s o)usehs’ in Jeremiah, 15:9, to “while being still”- ἔτι οὔσης ‘eti ousehs’, “early darkness”- πρωῒ σκοτίας ‘prohï skotias’, in John 20:1, <Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ ἔρχεται πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον,>
“The First Day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene WHILE IT WAS / WHILE BEING EARLY DARKNESS STILL…”
…or is it, “cometh Mary Magdalene early [MORNING] when yet dark”?
“While being still …” WHAT? is the question here,
Either, “While being still EARLY DARKNESS” as such—that is—“While being still early darkness that is evening after sunset that is DUSK”?
Or, “While being still early darkness” not as such, but that is early morning that is DAWN?
“Darkness” is no Adverb, ‘dark’, ‘skoteinos’;
“Darkness”, ‘skotias’, is a Noun Genitive from ‘heh skotia’, ‘the evening’ – “darkness-OF-evening” which is ‘dusk after sunset’ 15 times in the NT—NOT ‘darkness-of-morning’ which is ‘dawn’, ‘diaugadzoh’.
“Early” is an Adverb, ‘prohï’; and it tells that it “was EARLY-of-evening still”. It was not ‘while the morning still dark starting to get light’. “Early” on its own is no Noun therefore; only in conjunction with “darkness”, “being early-darkness still” does “early” form an Adjectival Substantive, “[the] early-darkness”.
From these indisputable grammatical and syntactical facts it must therefore be deduced that “Mary Magdalene comes to the grave on the First Day BEING EARLY EVENING STILL” which would be ‘Saturday evening’ some time after sunset but before proper darkness of night.
This conclusion also is perfectly logical and consequential with all following events during that ‘Saturday night’ which in Bible terms was “the First Day of the week” its FIRST part, the “EVENING” of its still prospective night “WHILE BEING EARLY EVENING STILL”.
John 20v1 “early darkness”
by
Gerhard Ebersöhn
http://www.biblestudents.co.za
biblestudents@imaginet.co.za
2 / 7 November 2012
Tags: John, John 20, John 20:1, Mary Magdalene, Resurrection
thelordsday 