The Qurans Alternative Christianity

The Quran’s Alternative Christianity

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Christianity’s Influence on the Quran

Although polytheism was the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, the Quran was diametrically opposed to this view and superseded it with its own brand of monotheism. The unknown author(s) of the Quran was obviously influenced by the Gnostic religion of the Mandaeans, who are sometimes called "Christians of Saint John," and by that of the Sabians or Manichaeans, who revered certain prophets, such as Zoroaster and Jesus. Despite these strong surrounding influences, however, the author(s) of the Quran seems to gravitate towards the Judeo-Christian Bible, paying special attention to the Jesus story and accepting even some of its more miraculous or fantastic elements, such as the virgin birth and the 2nd coming. That’s a clue that Christianity made a greater impact on the author(s) of the Quran than, say, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, or Mazdakism! If, on the other hand, the author(s) of the Quran had used Judaism as a prototype of his new religion, then, in principle, he would never have accepted the Christian claims. Besides, Islam doesn’t show strict adherence to circumcision or the Law. And even though Moses and Abraham are mentioned more times than Jesus in the Quran, it’s rather obvious that Christianity had made a deeper impact on the author(s) than any other religion! And just as Christianity accepted the Hebrew Bible, so did the Quran.

——-

A Christian Revolt

Do you really know what the Quran is? Answer: the product of a late *Gnostic Christian revolt* against Byzantine Orthodoxy. No wonder its adherents hated Constantinople so vigorously that they finally sacked it in 1453 ce. What I am proposing is that the *Gnostic-Christian Sects* that were marginalized by Byzantine Orthodoxy from the fourth century onwards didn’t go away quietly but seemingly conspired against the Church during the early part of the dark ages! The result of those efforts eventuated in the Book we now call the Quran. The syncretistic-gnostic elements present in the Quran suggest that it was in fact an amalgamation of heresies that characterized many different Gnostic Christian sects.

——-

The Apocryphal Reformation

After the 4th-Century Church solidified itself theologically and otherwise within the Roman Empire and began to accept certain “canonical” texts while excluding others, those communities that held to the *rejected* gnostic and so-called “apocryphal” works eventually united to form their own Bible. The result was the Quran, which was mostly based on a variety of Jewish and Christian apocryphal and Gnostic texts!

Over time, Islam gradually lost it’s connection to Christianity (much like Christianity did when it broke away from Judaism) and became an independent religion in its own right. It may have been more Christ-centered at the beginning. But in order to distinguish itself from its rival Christian counterparts it would have had to significantly deemphasize its central Christian tenets. So, the first communities that gave rise to the Quran most probably comprised Gnostic Christians. Thus, the author of the Quran may have been seeking to take revenge on his Orthodox superiors, much like what a disgruntled Christian priest would do at a local church. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind and, with him, the Protestant Reformation!

——-

The Beginning of Islam as a Christian Minority Religion

No wonder the Quran reveres the Christian dogmas of the virgin birth and the second coming of Jesus, while putting less emphasis on the historical Jesus, his atonement, and his divinity! And the Islamic traditions begin to make more sense from this perspective, as, for example, when the Nestorian monk Bahira in Bosra foretold to the adolescent Muhammad his future prophetic career. And just as Orthodoxy condemned the Gnostic Christian texts as *heretical* and *uninspired*, Islam must have fired back at them alleging that the so-called “canonical Christian texts” themselves were *corrupt*. It seems, then, that Islam itself came out of these early Gnostic-Nestorian Christian roots! In other words, even though it now openly competes with Christianity for converts, originally, Islam must have been a Christian minority religion on the fringes of the Eastern Roman Empire that was well-aware of all the debates that were raging all around them.

——-

The New Testament Epistles Concur with the Apocryphal Texts that Undergird the Quran

As an offshoot of Christian Gnosticism, with an emphasis on personal existential experience rather than reason or doctrine, the Quran was, perhaps, closer to the truth than the pontifical, dogmatic Christianity of the Roman Empire. Gnosis, after all, was all about knowing rather than believing. And just because the Gnostic Christian texts were rejected by the church does not necessarily mean that they were wholly uninspired. For example, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, as attested in the Quran (Sura 4:157-158), doubt the established Crucifixion story and, by implication, perhaps even Jesus’ historicity. In other words, the Quran picked up Docetic thoughts and Gnostic ideas and asserted that all the acts and sufferings of Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion, were mere appearances. This is a noteworthy observation because, unlike the theological gospels, the New Testament epistles also suggest that Christ did not die in antiquity. Rather, they claim that he will be revealed “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB) and will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b). This idea of an earthly, eschatological messiah is also echoed in the pseudepigraphical Jewish-Christian texts, The Ascension of Isaiah and the Testament of Solomon. But it had been subsequently suppressed by Orthodox Christianity, which confused theology with history, and turned prophecy into biography. So, in this sense, Islam was correct in maintaining that the New Testament had been corrupted: not the text itself, but rather it’s interpretation.

However, as time passed, and as Islam separated itself more and more from Christianity, it, too, began to lose touch with the central tenet of Christ’s divinity, while its adherents took too many liberties with the original doctrines and became less and less “Christian”! To the extent that Islam gravitated away from Christ as the focal point of its doctrines, it, too, became corrupt, so much so that the deity of Christ was completely ignored or denied. Eventually, the religion’s deity became more identified with the monotheistic God of the Jews than with that of the Christians. That was the beginning of something new: the birth of a new religion!

——-

Family Feud Among the Abrahamic Religions

To sum up, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all part of the family of Abraham. Hence why they are called Abrahamic religions. Christianity, which grew out of Judaism, in turn, gave birth to Islam! But in the end, it’s like a dysfunctional family where the grandfather, father, and son can’t get along with each other.

——-

How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

The epistemology of existentialism and phenomenology presents “experience” as a potential source of knowledge. Since testimony is considered to be a possible source of knowledge that could justify a belief, the multitudinous number of born-again testimonies down through the ages would present a case for the legitimacy of the existential experience! According to phenomenology, this knowledge may actually surpass that of science given its capacity to grasp the essence of being!

A Critique of the Three Comings of Christ

By Eli Kittim

Mainstream Christianity holds to the three comings of Christ. This modern eschatological position is so bizarre that it has actually devised not one, not two, but three comings of Christ. Some offshoots of this doctrine have additional comings. Here’s a brief summary of this view:

1. First Coming = Christ’s Incarnation, believed to have been witnessed in the first century c.e. (cf. Lk 2.11).

2. Second Coming = Christ will *invisibly* return for the rapture of the faithful (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17).

3. Third Coming = Christ will return once again and will be followed by a great multitude of saints (cf. 1 Thess. 3.13).

By contrast, I propose that there’s only *one* coming mentioned in the New Testament (NT), which complements the *one* coming mentioned in the Old Testament (OT).

The Gospel Genre

This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion, which sets the tone for the rest of the Christian Canon. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological or apocalyptic documents that show a heavy literary dependence on the OT. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological in nature. In comparison with the expository writing of the NT epistolary literature, which is explicit and didactic, the literary style of the canonical gospels can only be described as a theological genre of historical fiction!

The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance with unsurpassed lucidity:

“He was marked out before the world was

made, and was revealed at the final point of

time.”

The 70-Weeks Prophecy of Daniel

Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. It specifically alludes to the reestablishment of the State of Israel, a prophecy that was fulfilled in 1948 (cf. Ezek. 38.8)! A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500s b.c.e. However, this prophecy refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect “seal both vision and prophet” (Dan. 9.24). John MacArthur, in describing Dan.9.24, was once quoted as saying: “It’s got to be a final thing cause everything is a final… . Boy, that’s final stuff, isn’t it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, that’s the way it is!” If it is “final stuff,” then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! This prophecy also refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is used elsewhere in the Book of Daniel to refer to the time of the end (see Dan. 12.1). Note also that Daniel outlines the timeline of the Messiah’s *death* as occurring *AFTER* the prophesied rebirth of Israel (9.25-26) at the end of days!

The traditional Christian interpretation is further compounded by breaking up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation (GT). In other words, exegetes assume that there is a two thousand-year gap between the so-called “sixty nine” weeks and the seventieth week. However, there is no Biblical evidence of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events that combines both *princes* within the same context of the eschatological timetable (cf. Dan. 9.24-27), thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted. That’s why Isa. 2.19 puts the resurrection of Christ in the last days. He says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth” (cf. Rev. 6.15-17). First Cor. 15.22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by British New Testament scholar James Dunn).

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2

The author of 2 Thess. 2 warns against deception by stating unequivocally that the coming of Christ for the rapture cannot occur “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed” (2.1-3). There’s a further condition that has to be met before the rapture can take place, and before the “lawless one” (i.e. the Antichrist) can be revealed, namely, someone needs to be removed from the earth. A common misinterpretation is that this must either be a reference to the *Holy Spirit* or to the *church*, which will be taken out of the way before the Antichrist can be revealed. But if it is the Holy Spirit or the church it would directly contradict the Book of Revelation (7.13-14), which foresees a great spiritual revival during the time of the GT. For instance, John the Revelator sees “a great multitude that” came “out of the great ordeal [GT]” (Rev. 7.9, 14). This multitude represents the “church” of Christ, which is obviously present, not absent, during the GT. And without the Holy Spirit no one can be saved (Rom. 8.9b). Therefore, the so-called “restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 can neither be the Holy Spirit nor the church. This mysterious figure can only be explained by my unique eschatological view. Since I hold that the first horseman of the Apocalypse is Christ (the white horseman), it is he and he alone who is the restrainer, and after he is *slain* the Antichrist will be revealed.

Millennialism

Christian eschatology holds that the so-called “second coming” of Jesus will transpire either before the Millennium (i.e. premillennialism) or after the Millennium (i.e postmillennialism). First, a literal millennial kingdom would contradict the Bible because it would imply more than 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, 2 resurrections, 2 Great Endings, and so on, as opposed to one of each, which is what the Bible teaches. Second, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Third, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. Fourth, the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Good and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2). By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. It’s a category, not an event. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Fifth, the only physical resurrection mentioned in the Bible is the one that is called the 1st resurrection, presumably because it comes prior to the above-mentioned spiritual one. And this resurrection is said to occur when the thousand years are finished (Rev. 20.5). And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! Therefore, Amillennialism (i.e. the view that there will be no literal millennial reign of the righteous on earth) is not obliged to subscribe to the *three-comings-of-Christ* model!

Does Christ Return Multiple Times?

The belief in the *three comings* of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev. 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as three separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4).

Conclusion

Most people expect Christ to come from the sky. The truth is, he will come from the earth (cf. Acts 1.11). The sequence of eschatological events is as follows: Christ will appear “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB; Rev. 6.2). He will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV; Zeph. 1.7-8, 14-18) and resurrect (1 Cor. 15.22-24; Heb. 9.27-28) to rapture the faithful (1 Cor. 15.51-52; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 2 Thess. 2.1-3) and fight the nations (Isa. 31.5; 63.3; Zech. 14.3; Rev. 19.15)!

The difference between my view and the classical Christian perspective is that I’m convinced that there are not multiple comings and multiple returns of Christ, but *only one* decisive coming at the end of the world, which includes the resurrection, the rapture, and his appearance in the sky!

MANY PEOPLE OFTEN ASK, WHY IS JESUS THE ONLY WAY?

The answer is excerpted from Eli Kittim’s book, “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days,” pp. 246-247:

“Of all the famous teachers throughout history——Moses, Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad——no one has ever made any claims of being divine. All these men admit to being either founders of a particular way of ‘being in the world’ or messengers of God. Only Christ makes mention of his preexisting divinity, which echoes the theophany of God’s name in Exodus 3.14: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’ (John 8.58). Moreover, Jesus says, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me’ (John 14.6). In the Revelation to John, Christ emphatically says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, . . . who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’! (Rev. 1.8, cf. 1.1). In the final analysis, either Christ is who he claims to be, or he is the greatest hypocrite the world has ever known. You decide.”

——-

That is the question we all have to grapple with in this life, and, in all probability, the one which we will ultimately be judged by . . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods

By Author Eli Kittim

The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.

Here’s how it all began . . .

——-

Koine Greek Study Group *OP*

The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:

Have a question for all of you here. In

Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"

is pluralized, but it is translated singular in

every translation I can find. The one

exception I have found is with an old

interlinear I have around the house. Even

A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the

Greek text failed to say anything about it. I

am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.

Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!

The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.

Translation (NRSV):

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”

This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.

——-

Eric S Weiss (commenter)

ICC on Matthew:

καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.

Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:

Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.

Marcelo Souza:

Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.

[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]

Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32

[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]

32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.

(B’yom ha shabat)

——-

Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.

In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.

——-

I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:

“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”

Bingo! That’s the correct answer!

——-

Back to the Conversation . . .

This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza

After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .

Marcelo Souza:

The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].

Eli Kittim:

No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].

[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].

——-

The exchange continued as follows . . .

Marcelo Souza:

Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .

[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].

Eli Kittim:

In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.

Marcelo Souza:

We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.

So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].

He went on to say:

So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .

Eli Kittim (my response):

Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.

Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament

The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).

Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:

τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular

μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.

Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:

ἐν (on) Preposition

τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular

ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!

(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).

——-

Kittim: A Symbol of Greece

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Kittim: The Descendants of Greece

According to Gen. 10.4, one of “the descendants of Javan” (Greece) is Kittim. With regard to the actual location of Kittim (or its variants, Chittim [Hb. כִּתִּ֔ים] Kitti or Kittiyyi), most Bible translations identify this region with the island of Cyprus, which was inhabited by Greeks since ancient times (see Josephus “Antiquities” Bk 1, ch. 6). Therefore, it represents the Greeks (otherwise known as the “Ionians”). Given the close proximity of Cyprus to Palestine, this is not surprising since the Hebrew Bible itself mentions that the Philistines themselves originate from Caphtor (most probably Crete/Minoa; Deut. 2.23; Jer. 47.4), a nearby Greek island in the Aegean Sea. Cyprus was also the destination of Paul’s first missionary journey.

Kittim was originally a city-kingdom in present-day Larnaca, known as Kition (Lat. Citium), which was established in the 13th century b.c.e. by Greek (Achaean) settlers. On this basis, the entire island gradually became known as "Kittim" in Hebrew, and was subsequently mentioned by Josephus and the Hebrew Bible (See the Wikipedia article on Kittim: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kittim).

en.m.wikipedia.org

Kittim - Wikipedia

Kittim - Wikipedia

However, the term “Kittim,” in ancient Hebrew literature, began to be applied to all the Greek islands of the Aegean, and subsequently became an umbrella term for the Greek coastlands (see e.g. the expression "isles of Kittim" Jer. 2.10; Ezek. 27.6). So, the term “Kittim” eventually became synonymous with Greece (i.e. Javan cf. Gen. 10.4)!

——-

The Messiah and the Greek Coastland Prophecies

From a theological standpoint, this region is considered important to both Christian and Jewish Messianism. Isaiah 24.15 (NRSV), for example, equates the glory of Yahweh with “the coastlands of the sea”:

Therefore . . . give glory to the Lord; in the

coastlands of the sea glorify the name of

the Lord.

Notice that Isaiah doesn’t say, “glorify the LORD” in Jerusalem, but rather “glorify the name of the Lord” in what appears to be the Greek coastlands. And then, in chapter 51 verses 4-5, Yahweh declares that “the coastlands wait for me,” seemingly suggesting that these same coastlands are central to the coming of Messiah:

Listen to me, my people, and give heed to

me, my nation; for a teaching will go out

from me, and my justice for a light to the

peoples. I will bring near my deliverance

swiftly, my salvation has gone out and my

arms will rule the peoples; the coastlands

wait for me, and for my arm they hope.

Once again, it isn’t Jerusalem but rather the Greek “coastlands” that seem to be associated with the coming of Messiah, symbolized by the arm of Yahweh that “will rule the peoples” (cf. the “son . . . who is to rule all the nations” Rev. 12.5)! This is a recurring motif. Incidentally, according to religious studies professor Ronald Farmer, “the Hebrew people never became a seafaring people. They were a land-based culture.”

An excerpt from ch. 7 of my Book, “The Little Book of Revelation,” from the section entitled, “Messianic Signs of a Seafaring People from the Greek Coastlands,” will explain how this theme is symbolized in the New Testament:

Time and time again, we encounter

passages which foretell of a coming

Messiah whose “glory” and “praise” is

initially declared “in the coastlands.” These

excerpts reveal why Christ’s disciples are

portrayed in the NT gospels as being

predominantly men of the sea (cf. Ezek.

47.9-10). It seems that the gospel narratives

are seeking to establish a connection

between Jesus and “the Greek coastland

prophecies,” which would explain why most

of his disciples turn out to be fishermen! At

least that is the foregoing conclusion of the

text. As an illustration, notice how Isaiah’s

following oracle announces God’s

incarnation while confirming the latter’s ties

to a certain cluster of islands: ‘Listen to me,

O islands, and pay attention, you peoples

[Gentiles] from afar [not from Israel]. The

LORD called Me [the Messiah] from the

womb; from the body of my mother He

named Me. . . . In the shadow of His hand

He has concealed Me, . . . He has hidden

Me.’

If we look closely at the context of Isaiah 49, it becomes rather obvious that the passage is referring to a messianic figure. For example, the phrase “He made my mouth like a sharp sword” is reminiscent of Rev. 19.15: “out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.” God says that he sends his servant “as a light to the nations” (v. 6). This reminds us of Jesus who says, “I am the light of the world” in Jn 8.12 (cf. Acts 13.47). He is also given “as a covenant to the people” (v. 8 cf. Mt. 26.28), and so on. Astoundingly, this entire messianic passage is mysteriously addressed to the Greek coastlands.

Most Biblical scholars associate “the coastlands of the sea” (Esth. 10.1; Isa. 11.11, 24.15; Jer. 25.22) with the Greek islands. For example, “the coastland of Capthor” (Jer. 47.4) is commonly associated with the island of Crete. In like manner, the Greek island of Rhodes (known as “Dodanim” [Gen. 10.4], a variant of “Rodanim” [1 Chron. 1.7], a reference to the largest of the Dodecanese islands) seems to be implicated in the text as being one among the “many coastlands” (Ezek. 27.15) that enjoyed a wide range of commercial trade. And it is virtually certain that the term Kittim represents Cyprus, which perhaps got its name from an abundance of cypress trees. After all, was it not Isaiah who once said, “The cypress [Cyprus] tree . . . shall be to the LORD for a name, [and] for an everlasting sign”? (55.13 NKJ). In fact, the sign of Kittim points to the origin of redemption, when God instructed Noah to build an ark made of cypress wood, or wood from Kittim (Gen. 6.14 cf. Ezek. 27.6):

Make for yourself an ark

of cypress wood. Make

rooms in the ark, and

cover it with pitch inside

and out.

——-

The King of Kittim in the War Scroll

The Old Testament references to Kittim are as important to Christian eschatology as they are to Jewish eschatology. For example, the “ships of Kittim,” in Num. 24.24 and especially in Dan. 11.30, seem to have eschatological value given that Bible prophecy scholars have linked them to forces that oppose the Antichrist, probably during the Gog and Magog War of the end-times. Similarly, the Kittim reference in Isa. 23:1 appears to have eschatological import as the verse contextually suggests a precursor to the fall of Babylon in Rev. 18.

But the famous “War Scroll” (aka 1QM), found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, contains prophecies of the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Two opponents will square off at the end of time: Belial (whose forces face “eternal annihilation” (1:5 cf. Column 13, Line 4) versus the king of the Kittim (cf. 2 Cor. 6.15-16). The undermentioned quote distinguishes the identifiable hallmark of the Kittim within the War Scroll, namely, that they are those who oppose the so-called “rule of darkness.” This fact can be evidenced by the following lines included in the 1QM manuscript (Column 15, Lines 2-3):

All those pr[epared] for battle shall set

out and camp opposite the king of the

Kittim and all the forces of Belial that are

assembled with him for a day [of

vengeance] [sic].

Notice that both Belial and those who “camp opposite the king of the Kittim” represent the Kittim’s conspicuous adversaries. Therefore, this brief study demonstrates the chief protagonists in the war of Armageddon: Belial, defying his archaic archrival, the king of the Kittim.

——-

Conclusion

Given that the Greek coastland prophecies make reference to the isles of the Kittim (Num. 24.24), and that the Kittim (the people of Cyprus) are the sons of Greece (Gen. 10.4), there is considerable evidence to substantiate the claim that the king of the Kittim signifies the incarnation of an end-time King-Messiah who will step onto the world stage as the progeny of Greece! In fact, it was from the Greek Coastlands that John the Revelator first proclaimed the coming of Christ in Rev. 1.9:

I, John, your brother . . . was on the island

called Patmos because of the word of God

and the testimony of Jesus.

(see my article “Jesus is a Gentile”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/106110545257/jesus-is-a-gentile-the-evidence-from-the-gospels).

——-