When, Where, And By Whom Was Each Book Of The New Testament Written?

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

The New Testament: Book by Book

Matthew.

Place Written: Antioch?

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Matthew, the tax collector disciple of Jesus. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he is the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures.

Mark.

Place Written: Rome?

Written in 70 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Mark, the personal secretary of the apostle Peter. The earliest record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, which portrays him as the messiah no one expected or understood, who was sent to die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead.

Luke.

Place Written: Antioch.

Written in 80-85 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Luke, a traveling companion of Paul. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that stresses he was the final prophet sent from God, destined to be rejected by his own people so salvation would go to gentiles.

John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written in 90-95 CE.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection focusing on his identity as a pre-existent divine being sent from above to bring eternal life to all who believe in him.

Acts.

Place Written: Rome.

Written in 85-90 CE.

Author: anonymous: same author as Gospel of Luke. An account of the miraculous spread of the Christian church after Jesus’ resurrection, through the preaching and miracles of the apostles, especially Paul, who took the message to gentiles.

Romans.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written 60-64 CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the Christian church of Rome to explain the essentials of Paul’s gospel message, that only the death of Jesus can bring salvation from sin, for both Jews and gentiles.

1 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written to the church in Corinth, in response to numerous problems experienced after Paul’s departure, including divisions in the church, sexual immorality, proper worship, and the reality of the future resurrection.

2 Corinthians.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: mid 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Follow-up letter to 1 Corinthians, which attacks “super-apostles” who claim precedence over Paul and explains that followers of Jesus in this age will experience hardship rather than glory.

Galatians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Written with urgency to gentile churches throughout region of Galatia to attack those arguing that gentile Christians must adopt the ways of Judaism, especially circumcision.

Ephesians.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter to church of Ephesus, giving a plea for the unity provided by Christ and the free salvation he provides, to a church experiencing splits between Jewish and gentile factions.

Philippians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Joyful letter thanking the church in Philippi for its moral and material support and urging church unity among members who should live for others in imitation of Christ.

Colossians.

Place Written: Rome/Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Letter urging Christians in Colossae not to worship spiritual powers other than Christ, who alone provides all that is needed for salvation and spiritual completion.

1 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: 49-50 CE.

Author: Paul. Paul’s earliest letter. A joyful recollection of his time with the church, stressing the imminent arrival of Christ from heaven and the salvation he will then bring, even to believers who had already died.

2 Thessalonians.

Place Written: Corinth.

Written: ca 70s CE?

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Written in imitation of 1 Thessalonians, an appeal to Christians not to think the return of Christ is immediate. The end is coming, but it will be preceded by clear signs.

1 Timothy.

Place Written: Macedonia.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. Allegedly written to Paul’s young follower Timothy, pastor of church in Ephesus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

2 Timothy.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 Timothy and Titus, also addressed to Timothy, giving Paul’s final thoughts and instructions as he is preparing soon to die.

Titus.

Place Written: Macedonia?

Written: end of first century.

Author: unknown, in the name of Paul. By the same author as 1 and 2 Timothy. Addressed to Paul’s follower Titus, pastor of church on Cyprus, giving instructions about how to organize and run his church.

Philemon.

Place Written: Rome.

Written: late 50s CE.

Author: Paul. Letter written to a wealthy Christian, Philemon, urging him to receive back and forgive his slave Onesimus, who had absconded with his property and fled to Paul for help.

Hebrews.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author: Anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Paul. A plea to readers not to leave the Christian faith for Judaism, since Christ is superior to everything in the Hebrew Bible, which foreshadowed the salvation he would bring.

James.

Place Written: unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown, in the name of Jesus’ brother James. A moral essay correcting Christians who believed that “faith alone” would save, by stressing the need to do “good works,” since faith without works “is dead.”

1 Peter.

Place Written: Babylon/Rome?

Written: end of first century.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter encouraging Christians experiencing suffering for their faith, emphasizing that Christ himself suffered, as would all those who strive to be his witnesses in the world.

2 Peter.

Place Written: Rome?

Written: ca. 120 CE.

Author unknown: in the name of Jesus’ disciple Peter. A letter explaining why the “imminent” return of Jesus had not yet happened, assuring its readers that a delay was necessary but all was going according to God’ plan.

1 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author: anonymous; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. An essay written to urge followers of Jesus to be fulling loving to one another and not to be led astray by a separatist faction that suggested Jesus was a phantasmal being and not fully human.

2 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Brief letter addressing a church leader’s community urging unity in love and the avoidance of false teaching.

3 John.

Place Written: Ephesus?

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; same author as 1 John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple John the Son of Zebedee. Very brief letter addressing similar issues of 2 John in light of a specific problem, the reception of a visiting church leader who was rejected by some in the congregation.

Jude.

Place Written: Unknown.

Written: end of first century.

Author anonymous; in the name of Jude, the brother of Jesus. Brief and vitriolic letter attacking false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian community, without indicating the nature of their teaching.

Revelation.

Place Written: Patmos Island.

Written 90-95 CE.

Author: an unknown John; traditionally ascribed to Jesus’ disciple, John the Son of Zebedee. A description of mysterious visions of the heavenly realm and the cataclysmic disasters to strike the earth before all God’s enemies are destroyed and a new utopian world arrives for the followers of Christ.

Source credit: Bart D. Ehrman (edited)

——-

Conclusion

Most of the New Testament Books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the Book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! Astoundingly, not a single New Testament Book was ever written in Palestine by a Jew! Not one! Not even the letters of James and Jude. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of these epistles could not have possibly been written by Jerusalem Jews! Besides, according to Bart Ehrman, “most of the apostles were illiterate and could not in fact write. They could not have left an authoritative writing if their soul depended on it.”

What is more, there are more Epistles addressed to Greek communities than any other: 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. And most of the New Testament letters are written in Greece. Nine in all! It’s also important to note that when the New Testament authors quote from the Old Testament, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the Hebrew scriptures per se. It’s true that Greek was the lingua franca. But the lingua franca was only used for commerce, not for writing sacred scripture! If the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, then we would expect most of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written in Greek. But most of them are in Hebrew, thus disproving the lingua franca hypothesis! Devout Jews preferred Hebrew. Besides, the New Testament was supposed to be a continuation of Jewish scripture! This indicates that the New Testament authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. This lends plausibility to the argument that the New Testament authors were not Hebrews, but Greeks! For example, it could be argued that the “New Perspective on Paul” needs to be revisited, given Paul’s polemic against the Judaizers, his extraordinary command of the Greek language, his extensive quotations from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Bible, as well as the puzzling discrepancies regarding his supposed Jewish identity (cf. Rom. 2.28-29; 1 Cor. 9.20)!

To sum up, most of the New Testament Books were composed in Greece. Most of the epistles were penned in Greece and addressed to Greek communities. The New Testament was written exclusively in Greek, outside of Palestine, by non-Jews who used the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible when quoting from the Old Testament. It seems, then, that the New Testament is an entirely sui generis Greek Book, which was largely composed in Greece by Greeks. Thus, the Greek origin of the New Testament speaks volumes about its Hellenistic *messianic* message, ideas, and content!

——-

Η Γέννηση, ο θάνατος, και η Ανάσταση του Χριστού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

Θάνατος καί Ανάσταση στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

Απόδειξη ότι Δανιήλ 12.1 Αναφέρεται σε Ανάσταση από Θάνατο με βάση την Μετάφραση και Εκτέλεση των Βιβλικών γλωσσών.

Το κείμενο του Δανιηλ 12.1 βρίσκεται στο πλαίσιο της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας των τελικών χρόνων! Επαναλαμβάνεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου 24.21 ως η εποχή της μεγάλης δοκιμασίας— καιρός θλίψεως (βλ. Αποκ. 7.14).

Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1,

καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου.

Το Δανιήλ (Θεοδοτίων) 12.1 μεταφράζει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad) ως αναστήσεται, η οποία προέρχεται από τη ρίζα λέξη ανίστημι και σημαίνει *ανάσταση.*

Μετάφραση,

Εκείνη την εποχή, ο Μιχαήλ, ο μεγάλος πρίγκιπας, ο προστάτης του λαού σας, θα αναστηθεί. Θα υπάρξει μια περίοδος αγωνίας, όπως δεν έχει συμβεί ποτέ από την πρώτη ύπαρξη των εθνών.

Ο ισχυρισμός μου ότι η ελληνική λέξη ἀναστήσεται αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση από τους νεκρούς έχει αμφισβητηθεί από τους κριτικούς. Η απάντησή μου έχει ως εξής.

Το πρώτο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο είναι το γεγονός ότι ο Μιχαήλ αναφέρεται για πρώτη φορά ως αυτός που «ἀναστήσεται» (Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.1) πριν από τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών (ἀναστήσονται, Δαν. Θεοδ. 12.2). Εδώ, υπάρχουν ισχυρές γλωσσικές ενδείξεις ότι η λέξη *ἀναστήσεται* αναφέρεται σε ανάσταση, διότι στον αμέσως επόμενο στίχο (12.2) η πληθυντική μορφή της ίδιας λέξης (δηλ. ἀναστήσονται) χρησιμοποιείται για να περιγράψει τη γενική ανάσταση των νεκρών! Με άλλα λόγια, εάν η ίδια ακριβώς λέξη (ἀναστήσονται) σημαίνει ανάσταση στο Δανιήλ 12.2, τότε πρέπει επίσης η λέξη ἀναστήσεται να σημαίνει απαραίτητα ανάσταση και στο Δανιήλ 12.1! Είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι το απόσπασμα του Δανιήλ 12.1 χρησιμοποιεί την εβραϊκή μεσσιανική ορολογία ενός χρισμένου πρίγκιπα (βλ. Δαν. 9.25 και ἄρχων ὑμῶν Δαν. 10.21 Ο', πρβλ. Ησα 9.6 Ο' μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελός) για να σηματοδοτήσει την ανάσταση του Μεσσία στο τέλος του κόσμου.

Το δεύτερο αποδεικτικό στοιχείο προέρχεται από την παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα που χρησιμοποιεί τη λέξη παρελεύσεται για να ορίσει την εβραϊκή λέξη עָמַד (amad), η οποία μεταφράζεται ως *θα πεθάνει.*

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα (Δανιήλ 12.1) είναι ως εξής,

καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὥραν ἐκείνην παρελεύσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα θλίψεως οἵα οὐκ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ οὗ ἐγενήθησαν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης.

Η παλαιά διαθήκη κατά τους εβδομήκοντα καταδεικνύει περαιτέρω ότι το Δανιήλ 12.1 κείμενο περιγράφει ένα θέμα θανάτου και ανάστασης επειδή η λέξη παρελεύσεται σημαίνει *θα πεθάνει,* υποδεικνύοντας έτσι τον θάνατο αυτού του εμφανιζόμενου πρίγκιπα στο τέλος του κόσμου! Επομένως, θέτει τη σκηνή για την ανάστασή του, καθώς η λεγόμενη μορφή «Θεοδοτίων Δανιήλ» συμπληρώνει τα κενά χρησιμοποιώντας τη λέξη αναστήσεται, που σημαίνει σωματική ανάσταση, για να καθιερώσει την περίοδο της εσχάτης ημέρας ως την ώρα κατά την οποία αυτός ο πρίγκιπας θα αναστηθεί από τους νεκρούς!

Συγκρίνετε το κείμενο του Ησαΐα στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα περί της Αναστάσεως του Κυρίου (δηλ. ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Ησαΐας 2.2):

εἰσενέγκαντες εἰς τὰ σπήλαια καὶ εἰς τὰς

σχισμὰς τῶν πετρῶν καὶ εἰς τὰς τρώγλας

τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ φόβου Κυρίου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν

ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν (Ησαΐας 2.19).

Η Γέννηση και ο θάνατος του Ιησού στο Τέλος του Κόσμου, στην Καινή Διαθήκη

Δύο Αρχές της Βιβλικής Ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να καθοδηγήσουν την έρευνά μας

Δύο αρχές της βιβλικής ερμηνευτικής πρέπει να θεωρηθούν θεμελιώδεις. Οι εξηγητές πρέπει να ερμηνεύουν το σιωπηρό από το ρητό και το αφηγηματικό από το διδακτικό. Στην πράξη, οι επιστολές της καινής διαθήκης και άλλες ρητές και διδακτικές μερίδες της Γραφής πρέπει να αποσαφηνίσουν την έμμεση σημασία των ευαγγελίων, η οποία δεν είναι βιογραφική αλλά *θεολογική* στη φύση, όπως οι Mπούλτμαν, Κροσάν, Λούντεμαν, Μάικ Λικόνα, Τζέιμς Κρόσλει, Ρόμπερτ Λ Τόμας, Φ Νταβίντ Φαρνελ, Ντένις Μακντόναλντ, Ρόμπερτ Γκάντρι, και Τόμας Λ Μπρόντι, μεταξύ άλλων, έχουν δείξει ξεκάθαρα!

Η ελληνική ερμηνεία, που μεταφράζεται κατευθείαν από το ίδιο το κείμενο, αμφισβητεί την κλασική χριστιανική ερμηνεία, η οποία βασίζεται κυρίως σε ιστορικές μυθοπλασίες. Η «ελληνική ερμηνεία» όχι μόνο συμπληρώνει τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες, αλλά ταιριάζει απόλυτα με τα θέματα του μεσσιανικού θανάτου και της ανάστασης στο τέλος του κόσμου που αναφέρονται στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη (βλ. Π.χ. Ησαΐας 2.19, Δαν. 12.1-2)! Εν ολίγοις, τόσο η εβραϊκή όσο και η χριστιανική Γραφή φαίνεται να λένε το ίδιο ακριβώς πράγμα, δηλαδή, ότι ο Μεσσίας θα εμφανιστεί για πρώτη φορά στο τέλος του κόσμου (βλ. Εβρ. 9.26β)!

Ο μελλοντικός Χριστός

Ελληνική Εξήγηση

Σύμφωνα με τα ρητά και διδακτικά τμήματα της Γραφής της Καινής Διαθήκης, ο Χριστός *γεννιέται* όταν ο χρόνος θα φτάσει στην πληρότητα ή την ολοκλήρωσή του, που εκφράζεται στην αποκαλυπτική φράση τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου:

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου,

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ,

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός (Γαλ. 4.4).

Σύμφωνα με την αναλογία γραφής, η χρονολογική περίοδος γνωστή ως *η πληρότητα του χρόνου* (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου) στην Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ορίζεται στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή 1.9-10 ως η ολοκλήρωση των εποχών (πρβλ. Εβρ. 9.26β):

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος

αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν

προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ

πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ

Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς

γῆς· ἐν αὐτῷ.

Η πληρότητα του χρόνου (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) στην προς Εφεσίους Επιστολή αναφέρεται στην ολοκλήρωση (ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι) όλων των πραγμάτων εις τον Χριστόν, των πραγμάτων στον ουρανό, και των πραγμάτων στη γη! Έτσι, σύμφωνα με την Επιστολή προς Γαλάτες 4.4 ο Χριστός γεννιέται κατά την ολοκλήρωση των αιώνων (δηλ. στο τελευταίο χρονικό διάστημα, πρβλ. Λουκ. 17.30, Εβρ. 1.2, Αποκ. 12.5, 19.10δ, 22.7, 10, 18, 19)!

Η πρώτη εμφάνιση του Χριστού αποδίδεται «στο τελευταίο χρονικό σημείο» στην Α΄ Επιστολή Πέτρου 1,20 (Νέα Βίβλος της Ιερουσαλήμ),

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ καταβολῆς

κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν

χρόνων.

Περαιτέρω επιβεβαίωση κειμένου έρχεται μέσω της επιστολής προς Εβραίους 9.26β, το οποίο έχει ως εξής:

νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς

ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ

πεφανέρωται.

Μετάφραση,

Έχει εμφανιστεί μια φορά για πάντα στο τέλος του κόσμου για την εξάλειψη της αμαρτίας με τη θυσία του [δηλ. τον θάνατο του].

Η ιστορική-γραμματική μελέτη της φράσης επί συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων καταδεικνύει ότι αναφέρεται στο «τέλος της εποχής» (δηλ. στο τέλος του κόσμου, πρβλ. Ματθαίος 13.39-40, 49, 24.3, 28.20, Δανιήλ 12.4 Ο', δείτε επίσης Τζ.Γ.Χ. Λάμπ, «Ένα Πατερικό Ελληνικό Λεξικό» [Οξφόρδη: πανεπιστήμιο Οξφόρδης, 1961], σελ. 1340).

Συμπέρασμα

Η υποτιθέμενη ιστορικότητα του Ιησού πρέπει να επανεξεταστεί, δεδομένου ότι η μόνη παρουσία του πρόκειται να πραγματοποιηθεί στο τέλος του κόσμου! Κατά συνέπεια, αυτή η ερμηνεία υποστηρίζει ότι οι επιστολές είναι τα κύρια κλειδιά για το ξεκλείδωμα του μελλοντικού χρονοδιαγράμματος της μοναδικής επίσκεψης του Χριστού. Για να αποδείξουμε την εγκυρότητα αυτού του επιχειρήματος, πρέπει να επιστρέψουμε στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή της καινής διαθήκης προκειμένου να επικεντρωθούμε σε ζητήματα συγγραφικής πρόθεσης. Αν απορρίψουμε η αγνοήσουμε αυτή την υπόθεση ισοδυναμεί με ακαδημαϊκή ανεντιμότητα!

Textual Criticism: The Reliability of the New Testament

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

One has to be au courant with lower criticism to understand the significance and reliability of the New Testament. If we look at the number of extant NT manuscripts together with the relatively short period of time within which they were written (i.e, the time between the purported events and the written documents), no other book from Antiquity even comes close. First, we have over 5,800 manuscripts just in Greek (not counting those in other languages), more than any other book in history. Second, the texts were written within approximately two decades after the purported events. Other books have a much wider time-gap between the historical events and their initial documentations, as most were written hundreds of years later. Third, the New Testament has also been the most scrutinized book in all of literature. Its textual integrity has been relentlessly challenged down through the centuries. To date, no other book in history has been criticized and attacked as much as the New Testament. And yet its textual reliability has stood the test of time. Critical scholars still find it reliable! In fact, most of the variants are due to simple spelling errors, which do not significantly affect the meaning of the text. So, the textual reliability of the New Testament is well known among scholars. It’s the best attested book from the ancient world, as well as the bestseller of all time! And if you don’t think that it’s reliable, then you have no grounds to believe in Caesar, Homer, or Alexander the Great, whose biography, by the way, was written 400 years later! That’s how reliable the New Testament really is! In his blog, Bart Ehrman, the world-renowned textual scholar, writes:

“He [Bruce Metzger, Bart’s mentor] thought

that at the end of the day, we can be

reasonably confident of something like 99%

[reliability] of the text of the New

Testament. Textual scholars, in his

judgment, argue about that other 1%. As it

turns out, I don’t disagree with most of

that.”

Where Was Tarshish Located?

By Author Eli Kittim

In Second Chronicles 9.21, the Septuagint (LXX L.C.L. Brenton) translates the Hebrew “Tarshish” (תַּרְשִׁ֔ישׁ BHS) as Θαρσεῖς. The location of Θαρσεῖς——according to Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities (LCL 242: 62-63)——was in Tarsus Cilicia (the birth place of Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul the Apostle; Acts 22.3) in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), near the Mediterranean Sea. Greeks comprised a large portion of the population. It was a Greek colony. So, Tarshish does not appear to be in Spain as some commenters have suggested:

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-jewish_antiquities/1930/pb_LCL242.63.xml

In Jonah 1.3 (LXX), the term “Tarshish” is spelled Tharsis and translated in the Greek as Θαρσὶς. In the Bible, Tarshish is said to comprise a cluster of islands: “For the coastlands shall wait for me, the ships of Tarshish first” (Isa. 60.9 NRSV cf. Isa. 23.6). The great ships of Tarshish are also mentioned in Isa. 2.16. Then, as now, Greece controlled one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. Moreover, according to Gen. 10.4, Tarshish was one of “The descendants of Javan [Greece]: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim [Cyprus], and Rodanim [Rhodes]” (cf. 1 Chr 1.7)!

Conclusion

Thus, both the internal and external evidence strongly suggest that Tarshish was located on the southern part of Anatolia, and that the region had undergone Greek ‘colonization’ by Greek and Aegean settlers:

https://research-bulletin.chs.harvard.edu/2017/08/02/rough-cilicia/

After all, Ionia itself——located on the western coast of Anatolia in present-day Turkey——comprised the territories of the Ionian League of Greek settlements. As far back as 600–480 BCE, Greeks had settled on the shores and islands of the eastern Aegean Sea.

—————

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).

——-

Ο Χριστός είναι Έλληνας

Από τον συγγραφέα Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Στην Καινή Διαθήκη υπάρχουν διάφοροι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο Ιησούς απεικονίζεται ως Εθνικός (μη Εβραίος). Μία από αυτές τις απεικονίσεις βρίσκεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (4.15-16), το οποίο μας λέει ότι ο Ιησούς δεν προέρχεται από τη Βασιλεία του Ιούδα (από Εβραίους) αλλά από την περιοχή της Γαλιλαίας (από Εθνικούς, βλ. Λουκά 1.26). Εκτός αυτού, στο κείμενο του Ιωάννη 8.48 οι Εβραίοι ονομάζουν τον Ιησού κατηγορηματικά ως «Σαμαρείτη» (δηλ. εθνικό) προκειμένου να αποδείξουν ότι δεν είναι Εβραίος.

Η διαίρεση των ανθρώπων έναντι του Ιησού επειδή δεν προέρχεται από τη Βηθλεέμ των Εβραίων αλλά από τη Γαλιλαία των Εθνών τονίζεται στο Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη (7.41-43):

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον · Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός · οἱ δὲ

ἔλεγον· Μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὁ χριστὸς

ἔρχεται; οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ

σπέρματος Δαυὶδ, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ τῆς

κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός;

σχίσμα οὖν ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ⸃ δι’ αὐτόν.

Ο Ιησούς αψηφά τις εβραϊκές μεσσιανικές προσδοκίες:

ἐραύνησον καὶ ἴδε ὅτι ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας

προφήτης ⸃ οὐκ ἐγείρεται (Κατά Ιωάννην

Ευαγγέλιο 7.52, βλ. Ματθαίος 4.15-16).

——-

Εξάλλου, τα περισσότερα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης γράφτηκαν στην Ελλάδα: Ρωμαίοι, Α΄ και Β' Κορίνθιοι, Γαλάτες, Α΄ και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς, Α΄ Τιμόθεος, Τίτος, και το βιβλίο της Αποκάλυψης. Κανένα από τα βιβλία της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν γράφτηκε στην Παλαιστίνη. Και οι περισσότερες επιστολές απευθύνονται σε ελληνικές κοινότητες: Α΄ Κορινθίους, Β΄ Κορινθίους, Φιλιππησίους, Α΄ Θεσσαλονικείς και Β΄ Θεσσαλονικείς!

Είναι επίσης σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι όταν οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης παραθέτουν από την Παλαιά Διαθήκη, συχνά παραθέτουν από την ελληνική μετάφραση των εβδομήκοντα και όχι από τα αυθεντικά εβραϊκά γραπτά (ακαδημαϊκή συναίνεση). Αυτό μπορεί να υποδηλώνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ήταν εξοικειωμένοι με την εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αυτό δείχνει ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης μάλλον δεν ήταν Εβραίοι αλλά Έλληνες, δεδομένου ότι χειρίζονταν άριστα την ελληνική γλώσσα. Και οι μελετητές μας λένε ότι οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης έγραφαν από διαφορετικά μέρη του κόσμου και όχι από την Παλαιστίνη.

——-

Και γιατί οι συγγραφείς της Καινής Διαθήκης δεν ολοκλήρωσαν την αφήγηση του Θεού στα Εβραϊκά; Υπάρχει καλύτερος τρόπος να πείσει κανείς τους Εβραίους ότι ο Ιησούς είναι η μεσσιανική εκπλήρωση της Εβραϊκής Γραφής από το να το γράψει στην εβραϊκή γλώσσα; Αλλά δεν το έκαναν! Ο λόγος είναι ο Ιησούς. Προφανώς δεν είναι Εβραίος αλλά Έλληνας! Έτσι η αφήγηση πρέπει να γραφτεί στα ελληνικά για να αντικατοπτρίζει τον έλληνα πρωταγωνιστή. Γι 'αυτό ακριβώς η Καινή Διαθήκη γράφτηκε στα Ελληνικά, όχι στα Εβραϊκά. Επιπλέον, εάν ο Χριστός ήταν Εβραίος θα έλεγε ότι είμαι τό Άλεφ και τό Ταβ. Αντ 'αυτού, ο Χριστός χρησιμοποιεί ελληνικά γράμματα για να ορίσει το θεϊκό «Εγώ ειμί»:

Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ (Αποκάλυψη

1:8).

Άλλωστε είναι σημαντικό να τονίσουμε ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα του Θεού (Γιαχβέ, που προφέρεται ως Ιεχωβά ή Γιαχβά) είναι επίσης το εβραϊκό όνομα για την Ελλάδα (Γιαβαν, βλ. Ιώσηπος Αρχαιολογία Βιβλ. 1, κεφ. 6). Αυτή η προφορική συμφωνία δεν είναι συμπτωματική. Υπάρχουν περαιτέρω στοιχεία σχετικά με το ελληνικό όνομα του Θεού. Σε μερικά σπάνια χειρόγραφα των εβδομήκοντα το τετραγράμματον μεταφράζεται ως *Ιαω* (γνωστό ως ελληνικό τρίγραμμα). Δηλαδή το θεϊκό όνομα Γιαχβά μετατρέπεται στην Κοινή Ελληνική ως Ιαω (βλ. π.χ. Λευ. 4.27 το χειρόγραφο των εβδομήκοντα [LXX] 4Q120). Αυτό το θραύσμα προέρχεται από τα Χειρόγραφα της Νεκρής Θάλασσας, που βρέθηκαν στο Κουμράν, και χρονολογείται από τον 1ο π.Χ. αιώνα.

Αυτό που έχει πολύ ενδιαφέρον είναι το γεγονός ότι το όνομα Ιαω φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει τους Αρχαίους Έλληνες (γνωστούς ως ΙΑΩΝΕΣ), οι πρώτες λογοτεχνικές εικονογραφήσεις των οποίων βρίσκονται στα έπη του Ομήρου (Ἰάονες) και επίσης στα έργα του Ησιόδου (Ἰάων). Σχεδόν όλοι οι μελετητές της Βίβλου συμφωνούν ότι το εβραϊκό όνομα Γιαβάν αντιπροσωπεύει τους Ιάωνες, δηλαδή τους αρχαίους Έλληνες. Εξάλλου, ανεξάρτητες βεβαιώσεις προέρχονται από τα Πατερικά γραπτά για το Τετραγράμματο. Σύμφωνα με την Καθολική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια (1910) και Μπ. Ντ. Έρντμανς: Ο Διόδωρος ο Σικελός (1ος αιώνας π.Χ.) μεταφράζει το όνομα του Θεού ως Ἰαῶ. Ο Ειρηναίος (π. περ. 202) αναφέρει ότι οι Βαλεντινιανοί χρησιμοποιούν το θεϊκό όνομα Ἰαῶ. Ο Ωριγένης Αλεξανδρείας (π. περ. 254) γράφει Ἰαώ. Ο Θεοδώρητος του Κύρου (393 – περ. 458) γράφει επίσης Ἰαώ. Επομένως, το μυστικό όνομα του Θεού τόσο στην Μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα όσο και στην Εβραϊκή Βίβλο φαίνεται να αντιπροσωπεύει την Ελλάδα! Για αυτό και ο Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος δεν βρίσκεται τυχαία στην Ελλάδα. Είναι εκεί επειδή το κείμενο του έχει να κάνει με την αποκάλυψη του Ιησού και τον λόγο του Θεού:

Ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης . . . ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ

καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ (Αποκάλυψη 1.9).

——-