Matthew 12:40

[rstrats]

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion� with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?

[JehovahsWitness]

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion� with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?

“A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it� -- Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, (circa A.D. 100), Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249

"A short time in the morning of the seventh day counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though, of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day." -- The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol.4, pg.474,

“In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning.� idem

[rstrats]

JehovahsWitness,
re: "'A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it' -- Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, (circa A.D. 100), Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249"

As regards the Jewish practice of counting any part of a calendar day as a whole calendar day I would agree, but when "nights" is added to "days" to yield the phrase "X days AND X nights" it normally refers to a measurement of a time period where "day" refers to the light portion of a 24 hour period and "night" �refers to the dark portion of a 24 hour period. No one In the history of apologetics as far as I know has ever presented any historical documentation that the phrase X days AND X nights was a unique first century idiom of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek which could mean something different than what the phrase means in English.. If you have such documentation, I would very much like to see it. That is what the OP is requesting.

BTW, Azariah's interpretation of the meaning of the phrase, "A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole" doesn't seem to make any sense. On the one hand he is saying that a day AND a night define an Onah and then he turns right around and says that a day OR a night define an Onah. What makes more sense is that the rabbi is saying that a day is an Onah and a night is an Onah but that any part of a daytime can be counted as a whole daytime and any part of a night time can be counted as a whole night time. And that interpretation is supported by Rabbi Ismael, Rabbi Jochanan, and Rabbi Akiba, contemporaries of Azariah, who all agree that an onah was 12 hours long, either a day OR a night. "Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica". Also, a definition of Onah from "The Jerusalem Center for Advanced Torah Study" says: "The word onah literally means 'time period.' In the context of the laws of niddah, it usually refers to a day or a night. Each 24-hour day thus consists of two onot. The daytime onah begins at sunrise (henetz hachamah, commonly called netz) and ends at sunset (shekiat hachamah or shekiah). The night-time onah lasts from sunset until sunrise."

[rstrats]

With the new year upon us, maybe there will be someone new looking in who knows of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts. And again, remember that the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. As stated, there are other topics that do that. However, there are those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language. But in order to say that it was common, one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern had to have been used. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

[rstrats]

It appears that there are no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who frequent this forum, or at least any that think that Matthew 12:40 is using common idiomatic language

[marco]

It appears that there are no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who frequent this forum, or at least any that think that Matthew 12:40 is using common idiomatic language

The Romans, in counting from say 4th June to 7th June would say there were 4 days, not 3 as we do. I would imagine this practice was common in Roman occupied territory, else there would be confusion about dates.

[rstrats]

marco,
re: "I would imagine this practice was common in Roman occupied territory,"

But was it common practice to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could occur?

[marco]

marco,
re: "I would imagine this practice was common in Roman occupied territory,"

But was it common practice to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could occur?

I offered the secular explanation for counting what seems to be two days as three.
Matthew seems intent on comparing the 3-day escapade of Jonas with Christ's adventure. Apart from his dubious calendar, I wonder what he means by Christ being in the "heart of the earth." He wasn't buried.

From the accounts of what took place there is no reasonable way to accept that Christ was buried for three nights.

[JehovahsWitness]

It appears that there are no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who frequent this forum, or at least any that think that Matthew 12:40 is using common idiomatic language

I don't understand why you say this. I believe that Jesus was indeed speaking idiomatically but still hold that Jews held to a 7 day in the week.

[marco]

I don't understand why you say this. I believe that Jesus was indeed speaking idiomatically but still hold that Jews held to a 7 day in the week.

That would be a dangerous interpretation here - or dangerous for one's belief in a physical resurrection. Once we accept the simple words in Matthew are figurative then there is nothing extraordinary in which to believe. Figurative can be so close to fictional.

[rstrats]

jehovahsWitness,
re: "I don't understand why you say this."

Well, if there are, I have yet to see any of them give examples showing that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could take place.