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]

[Replying to post 68 by rstrats]

I'm sorry I mis read (I thought you were saying there were 6 days in the week -- duh (me).

My bad, just ignore.

JW

[rstrats]

JehovahsWitness
re: "My bad, just ignore."

OK, no problem.

[liamconnor]

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?

I am not sure one needs to appeal to ancient sources; we all use this in common idiom. If I say I took a short vacation to Wisconsin for three days, would anyone consider me a liar if they found out I arrived late Friday night, and left early Sunday morning?

But if you demand sources:

In Esther 4:16 Esther orders a fast for three days (scientifically, 72 hours), after which she will address the king; but then (5:1) it is ON the third day (short of 72 hours) that she addresses the king. It seems clear she did not realize that literalists would one day be reading this story.

In Matthew 27:63 the Jewish priests approach Pilate saying, "Sir, we remember that when he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After (meta) three days I am to rise again'."

This suggests they thought Jesus would rise on the fourth day.

But they continue "give orders for the grave to be made secure until (heos) the third day".

This suggests that the term "after" could also mean "on".

So, we have the following sequence (also, it was not mentioned in the OP, but the Jewish day started at sunset, in line with Genesis).

So Jesus is crucified at, say 5 PM. The first day. Friday. He is buried.


The sunset sets shortly after, say, 7 PM (beginning day two). It is still friday for us, but technically it is Saturday for them.

Jesus remains in the grave.....

....7 AM sunrise (now it is still saturday for them, and Saturday for us).....

....7 PM sunset (Now it is Sunday for them, day 3 begins; though it is still Saturday for us)...

...6:30 AM (Sunday for both of us) a woman arrives at the tomb and discovers it empty.

three days to Einstein outside his laboratory; less than 72 hours when inside.

But again, I think the main point is that skeptics are getting over-technical, treating the gospels as no ancient document has ever been treated. Perhaps it is the fault of Christians though--you start throwing out doctrines like inerrancy and, well, lo and behold people are going to take you up on that.

[rstrats]

liamconnor,
re: "I am not sure one needs to appeal to ancient sources; we all use this in common idiom."

If we do I'm not aware of it. Can you give examples where someone says that they spent a daytime doing something when no part of a daytime could have taken place or where someone says that they spent a night time doing something when no part of a night time could have occurred?

BTW, your Esther account doesn't preclude at least a part of 3 daytimes and at least a part of 3 night times.

[rstrats]

With another new year, maybe someone new looking in will know 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 some who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language to try to explain the missing 3rd night, which would have to be the case with a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection. But in order to legitimately say that it was employing common, idiomatic/figure of speech/coloquial language, one would have to know of other instances where a daytime or a night time was predicted to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could occur. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise. So far no one has come forth with any.

[shnarkle]

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?

To answer your question if this phrase was ever used to absolutely not include at least parts of the day and at least parts of the nights. No, never. There are no examples of this anywhere in any literature. This would be to claim that the phrase literally means "one day". There simple is no references to this ever having this meaning.

Your question is asking if the idiom "three days and three nights" means something other than what people are claiming it literally means. The problem is that this isn't really an idiomatic expression in the first place. The idiom is "three days". Likewise, this expression was never used when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights There are no examples of it used this way.

It doesn't make sense to ask if the phrase "three days and three nights" could have included at least parts of the days and parts of the nights because it always includes the entire nights and days. It is only the idiomatic expression "three days" that doesn't require the entire 72 hour period of time. This is not to say that the idiom must refer to a period of less than three complete days.

In case I misread your post, there are examples of where the expression "three days and three nights" mean what they are literally referring to. The idiom is included to show that it isn't required for the idiom to necessarily be referring to a period of less than three complete days.

 When Esther says (Est. 4:16) "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days", she defines her meaning as being three complete days, because she adds (being a Jewess) "night or day".  And when it is written that the fast ended on "the third day" (5:1), "the third day" must have succeeded and included the third night. In like manner the sacred record states that the young man (in 1Sam.30:12)"had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights".  Hence, when the young man explains the reason, he says, "because three days agone I fell sick". He means therefore three complete days and nights, because, being an Egyptian (vv. 11, 13) he naturally reckoned his day as beginning at sunrise according to the Egyptian manner(see Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) ed., vol. xi. p.77). His "three days agone" refers to the beginning of his sickness and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated. Hence, when it says that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17) it means exactly what it says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Matt.12:40; 16:4.  Luke 11:30,

For further clarification, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact. Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset the day was reckoned from one sunset to another, the "twelve hours in the day" (John 1:9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset.  An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day of twenty-four hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis.  Hence the expression "a night and a day" in 2Cor. 11:25 denotes a complete day (Gr. nuchthemeron).

    

[JehovahsWitness]

The problem is that this isn't really an idiomatic expression in the first place.

It seems to me this is key to the point; if the expression "three days and nights" is unique to Jesus, then it counts whatever he says it counts. Even if it wasn't there is Nothing to prohibit him using the expression as he saw fit.

If Jesus is recorded as being resurrected on the Sunday morning (from Friday night) we can conclude that Friday > Sunday = "Three days and nights" according to HIS usage of the expression. Since he was not literally dead three full days and full nights (and since if he were he would not have been resurrected on the "third day" as is explicitly stated in scripture) then he must have been using HIS expression idiomatically. And as stated we can simply accept that the period equaled whatever he indicated it meant in hindsight.


2c

JW

[shnarkle]

The problem is that this isn't really an idiomatic expression in the first place.

It seems to me this is key to the point; if the expression "three days and nights" is unique to Jesus, then it counts whatever he says it counts. Even if it wasn't there is Nothing to prohibit him using the expression as he saw fit.

I'm not following this argument. Jesus quotes from the book of Jonah: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."

This passage along with the other passages all indicate that they meant three complete days. The usage of the expression is what determines its meaning. If Jesus didn't want what he said to be understood, he would have presented it in such a way as to evoke confusion. This clearly wasn't the case here as the scribes and Pharisees all told Pilate to put a guard on the tomb for "three days". While they may have been using the idiom, as I already pointe out; this in no way negates the fact that it can refer to three complete days.

If Jesus is recorded as being resurrected on the Sunday morning (from Friday night) we can conclude that Friday > Sunday = "Three days and nights" according to HIS usage of the expression.

The facts don't support this theory. He isn't using an idiom in the first place. This is what I pointed out already. The idiom is "three days", and whenever "nights" are included it is no longer an idiomatic expression.

Since he was not literally dead three full days and full nights

Something to document this would be nice.

and since if he were he would not have been resurrected on the "third day" as is explicitly stated in scripture) then he must have been using HIS expression idiomatically.

By definition, literal speech cannot be figurative speech; it isn't possible to use literal speech figuratively. This is why figurative speech is necessary in the first place.

And as stated we can simply accept that the period equaled whatever he indicated it meant in hindsight.

Don't you mean according to your interpretation of what he meant? Nobody is claiming that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about; at least not in this topic. You're claiming that he wasn't in the tomb for a complete three days because, among other things; he was using a literal expression instead of a figure of speech that he used in other places. This doesn't make a literal expression figurative speech. The fact that the figure "three days" doesn't necessarily have to be less than three complete days is proof enough.

The laws of language are violated by figurative speech, but literal speech cannot violate the laws themselves. Intentional violations or deviations from the laws of language are to emphasize or deepen the meaning of what is conveyed. They are understood to be figurative, e.g. "they painted the town red last night" To then conclude that "those guys had too much fun last night" means that they actually painted the town red last night doesn't follow. In literary circles this would be tantamount to an abomination. Jesus kept the law, even the laws of usage and language.





2c

JW[/quote]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 76 by shnarkle]

No my point was that if Jesus quoted the scripture and gave it an idiomatic meaning rather than a literal one, then by looking at how long he (Jesus) was dead we can see with hindsight how long the idiomatic expression referred to. It's like if I said "its as long as a piece of string" even if common usage of that expression was 6 inches, if you subsequently get to see the string in question, you can see how long *I* had in mind (even if my usage is contrary to contemporary usage). In short, Jesus obviously used the expression to refer to the length of time he would be dead. So the real question is "How long was he dead"? Then, "three days and nights" means that long (however long it was).



JW

[rstrats]

shnarkle,
re: "It doesn't make sense to ask if the phrase 'three days and three nights' could have included at least parts of the days and parts of the nights..."


Actually, I'm asking just the opposite.