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?

[shnarkle]

[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,

The problem with this theory is that he didn't give it an idiomatic meaning. He would have to actually use the idiom. We can see that he actually does use the idiom so we know that he knows how to use the idiom. If he then speaks literally, he is speaking literally. If Jesus were to say, "Beware of the doctrines of the Pharisees" He is speaking literally. We cannot assume that he is speaking figuratively because this is not allowable by the laws of language. There is no such animal. When Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" he is speaking figuratively. This figure is emphatically forcing Jesus' disciples (and the reader) to stop and look at what he's saying. He wants to make a point, but he doesn't want people to just gloss over what he's saying; it's important. When he says that Lazarus is sleeping he is using the figure Euphemism to lessen the blow of the reality of Lazarus' death. When they can't seem to understand he finally must speak literally and point out that he is actually dead. Figurative speech is not something that the reader gets to decide for themselves. Figures are always used intentionally by those who use them. The problem is that the hundreds of figures are no longer taught; just a handful are known by most people and the true intentions of the authors of scripture are in many cases lost to the reader. Add to this translators who see the figure and translate it as literal (which give the true interpretation), but loses the beauty of the figure.

then by looking at how long he (Jesus) was dead we can see with hindsight how long the idiomatic expression referred to.

If you look at the events of the last week of Jesus' life you should see that he went into the tomb on what we would refer to as Wednesday evening.

[shnarkle]

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.

No, you're not. You asked: "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?"

There exists nothing to support this question. There is no documentation that shows that the phrase absolutely didn't include at least parts of the days and at least parts of the night. It always included the entire days and the entire nights. The idiom also always included parts of the days and parts of the nights; just not necessarily the entire days and nights.

To say that it absolutely didn't include parts of the days and parts of the nights would be to say (given the example of "three days") literally, "one day"

[marco]

With another new year, maybe someone new looking in will know of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts

Perhaps the problem is in meticulously expecting the Jonah analogy to be a perfect match. When we use similes we are emphasising some detail. The important point is that Jonah was buried and came out; Jesus was buried, and came out. If the speaker declares that Jonah was in the whale for 3 days and nights, he is attracted into using the same stylistic device for Christ's incarceration. (Incidentally when one writes 3 days and nights rather than 3 days and 3 nights the meaning MAY change. )

It is amusing that we are preoccupied with the concept of night when the larger concept is resurrection from the dead. So the comparison with Jonah is imperfect temporally, but the point of the analogy, which is all important, survives intact.

[shnarkle]

With another new year, maybe someone new looking in will know of examples as requested in the OP and clarified in further posts

Perhaps the problem is in meticulously expecting the Jonah analogy to be a perfect match.

When comparing one story to another many things may be compared and matched together. With the story of Jonah it isn't just the burial or the time buried, but their message of repentance. When speaking literally all of the words actually do match up.

When we use similes we are emphasising some detail.

Or many details; probably not all details though. Here again, this isn't what we're dealing with at all. The phrase "three days and three nights" isn't figurative at all.

The important point is that Jonah was buried and came out; Jesus was buried, and came out

Not if Jesus is pointing to his actual death, especially when one considers that he is speaking to those who are going to be verifying if he's really dead. In other words, for Jesus to be in the grave less than three complete days would automatically raise the cry that he wasn't actually dead. This is what gave rise to the "swoon theory". There is nothing in the text to indicate the legalists of that time bringing this point up.
So we should be able to safely conclude that he was in the grave at least three complete days and nights if not indefinitely.

.

If the speaker declares that Jonah was in the whale for 3 days and nights, he is attracted into using the same stylistic device for Christ's incarceration. (Incidentally when one writes 3 days and nights rather than 3 days and 3 nights the meaning MAY change. )

I could be wrong here, but I think you mean "three days" which is the actual Hebraism. Jesus referred to his death on more than one occasion using the idiom "three days" which usually means less than three complete days; this is also true with months and years as well. However, it doesn't necessarily require that it be less than three complete days and nights.

It is amusing that we are preoccupied with the concept of night when the larger concept is resurrection from the dead.

The preoccupation stems from the debate over whether he actually was resurrected or just passed out for a while.

[marco]

Or many details; probably not all details though. Here again, this isn't what we're dealing with at all. The phrase "three days and three nights" isn't figurative at all.

I didn't suggest it was. The figure is a comparison of a person being buried and another being inside a whale. One emerges from death and the other emerges from the whale's mouth. Since he has stated that Jonah was inside for a length of time, he follows it up with Jesus being buried for a length of time. He probably does not intend the time period to be an exact part of the analogy. It isn't, as it happens, so either Matthew made a silly mistake or it wasn't his intention to be completely literal.

Not if Jesus is pointing to his actual death, especially when one considers that he is speaking to those who are going to be verifying if he's really dead. In other words, for Jesus to be in the grave less than three complete days would automatically raise the cry that he wasn't actually dead.

If someone announced he will rise up from the dead and does so, then it would be odd to look at one's watch. Jesus said he'd rise in three days and since that involved Friday, Saturday and Sunday there's nothing to argue about. Pilate would have called this three days as well.

The preoccupation stems from the debate over whether he actually was resurrected or just passed out for a while.

I don't see how this information is relevant to the discussion on "three days". If one is speaking in terms of the calendar then Jesus didn't spend three nights in the sepulchre. But if we're listening to Christ's prediction of rebuilding the temple in three days, then Matthew is being over enthusiastic in his comparison with Jonah but Christ may still have predicted correctly.

Incidentally " I will destroy the temple of God and in three days rebuild it" can be interpreted more loosely than resurrection, if one has a mind to. He will vanish for a short time, destroying the religious bond he has built, and then re-appear and renew it. As he apparently did be it from a swoon or from death.

[shnarkle]

Or many details; probably not all details though. Here again, this isn't what we're dealing with at all. The phrase "three days and three nights" isn't figurative at all.

I didn't suggest it was. The figure is a comparison of a person being buried and another being inside a whale.

I don't mean to be nit picky here, but this is an important point to this discussion. I just want to make sure that we're both on the same page here. When you say the 'figure is a comparison', this isn't altogether accurate because what you're referring to isn't actually a figure at all. Comparison is what is sometimes referred to as Simile, but it is quite literal in what it is comparing.

One emerges from death and the other emerges from the whale's mouth. Since he has stated that Jonah was inside for a length of time, he follows it up with Jesus being buried for a length of time. He probably does not intend the time period to be an exact part of the analogy. It isn't, as it happens, so either Matthew made a silly mistake or it wasn't his intention to be completely literal.

It isn't really one or the other. Jesus says, "Just as..." which is what signals that this expression is being used, but there isn't anything in what follows that gives us any insight into any particular feature that take precedence over anything else. I see no point in arbitrarily picking one instead of the other, especially when everything in this phrase points to the fact that he's actually dead, namely that the time is a proof as well as the fact that Jonah had to be dead as well. The simile could also be extended to include the fact that those who heard Jonah repented indicating his power to cause Nineveh to repent, and while Jesus didn't seem to get all that many to repent, his death seemed to get the ball rolling which fits perfectly with the comparison.

This is where Christians tend to go off the deep end, and for some unknown reason they can't seem to grasp that Jonah had to be dead in the belly of the whale. The description seems to indicate this as well, e.g. the description of the whales belly is of 'sheol' ,i.e. "the grave".

Not if Jesus is pointing to his actual death, especially when one considers that he is speaking to those who are going to be verifying if he's really dead. In other words, for Jesus to be in the grave less than three complete days would automatically raise the cry that he wasn't actually dead.

If someone announced he will rise up from the dead and does so, then it would be odd to look at one's watch. Jesus said he'd rise in three days and since that involved Friday, Saturday and Sunday there's nothing to argue about. Pilate would have called this three days as well.

I agree, it does seem odd, but this is part of that culture. A spirit was thought to cling to the body for up to three days before departing, and the body wasn't officially considered dead until three complete days had transpired. This is evident with the showbread and other examples of ritual purification, where the spread of disease was a factor. When dealing with disease and quarantine, they didn't play around with the length of time; it was the whole entire time. For Jesus to be put into the tomb on Friday evening, then rise on Sunday morning sometime before dawn, perhaps even six hours before dawn would be a clear reason to dismiss the resurrection in that he'd only been in the grave for less than a day and half, perhaps just over a day.

The preoccupation stems from the debate over whether he actually was resurrected or just passed out for a while.

I don't see how this information is relevant to the discussion on "three days".

I didn't bring it up, but it's relevant to Christ's claim that he was actually dead. He came under the law, and he was documenting that he was legally dead; strange as that may sound.

If one is speaking in terms of the calendar then Jesus didn't spend three nights in the sepulchre.

I'm not following your argument.

But if we're listening to Christ's prediction of rebuilding the temple in three days, then Matthew is being over enthusiastic in his comparison with Jonah but Christ may still have predicted correctly.

I'm not following that one either.

Incidentally " I will destroy the temple of God and in three days rebuild it" can be interpreted more loosely than resurrection, if one has a mind to. He will vanish for a short time, destroying the religious bond he has built, and then re-appear and renew it. As he apparently did be it from a swoon or from death.

That is a quite loose interpretation. It's also not what Jesus said, but what his accusers claimed he said. They claimed he said, "I will destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days", but what he actually said was, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." They were gong to have to do the destroying and he would do the rebuilding. The temple didn't just get a few bricks knocked loose. Christ's body was completely destroyed to the point that when we're asked to look into the tomb there isn't even a body left to look at. The Temple of stone was also raised to the ground.

[rstrats]

shnarkle,
re: "No, you're not."

Yes I am. You wrote: "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..."

I'm asking for examples to support the assertion that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when the event couldn't have included at least a part of the daytime or at least a part of the night time.

[JehovahsWitness]

If you look at the events of the last week of Jesus' life you should see that he went into the tomb on what we would refer to as Wednesday evening.

What events would they be?

[marco]

I don't mean to be nit picky here, but this is an important point to this discussion. I just want to make sure that we're both on the same page here. When you say the 'figure is a comparison', this isn't altogether accurate because what you're referring to isn't actually a figure at all. Comparison is what is sometimes referred to as Simile, but it is quite literal in what it is comparing.

I don't for a moment see your comments as Zoilean. There is a simile involved when one says: Christ's burial in a sepulchre was like Johah's incarceration in a whale. I think you would agree that one is just figuratively like the other, unless Joseph's donated tomb was a cetacean.

It isn't really one or the other. Jesus says, "Just as..." which is what signals that this expression is being used, but there isn't anything in what follows that gives us any insight into any particular feature that take precedence over anything else. I see no point in arbitrarily picking one instead of the other, especially when everything in this phrase points to the fact that he's actually dead, namely that the time is a proof as well as the fact that Jonah had to be dead as well.

That is well argued but indeed I would question the phrase "arbitrarily picking" which seems to wrap your point up before you've made it. There is nothing arbitrary about concentrating on the BURIAL aspect. The time factor is of interest simply because you're making much of it, and playing down the colossal resurrection aspect.

This is where Christians tend to go off the deep end, and for some unknown reason they can't seem to grasp that Jonah had to be dead in the belly of the whale. The description seems to indicate this as well, e.g. the description of the whale's belly is of 'sheol' ,i.e. "the grave".

Well I shall step in with the Christians who can't seem to grasp that Jonah was dead. If I suspend my disbelief at the start of the tale where Johan ignores the Lord and goes off to sea, then I can accept that since God sent a whale to the rescue, the captive human sat intact inside, afraid but unharmed. It would be silly of God to kill Jonah and then restore him to life. I am not saying divine folly is impossible, of course. I believe Jonah composed an ode while inside the whale.

For Jesus to be put into the tomb on Friday evening, then rise on Sunday morning sometime before dawn, perhaps even six hours before dawn would be a clear reason to dismiss the resurrection in that he'd only been in the grave for less than a day and half, perhaps just over a day.

If the writer had this objection in mind when he used the Jonah comparison, then I am full of admiration for his attention to detail. However, Holy Scripture has already pronounced Jesus dead and buried and I should imagine that is that, without further scruples about number of minutes one should wait. But since it is possible to quibble in this way one must return to Jesus himself and chide him for his too early exit. My own view is that the Jonah analogy just introduces an irrelevant secondary factor about the number of minutes Christ should have played dead. He said three days and he performed in three days. QED.

That is a quite loose interpretation. It's also not what Jesus said, but what his accusers claimed he said. They claimed he said, "I will destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days", but what he actually said was, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days."

I become a little suspicious when we have to examine the grammatical form of Christ's statements, as though they were recorded verbatim. It is hard enough to trust the nuances in translation without having to worry as to whether Jesus used a future tense or an imperative. Go well

[shnarkle]

I don't mean to be nit picky here, but this is an important point to this discussion. I just want to make sure that we're both on the same page here. When you say the 'figure is a comparison', this isn't altogether accurate because what you're referring to isn't actually a figure at all. Comparison is what is sometimes referred to as Simile, but it is quite literal in what it is comparing.

There is a simile involved when one says: Christ's burial in a sepulchre was like Johah's incarceration in a whale. I think you would agree that one is just figuratively like the other, unless Joseph's donated tomb was a cetacean.

Yes, and no. The whale wasn't a prison for Jonah; it was a literally a tomb just like the literal tomb Christ was buried in. In that they're both tombs.

It isn't really one or the other. Jesus says, "Just as..." which is what signals that this expression is being used, but there isn't anything in what follows that gives us any insight into any particular feature that take precedence over anything else. I see no point in arbitrarily picking one instead of the other, especially when everything in this phrase points to the fact that he's actually dead, namely that the time is a proof as well as the fact that Jonah had to be dead as well.

That is well argued but indeed I would question the phrase "arbitrarily picking" which seems to wrap your point up before you've made it. There is nothing arbitrary about concentrating on the BURIAL aspect. The time factor is of interest simply because you're making much of it, and playing down the colossal resurrection aspect.

I'm not playing down the resurrection aspect of it. In fact I pointed out that the similarities don't end with the tomb. Moreover, it can't be overstressed that there is no resurrection without a death in the first place. I'm only making much of the time factor because it is a pervasive issue not just in scripture, but in the middle east where corruption takes place rather swiftly. Despite this fact, the legalists would have an argument against a legitimate resurrection were Jesus to emerge within 72 hours of his burial.

This is where Christians tend to go off the deep end, and for some unknown reason they can't seem to grasp that Jonah had to be dead in the belly of the whale. The description seems to indicate this as well, e.g. the description of the whale's belly is of 'sheol' ,i.e. "the grave".

Well I shall step in with the Christians who can't seem to grasp that Jonah was dead. If I suspend my disbelief at the start of the tale where Johan ignores the Lord and goes off to sea, then I can accept that since God sent a whale to the rescue, the captive human sat intact inside, afraid but unharmed. It would be silly of God to kill Jonah and then restore him to life. I am not saying divine folly is impossible, of course. I believe Jonah composed an ode while inside the whale.

If you prefer a comparison that breaks down almost immediately, that's your choice. When one has not just multiple points of comparison; but all points of comparison the picture that emerges is inescapable. "Just as Jonah was alive in the whale for three days and three nights so to shall the Son of Man be in the center of the earth three days and three nights" doesn't go very far in supporting a resurrection.

For Jesus to be put into the tomb on Friday evening, then rise on Sunday morning sometime before dawn, perhaps even six hours before dawn would be a clear reason to dismiss the resurrection in that he'd only been in the grave for less than a day and half, perhaps just over a day.

If the writer had this objection in mind when he used the Jonah comparison, then I am full of admiration for his attention to detail. However, Holy Scripture has already pronounced Jesus dead and buried and I should imagine that is that, without further scruples about number of minutes one should wait. But since it is possible to quibble in this way one must return to Jesus himself and chide him for his too early exit.

What early exit? I'm not quibbling over the time, I'm pointing out that three days and three nights actually means three complete days and three complete nights

That is a quite loose interpretation. It's also not what Jesus said, but what his accusers claimed he said. They claimed he said, "I will destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days", but what he actually said was, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days."

I become a little suspicious when we have to examine the grammatical form of Christ's statements, as though they were recorded verbatim. It is hard enough to trust the nuances in translation without having to worry as to whether Jesus used a future tense or an imperative.

I'm simply pointing out who is doing the destroying and who is doing the rebuilding, or does it matter if Jesus simply committed suicide to perform some stunt? The picture that emerges is one of some nut who the elders were justifiably concerned about, but had nothing to do with his death, after all, if it's as you say; he said it himself that he would destroy the temple.

Attic Greek was somewhat nuanced. It had to be for Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle to engage in their sophistry. Koine Greek isn't really a heavily nuanced language, and the Jewish culture is know for being quite down to earth. It was the language of the common man at that time; the language of commerce. The worry arrives when one is done translating and it appears that Jesus is pleading for his own execution rather than indicating that he will rise from the dead despite their zeal to get rid of him.