Matthew 12:40 -- How to justify three days, three nights and tradition

[rstrats]

Gorgias,

re: “Umm… that’s the whole point of this thread, isn’t it?”

Indeed it is. I

re: “We’ve got a clear example in which ‘three days and three nights’ is not literal, and thus is an ‘actual example where [the use of idiom] absolutely has to be the case.’”

That example must have been edited out, because I haven’t seen it. I haven’t seen where any writing has been provided which shows a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights.

 

[pablope]

Gorgias,

re: " However, in the context that we’re talking about, we’ve got an idiomatic expression."

Then I’d think that there would be at least one actual example where that absolutely had to be the case.

As has been stated before in this thread…back then, they had no calendars or watches or clocks as we have them today…so it is quite different how they reckoned time.

 

[rstrats]

pablope,

re: “As has been stated before in this thread…back then, they had no calendars or watches or clocks as we have them today…so it is quite different how they reckoned time.”

I’m afraid I don’t see what that has to do with my statement that you quoted. I wonder if you might elaborate?

 

[pablope]

pablope,

re: “As has been stated before in this thread…back then, they had no calendars or watches or clocks as we have them today…so it is quite different how they reckoned time.”

I’m afraid I don’t see what that has to do with my statement that you quoted. I wonder if you might elaborate?

I meant…you have to go to other historical writings outside of the Bible for an example. The writings in the Bible are just one example of how they reckoned time then.

But here is one that should answer your question:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num56.htm

Now the Jewish reckoning of time must be considered. Before I appeal to scholarly sources which are overwhelming in support of my position, let’s see what can be established simply from statements we find in the Bible. First, there is the similar reference to days/nights in the account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus is said in Matthew’s Gospel to have fasted “forty days and forty nights” (Mt 4:2) while the parallel account in Luke’s Gospel Jesus fasted simply “forty DAYS” (Lk 4:2). Here we definitely see that “forty DAYS and forty NIGHTS” is equivalent to “forty DAYS” – just as “three days and three nights” (Mt 12:40) would be equivalent to “ON the third day” and “AFTER three days.”

Second, the phrase “EIGHT days later” (John 20:26 RSV, the Greek reads literally “AFTER eight days”) is definitely equated with “a week later” (compare the KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc). The NASB has both readings: in the text “AFTER eight days” and in the margin “or a week later.”

This one is very helpful in understanding the phrase “AFTER three days” (cf. Mk 8:31 and texts above). Jesus appears to his disciples in the Upper Room on the first day of the week, Sunday (Jn 20:19), and appears to them again on the following Sunday – which is referred to as “eight days later” or literally in the Greek: “AFTER eight days” (Jn 20:26).

Why? Because of the Jewish “inclusive reckoning” of time that PART of a day is considered a WHOLE day (see also documentation below).

The exact same point is made by Evangelical Protestants Kenneth Barker (Hebrew scholar and general editor of the NIV), and John Kohlenberger in the NIV Bible Commentary (Volume II: NT, Zondervan, 1994) that Jewish tradition says that an -onah- is a day and a night and that PART of an -onah- is considered as the WHOLE. They also state the “Wednesday crucifixion” idea is incompatible with “ON the third day” as I pointed out above (see Barker commentary on Mt 12:40, page 63).

This pretty well seals the case that “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40) should be understood “inclusively” as PARTS of three days as the Jews reckoned time, and we should not force the text into meaning “exactly 72 hours” or anything else that is unsupportable by any evidence. For more OT examples of “inclusive reckoning” :

Genesis 42:17-18 – Joseph puts his brothers in prison “FOR THREE DAYS” and speaks to them that they might be released “ON the third day” – an equivalent phrase (as above) meaning the days are counted inclusively and this is a period of time less than 72 hours.

1 Samuel 30:12-13 – an Egyptian who is brought to David is said to have not eaten “for three days and three nights” (vs. 12). Does this mean he stopped eating exactly 72 hours ago? No, since the man replies his master abandoned him, he became ill, and presumably had no food at that point, which he says happened “THREE DAYS AGO.” Again, counting the days inclusively we have a period of time less than 72 hours.

2 Chronicles 10:5,12 – King Rehoboam tells the Israelites: “Come back to me IN THREE DAYS” (vs. 5). An equivalent phrase according to verse 12 meaning “THREE DAYS LATER” – taking the three days inclusively.

Esther 4:16-5:1 – Esther tells the Jews in Susa to fast: “Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king…” (NIV) Did she mean they must fast for exactly 72 hours? Definitely not, since Esther puts on her royal robes and goes to the king’s palace to enjoy the feast set for them “ON the third day” (5:1ff). And so on…

 

[rstrats]

pablope,

re: “I meant…you have to go to other historical writings outside of the Bible for an example.”

Any early first century or before writing from outside of scripture will be fine.

re: “But here is one that should answer your question:”

I don’t see where any of your examples show a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights.

 

[Augustine3]

The Jewish daytime hours began with dawn and ended with sundown, which began the next day.

Source: agapebiblestudy.com/charts/jewishtimedivision.htm

 

[Gorgias]

The Jewish daytime hours began with dawn and ended with sundown, which began the next day.

This speaks to the hours of prayer. As you noted, in Jewish tradition, the day begins at sundown and ends 24 hours later at sundown.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

We’ve got a clear example in which ‘three days and three nights’ is not literal, and thus is an ‘actual example where [the use of idiom] absolutely has to be the case’.

That example must have been edited out, because I haven’t seen it.

Umm… let me try again.

Matthew 12:40 is the clear example in which ‘three days and three nights’ is not literal, and thus is an ‘actual example where the use of idiom is the case’. If Jesus meant “three days and three nights” literally, then He’s either lying or is mistaken. However, if this is idiomatic usage, then we’re good – he meant “three days” and that’s exactly what we see in the Triduum.

Fair enough?

I haven’t seen where any writing has been provided which shows a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn’t have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights.

Often, folks will cite the Jerusalem Talmud, in which the rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah writes, “a day and a night are an onah and the portion of an onah is as the whole of it” (an ‘onah’ is given as meaning “a portion of time”). So, any portion of a day may be referred to as a “day and night”.

Scripturally speaking, we can point out expressions of time that are used in ways that support the assertion we’re making here. In Genesis 7:12, the flood waters were coming down “forty days and forty nights,” but in Genesis 7:17, they are coming down “forty days.” (Either the inspired writer is so incompetent that he can’t keep his story straight from one sentence to the next… or the two phrases are equivalent.)

Hope this helps!

 

[Medawlinno]

To concur with edward george and Dave BJ - it’s an idionmatic expression however, too, the Jewish calendar was lunar and days were reconned as such. If today is Thursday, Friday starts at sunset/dusk on Thursday.

This is also the reaon for the “4:00pm” mass on Saturday (well, okay, the time was moved back a bit, but…) essentailly dusk on “Saturday” is actually Sunday if you use lunar reconning, so the mass is not on Satuirday, it’s on Sunday.

 

[lemnok]

This site might help, scroll down for the section that deals with the three days/three nights topic:

catholicbibleanswers.com/Contradictions-Bible.html

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias

re: "Matthew 12:40 is the clear example in which ‘three days and three nights’ is not literal, and thus is an ‘actual example where the use of idiom is the case’.’’

But It is not a clear example of where a specific number of nights was forecasted when in actuality less than that number of nights turned out to be involved. I imagine that you are basing your statement on your theory that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week. However, that idea is not a slam dunk. There is no scripture that unequivocally , positively, absolutely no doubt about it , requires the crucifixion to have occurred on the 6th day of the week. Thus there are numerous papers that have been written that put forth theories for 5th day and 4th day crucifixions.

re: “Often, folks will cite the Jerusalem Talmud, in which the rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah writes, ‘a day and a night are an onah and the portion of an onah is as the whole of it’ …”

As regards the Jewish practice of counting any part of a day as a whole day I would agree, but when “nights” is added to “days” to yield the phrase “3 days AND 3 nights” it normally refers to a consecutive 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 a 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.

BTW, that quote by Rabbi Azariah, is expanded 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”.

How long before? Said Rabbah (Avodah Zarah 75a): ‘An onah."’ An onah is, "Either a day or a night

Definition of Onah from “The Jerusalem Center for Advanced Torah Study”:

“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.”

re: “Scripturally speaking, we can point out expressions of time that are used in ways that support the assertion we’re making here. In Genesis 7:12, the flood waters were coming down ‘forty days and forty nights,’ but in Genesis 7:17, they are coming down ‘forty days’.”

Where does it say that at least parts of forty daytimes and at least parts of 40 night times were not involved?

 

[rstrats]

lemnok,

You say: “This counts as three full days and nights because according to Jewish custom any part of a day, however small, is included as part of a full day.” See post #30.