Three Days and Three Nights

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion” with 6th day crucifixion proponents, 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 a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

I probably should have addressed this thread to those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.

The use of such "inclusive" chronological counting was common through the ancient Mediterranean. Its instance in the Gospel is by no means extraordinary or remarkable.

(By "6th day of the week", I presume you mean Friday?)

nathanielcampbell,

re: "The use of such 'inclusive' chronological counting was common through the ancient Mediterranean. Its instance in the Gospel is by no means extraordinary or remarkable."

Then there should be at least one actual example of the use of such a phrase to support your assertion.

re: "(By '6th day of the week', I presume you mean Friday?)"

You presume correctly.

>4 rstrats:: Open any piece of writing from the Roman era that includes dates, and you will find it universally observed. Herewith is a listing of the Roman designations for the first 15 days of March, so you can get a feel for how this works:
Mar. 1 = Kalends
Mar. 2 = 6 before Nones
Mar. 3 = 5 before Nones
Mar. 4 = 4 before Nones
Mar. 5 = 3 before Nones
Mar. 6 = Day before Nones
Mar. 7 = Nones
Mar. 8 = 8 before Ides
Mar. 9 = 7 before Ides
Mar. 10 = 6 before Ides
Mar. 11 = 5 before Ides
Mar. 12 = 4 before Ides
Mar. 13 = 3 before Ides
Mar. 14 = Day before Ides
Mar. 15 = Ides.
etc.

This format is used consistently both in Roman historical writing and in all Roman governmental and religious records, and as you can see, it is counted inclusively; that is to say, Mar. 2 is six days before March 7 because you count, "2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7" (which is six total days), rather than "7-2 = 5".

If you'd like an actual piece of ancient literature that discusses this, I would highly recommend Ovid's Fasti, in which the great poet versified the Roman calendar. It was written in A.D. 8, and includes in Book II a description of the feast days for March, following the exact same pattern I described in post 5. Although Ovid does not discuss any feast for March 2 (VI Non.), he does have the following to say about March 3 (V Non.):

When the third night of the month has altered its rising, one of the two Fishes will have disappeared. For there are two: one of them is next neighbour to the South Winds, the other to the North Winds: each of them takes its name from the wind.
     --Fasti, III.399-402, in the Loeb translation of James George Frazer.

The entire 6-book poem follows this pattern, discussing each successive feast day in turn, each dated according to the inclusive system described in post 5 and standard throughout the Roman world.

nathanieicampbell,

re: "Mar. 2 is six days before March 7 because you count, '2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7' (which is six total days), rather than '7-2 = 5'."

Your example doesn't show a phrase stating a specific number of day times as well as a specific number of night times when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of day times and at least a part of each one of the specific number of night times. That is what I am looking for.

>7 rstrats:: I have to be honest: I don't understand what it is you are looking for -- I'm getting lost in your description of "couldn't have" and "specific numbers" and "parts of".

I get the feeling, however, that what you are really getting tripped on is the fact the Gospels sometimes are less than exactly literal in their description of some numerical items, because they are written within a thought-world that is symbolic, rather than journalistic. The author of Matthew specified the three days and three nights because their symbolic value was more important than the precise times A.M. and P.M. at which Christ died and rose again.

We do the faith and the Scripture a disservice when we force it to operate within our own perceptions of genre, time, and "literal" precision, rather than understanding how it in fact operates in registers different from our own.

The question assumes the modern notion of counting a day as starting at midnight. For Jews the day started at sundown.

Friday day--he dies. The First Day.
Friday night,/Saturday daytime; he is in the tomb; the second day.
Saturday evening; Start of the third day;
Sunday morning; He rises. The Third day.

nathanielcampbell,

re: "I have to be honest: I don't understand what it is you are looking for..."

I'm afraid I don't know how to word my OP any differently to make it more clear. Perhaps someone new looking in will understand it, and will know of some writing.

I appreciate your efforts, though.

Arctic-Stranger,

re: "The question assumes the modern notion of counting a day as starting at midnight."

How so?

I guess I say that because it is clearly the third day, and I am at a loss, like Nathaniel, what your issue really is.

Arctic-Stranger,

re: "I guess I say that because it is clearly the third day..."

But it is clearly not the third night.



re: "...and I am at a loss, like Nathaniel, what your issue really is."

For the purpose of this topic, the only issue is finding (if it exists) the writing that is asked for in the OP.

I presume the OP is getting at the literal meaning of "three days and three nights" in the context of some arcane argument about the chronology of the Easter events. The reference to "6th day crucifixion proponents" is slightly baffling if, like me, you are unaware of any substantial alternative tradition.

Many of the prophetic statements about the resurrection refer only to "the third day", which in ancient inclusive counting would indeed mean "Friday, Saturday, Sunday". The reference in Matthew is, as far as I can see, a piece of over-literal parallelism on the part of the author between Jonah and Jesus: the same kind of over-literal parallelism that misreads Zechariah's prophecy about "an ass, the foal of an ass" (Zech. 9) and has poor Jesus lurching into Jerusalem sitting on two donkeys of different sizes (Matt. 21)!

So no, I don't think anyone in the ancient world said "three days and three nights" in order to convey the literal sense "part of three days and two nights" which the traditional schedule implies. (Nor do I think that Matthew's wording can be taken as a sound argument for the Crucifixion having taken place on the Thursday in order for the "three nights" to be literally accurate.)

But the OP states that this in the context of a "'discussion' with 6th day crucifixion proponents," which is to say, I suppose, people who think the Crucifixion was on Friday.

Yet, three of the four gospels state explicitly that it was on Friday, by way of its relationship with the Sabbath:

Mark 15:42 - 16:1: "And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, ... And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him."

Luke 23:54-56: "It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.bThe women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid; then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment."

John 19:31: "Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."

To turn, then, to the specific verse under question (Matthew 12:40): as I said in post 8 above, the context is clearly constructed upon the symbolic correspondence between Jonah's time in the whale and Christ's time in the tomb, and that symbolic correspondence takes precedence here over a strictly journalistic notation of the precise number of hours Christ's body lay dead in the tomb.

Edited to add: I see that Myopic and I composed similar posts at the exact time -- and I second his contributions.

Ditto.

>14 MyopicBookworm:, 15
These scriptures were not written by historians, after all.

Os.

> 15
Those who believe that "and three nights" means that it was whole days also believe that σάββατον can mean Passover. It sounds like most here haven't encountered this minority (to avoid terms that might inadvertently imply a value judgement) exegesis before. If interested, Google for "two sabbaths" or "special sabbaths" (a couple examples).

>18 MMcM: I had certainly never encountered the phrase "6th day crucifixion proponents" and was unaware that there was any controversy at all over the issue.

6th day crucifixion proponents

I just haven't been occupying my mind with the really important issues.

> 1. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?

Of course not. What you're asking for is logically and calendrically impossible.

Is this issue in any way important theologically, or important in growing in faith and understanding of God? I'm fine with debating interesting topics just for the sake of it, or just for the historical interest, but I've not been able to figure out if there's any real religious signficance.

Os.

>22 Osbaldistone:, I agree. Since the OP I've wondered if there is some theological question or controversy that perhaps I wasn't aware of.

The Bible appears clear on the sequence and timeliness. See Arctic-Stranger's post at 9.

Have I missed something?

Osbaldistone,

re: "Is this issue in any way important theologically...?"

I would say that whether or not the Messiah's internment in the "heart of earth" was for the length of time that He said it would be is indeed theologically important. However, for the purpose of this topic, I'm only concerned with what is requested in the OP.

re: "I'm fine with debating interesting topics just for the sake of it..."

As am I, but for the purpose of this topic I am not looking for a debate. I merely would like to see some writing as asked for in the OP. Perhaps someone new looking in will know of some.

Since it's been awhile, someone new looking in may know of some writing.

This person clarifies it a tad:

http://www.jesuschrist.com/jesus-christ-was-crucified-on-wednesday-not-friday

Tradition says "Friday", but we know what Christ thought of traditions...Mark 7 and Matthew 15.

Matthew 27:

(50) And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
(51) At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split. (52) and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
(53) They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.....

- Well surely the "many holy people" who "were raised to life" that afternoon recalled later - sitting around the fireplace surrounded by admirers - what exact day their miraculous return to life occurred. Wouldn't ya think?

So - is there any written record wherein any of them - even one of them - commented on this fact, as in "Well, you know boys, when I woke up back to life from the dead that Wednesday afternoon (or Thursday, or Friday) when Jesus died, I surely was delighted but rather highly surprised to be alive again, ... etc."?

If not, then why the H. not?

^
Well, yes, message deleted would be the only reasonable answer to my simple question.

And.....jtf comes through again.

>29 JGL53: Actually my deleted post was a response to fuzzi's >26 fuzzi: but on reflection I decided it wasn't really worth adding to the conversation. I hadn't even read your >27 JGL53:, jgl.

> 30

Yes, you are above all, like god.

I must bow to your superior self-image.

>26 fuzzi:: And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. (...) And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

--Mark 15:42-16:1

Unless your author has magically redefined the Sabbath as Thursday, "the day before the Sabbath" has to be Friday, not Wednesday.

Really, the contortions that some people go through to misinterpret Scripture...

> 32

Matthew 12:40 - "for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Friday (part)
Friday night
Saturday
Saturday night
Sunday (part)

How does one day, minor parts of two days, and two nights all add up to three days and three nights?

Christian arithmetic? How does that differ, exactly, from actual arithmetic? The same way a six thousand year old earth differs from science?

lol.

Nathaniel, you must not have read the information found at that link. It explains the sabbath issue.

>34 fuzzi:: Generations of Christians from the earliest recorded history of the Church down to today have nigh on universally understood the crucifixion to have taken place on a Friday.

Some few folks lately with access to the Internet put it about that it must have taken place on a Wednesday.

Why should I believe them rather than the vast weight of all those holy servants of God who have gone before me? What makes your guy's analysis so much more spectacularly trustworthy than that of all of the many saints who are now at rest in the sleep of peace?

And why would anyone discount what Jesus said ("three days and nights") to believe people who were fallible, or perhaps had an agenda?

Since you apparently still have not read that article, let me post the sabbath part here:

Confusion about the day of the week is easily explained. Mark 15:42 says it was “preparation day, the day before the Sabbath”. Folks assume he is referring to the Saturday Sabbath. Not so.
There were 3 Sabbaths in a row that week, two “high” Sabbaths and one regular weekly Sabbath (Saturday).
Passover is a “High Sabbath” (14 Nissan)
1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is a “High Sabbath” (15 Nissan)
Saturday’s are Sabbaths. (16 Nissan that week.)

So, you can choose to believe tradition, or the Bible.

And those who have read/studied God's word should know what God says about His word vs. men's traditions.

Continue to celebrate Good Friday, if you want, it doesn't matter to me.

>36 fuzzi:: The Bible doesn't explain which high sabbath was which in Nissan when Christ was crucified -- that's what we call tradition.

^

Well, after you two settle this argument about which day of the week it all went down, then you can begin new and exciting arguments about the color or Jesus's robe (scarlet - Mt. 27:28 or purple - John 19:2) and what he was given to drink while on the cross (vinegar - Mt. 27:34 or wine with myrrh - Mk 15: 23).

Also, after settling those issues you two can then proceed to spiritually discern who was/were the first to enter Jesus's tomb after the stone was rolled away - one woman, two women, three women, or "women plus others" and also who it was they saw inside the tomb - one angel, a young man, two men, or two angels - also as related in the last chapters respectively of the four gospels.

And there appear to be several HUNDRED more apparent contradictions in the OT/NT you two might wish to settle for all time - you know, give the rest of us the straight dope - for once. (Just Google "biblical contradictions" and then knock yourselves out.)

I feel confident there is one TRUE answer to each of these "apparent" contradictions and I am sure one of you is the TRUE chosen spokesperson for god on all these issues. What I am having trouble with is discerning which ONE OF YOU is the TRUE anointed spokesperson of god to whom I and all others must listen and thus learn - and which one of you is a false prophet in the power of SA-TAN who will one day be consigned to joining his Evil Master in the fiery pits of hELL.

then you can begin new and exciting arguments about the color or Jesus's robe (scarlet - Mt. 27:28 or purple - John 19:2

It's fortunate you don't read Greek, since the translations elide that two different types of robes are involved. Christian theology is lying in tatters on the ground!

> 39

See - I KNEW someone here would have the correct apologetics - including, I assume, for all of this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

After all, in theory, the bible is a perfect book commissioned by a perfect being, thus any alleged contradictions perceived by the ignorant will have a perfectly reasonable explanation - in theory.

ts knows the mind of god. Let us mere mortals gather around and receive the wisdom.

Please continue, ts. Let's see - the two angels vs. one angel next.

I guess it's time for a refresher in basic principles of biblical interpretation (aka exegesis). It was the opinion of one the Church's earliest and most influential exegetes, the third-century Origen of Alexandria (whose work in scriptural interpretation was formative), that the inconsistencies are intentional:

But if in all parts of this garment, that is, the narrative, the logical coherence of the Law had been kept and its order preserved, because we should have a continuous way of understanding, we should not believe that there was anything shut up within the sacred Scriptures in addition to what is disclosed on first appearance. For this reason the divine wisdom has arranged for there to be certain stumbling blocks or interruptions of the narrative meaning, by inserting in its midst certain impossibilities and contradictions, so that the very interruption of the narrative might oppose the reader, as it were, with certain obstacles thrown in the way. By them wisdom denies a way and an access to the common understanding; and when we are shut out and hurled back, it calls us back to the beginning of another way, so that by gaining a higher and loftier road through entering a narrow footpath it may open for us the immense breadth of divine knowledge.
(...)
All these things, as we have said, the Holy Spirit arranged so that from them, since what first appears cannot be true or useful, we might be called back to examine the truth to be sought more deeply and to be investigated more diligently, and might seek a meaning worthy of God in the Scriptures, which we believe were inspired by God.

--On First Principles, Book IV, Chapter 2, Section 9

Origen held that the inconsistencies are intentional stumbling blocks, to trip us up and make us dig deeper into the spiritual significance of the text. (This notion of the spiritual significance hidden beneath the letter of the text is found throughout the letters of Paul in the New Testament, thus making it a foundational principle of Christian exegesis from the very beginning.)

> 41

Translation: the bible is a puzzle or logical conundrum to be deciphered or solved.

Those who succeed go to heaven.

Those who fail go to hell.

It's like a divine I.Q. test.

Life is tough. And god just likes to pile on.

Well- that makes about as much sense as anything else I have ever heard from a christian apologist.

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of some writing.

> 43

Nope. Nobody here but us chickens.

JGL53 "No body here but chickens" Thought Louis Jordan had died! Boy, in my days in the world what a brother he was for singing the jazz!

Nonetheless, as for as the argument is concern I wouldn't worry about days or time; I only glad that Jesus done what He had done to save us! He died and rose again, blessed is the Name of the Lord!

> 45

Yep, the pedantic approach to religion leaves much to be desired, does it not? Professional theologians can be the most boring people on earth, bless their pea-picking hearts.

As for being "saved" well, sure, the only ones who don't start out being "lost" are narcissists, I can only image. My solution was "realization" but that's just me. Part of my "faith" is that, metaphorically-speaking, we will all get to the top of the mountain at some point in time - in most cases at some point beyond time. So, then, it's all good, or it will be - in the end - regardless of the many frustrations and sufferings during the journey. And have a nice day.

>45 cl1914p: I wouldn't worry about days or time

Well said.

Perhaps a further rewording of the OP will make it a bit more clear: Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day of the week crucifixion folks, they frequently assert that it is using common Jewish idiomatic language. I wonder if anyone knows of any writing that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights? If it is using common idiomatic language, there ought to be examples of that usage in order to be able to make the assertion that it was common.

Someone new looking in may know of some examples as requested in the OP and as clarified in post #48.

And remember, the purpose of this topic is not to discuss how long the Messiah was in the heart of the earth. There are other topics that do that. So again, for those who say that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language, I should think that one would have to know of other instances where the same pattern was used in order to say that it was common. I am simply looking for some of those instances, scriptural or otherwise.

> 44

I refer you to posts 14 and 21.

If someone says that Matthew 12:40 is "common Jewish idiomatic language", they are not giving a considered opinion based on other evidence: they are handwaving.

For other comments I refer you to John Gill on the possible appeal to the Greek nycthemeron "24-hour period", the original reference perhaps being to "three nyctherema" (three "day-and-nights"), and to his reference to common Jewish religious (not idiomatic) interpretation in which part of a day counts as the whole for ceremonial or ritual purposes (he gives further references).

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthe...

I wouldn't say I am clever, but whether I am clever or not, I believe for sure, that God is extremely clever. And then He being full of wisdom, He give the dictation to the writers of the words. Then a day must mean a day and a night, a night. No where He says half a day or half of a night! Maybe we should just give God thank for Jesus' resurrection. Although I personally can't see how from Friday to Sunday be three days and three nights; but, referring to what Jesus says about Jonah, in the belly of a Whale, it must be right! Blessings to all of you!

Since we're well into the new year, 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 such as the Messiah saying that He would be in the heart of the earth for 3 nights when He knew that it would only be for 2 nights. 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.

^

The Hindu oral tradition and sacred scriptures date back about 5 thousand years.

Compare to the Jewish/Christian oral/written doctrines which only date back around 3 thousand years or so, give or take a few hundred years.

The Brahman wins. Jehovah/Jesus lose.

Kindergarten class is over, rstrats - time to move on to graduate school.

The Hindu oral tradition and sacred scriptures date back about 5 thousand years.

It's odd that someone who rejects religion so soundly should adopt a religiously-motivated dating, discounted by secular scholars. Scholars believe the earliest Vedas were composed in the second half of the second millennium, which also matches their linguistic form--Vedic Sanskrit, not PIE. Dating it to 3,000 BC requires disregarding the linguistic evidence, and adopting the religiously- and nationalist-motivated notion that the Indus Valley Civilization, which began around 3,000 BC, was Hindu.

As for the Hebrew Bible, there's good reason to believe it's a few hundred to as many as 1,000 years younger, depending on how one weighs composition date, and the date of putative oral sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#History

References at bottom of page:

22. Doniger 2010, p. 66: "Much of what we now call Hinduism may have had roots in cultures that thrived in South Asia long before the creation of textual evidence that we can decipher with any confidence. Remarkable cave paintings have been preserved from Mesolithic sites dating from c. 30,000 BCE in Bhimbetka, near present-day Bhopal, in the Vindhya Mountains in the province of Madhya Pradesh."
23. Jones & Ryan 2006, p. xvii: "Some practices of Hinduism must have originated in Neolithic times (c. 4000 BCE). The worship of certain plants and animals as sacred, for instance, could very likely have very great antiquity. The worship of goddesses, too, a part of Hinduism today, may be a feature that originated in the Neolithic."

--------

So I was wrong. We can date much of what is now called Hiduism probably back to around 30,000 BCE. Some practices must have originated in Neolithic time (c. 4000 BCE).

So between 6 thousand and 32 thousand years ago.

I apologize for my previous inaccuracy.

You might try reading your sources. "May… having roots" refers to cave paintings of animals. The author does not in any way endorse the idea that Hinduism is meaningfully 30,000 or 5,000 years old.

The same applies to your other "may" quote. Maybe neolithic Indians had goddesses. Maybe, indeed. So… Hinduism! Whee!

We really have no idea how cave-paintings and Indus-Valley signs relate to Gods and ideas first attested hundreds or thousands of years later. But in any case, if this sort of thing is acceptable, there is all KINDS of better evidence of links between early Mesopotamian or Egyptian and Hebrew religion. Here we aren't relying on later Vedic texts, but actual Sumerian and Egyptian texts. For example, we have extant, exactly dated original versions Sumerian flood-myth tablets dated to 1,600 BC, a hundred years before the conjectured earliest date of the written Vedas—and 3,200 years before the first extant text of the Vedas. Other parallels go back to the beginnings of Sumerian literature, more than a thousand years before the beginning of Sanskrit literature.

> 57

Well, the Judaic/christian god MAY actually exist - beyond something other than a metaphor - or not. The father/son/ghost idea MAY exist - beyond something other than a metaphor - or not. Either Thor or Zeus or Cthulhu or Aphrodite or etc. MAY actually exist - or not.

It all reminds one of Little Jack Horner of Mother Goose fame. Just stick in a thumb and pull out a plum god and whatever, Tim, you will be a good boy.

My point is that animism and then polytheism and some idea of pantheism, including reincarnation and karma, have existed for much longer than the recently (in comparison) development of monotheism.

The animism of the Australian aborigine has been around for something like 30,000 years. Why are those guys chopped liver and christians are the cat's pajamas? Some animistic beliefs still exist whose origins no doubt go far beyond that in the misty past - cave bear worship, e.g. Again, why is animism a potted plant whilst christianity is the bees' knees?

You and yours have nothing but opinion, conjecture, imagination and naked belief based in tradition. Whee!

At least we can now trust christians not to kill and rip open a pure white goat and predict the future based on the shape of its intestines. And astrology is out now, too, right?

So progress has been made by you and yours and is still being made by you and yours (we can only hope). So, uh, congratulations and please keep up the good work.

Let us know when you are ready for science. I can recommend some good books.

You like to read, right?

>58 JGL53:

Well, the Judaic/christian god MAY actually exist

Indeed. I would never assert that it is proven, particularly by a citation in some Wikipedia article to a source I didn't bother to read.

The animism of the Australian aborigine has been around for something like 30,000 years. ... Let us know when you are ready for science. I can recommend some good books.

We really have no idea what pre-historic people believed. We can make certain guesses based on material evidence, and extrapolate from modern societies that may or may not be similar, but that will never move much beyond conjecture. That you make these claims doesn't speak to a superior interest or ability in science, but to a complete lack of contact with the scholarship, with standards of evidence and so forth.

Feel free to send some academic titles pertaining to ancient religion along and we can discuss them.

> 59

1. Nothing is ever proven in religion. No religious model is testable it would seem. Supernatural claims are all non-falsifiable assertions. Thus one claim is as possibly literally true as another, and just as possibly not true.

2. Well, let's see. In your case I think, firstly, a solid data base of comparative mythology is definitely recommended. So there are the forty or more books of Joseph Campbell. You can begin there. I have read nearly all of them - not bragging, just stating a relevant fact.

>60 JGL53:

Not really sure what the last few posts have to do with the OP, but since you bring up myth, here's a comment on religious myth on Richard Rohr's daily meditation.

>61 John5918:

Thanks for sharing the link. The piece resonated with me: "The True Self is all about right relationship, not requirements. It's not about being correct; it's about being connected, which you always were--you just didn't realize it."

Speaking of my own experience, on the surface, eliminating "self" seems as if it would negate my intrinsic worth. I've found, however, that in surrendering my self to God, I become more authentic. This world is full of junk that may look good at the time, so I "pick it up and carry it" (so to speak). Things like hurt, anger, bad relationships, possessions, etc. With the insight I gain through God I see more clearly and I can let go of all the useless stuff I carried. I am unburdened, free, liberated! That, for me, is a good thing.

All this has nothing to do with the OP, but honestly, I don't care. :)

>62 pmackey:

Thanks, Paul. I really enjoy Rohr's reflections, much of which resonates with me too.

Nothing is ever proven in religion. No religious model is testable it would seem.

Religious studies has real facts too. If I say Buddha lived in 1500 and was Peruvian, I've proved myself a fool. To say that Hinduism is 30,000 old (or more) is not dissimilar.

Well, let's see. In your case I think, firstly, a solid data base of comparative mythology is definitely recommended. So there are the forty or more books of Joseph Campbell. You can begin there. I have read nearly all of them - not bragging, just stating a relevant fact.

Campbell was a twit and is not respected by contemporary scholars, although his popular books—never admired as scholarship—continue to hold fascination for a certain sort of lay reader. Like Wallis Budge and Paul Johnson, it doesn't matter what scholars think; used bookstores will have shelves of well-thumbed copies of his books until the heat death of the universe. Nor would Campbell agree with you about Hinduism being 30,000 years old, or whatever.

I would never claim to be an expert in comparative mythology, but having taking a number of relevant courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level, and being chosen and acted as a graduate assistant (TA, etc.) for undergraduate Mythology two years running, I'm not content to have you hand me books by that unscholarly gas bag as if they proved your mistaken assertions.

> 64

1. Mythological talk is ultimately based on real facts simply because everything is, the universe being of one piece. So then a certain guy or group of guys - real people - created or developed a particular myth at a particular time. Well, duh. This is certainly something we agree upon so let's move on from there.

2. The roots of all extant religious models of the universe originated from the same source a great many years ago - similar to all life on earth today evolving from mono-cellular life of billions of years ago. As all life on earth today are cousins, literally, all religious models are cousins as a manner of speaking.

My point is that Hinduism is closer to the source than christianity, whatever the unknown date of religion's origin. The latter can claim to be more sophisticated and evolved and thus superior in some important way, or the former can just claim purity and that christianity has moved off the mark to some degree. And as far as folk or popular christianity goes, Hinduism in its esoteric understanding easily wins the contest, if we are going to have a contest.

3. "Scholars" are jealous of Campbell's popularity and success. Campbell took a rather humble approach to mythology and did not self-identify as the world's greatest expert. Others evaluated him thusly. You (Tim) did not like Campbell or his books because he was an atheist and outspokenly anticlerical. I myself would have been shocked shitless if "conservative" you had not disliked him intensely. LOL.

The whole idea of someone being "learned" and therefore a "scholar" in religious particulars, mythological thinking, theological assertions and such is laughable, really. If one is a recognized "expert" in a purely trivial non-scientific and even anti-scientific area of pseudo-intellectual symbolic talk, then how serious is the matter that Campbell got something "wrong" and some favorite "scholar" of yours presumably got it right? LOL. That is all we have, in the end - lots of laughs.

> 61, 62

"Not really sure what the last few posts have to do with the OP, but since you bring up myth...."

The OP is about myth. Anyone being both a god and human, or anyone dying and then coming back to life after several days in a tomb - these are good examples of mythic stories - mythos - mythology - er, myth.

Believing that such "miracles" are not myth but are historical fact is like believing a sow's ear is, in actually, a silk purse, based on a belief in transubstantiation. LOL.

As to Ken Wilbur, someone of whom I am quite familiar:

1. Ken has never said or preached anything that I disagree with and I generally positively agree with nearly all he has ever said or published.

2. Ken Wilbur is no more or no less a christian than I am. I have no reason to think he is any more or any less superstitious than I am.

3. Just a reminder - under its most benevolent definition I have no problem with self-labeling as an atheist.

Thus... well, you provide the logical conclusion from the syllogism, John. lol.

4. Morally speaking, as a morally average human being, I am of course not morally perfect and I have lied in the past and still do sometimes still lie about some few things - minor white lies, but still....

5. I am not now lying about #3 above. Why the hell would I? Who the hell lies about being an atheist when they are not? lol. + extra lol.

- - - -

As to Ken's essay linked to above, he does use language differently than I do. His chosen methods of communication are different than mine and I will admit in many venues his way is WAY more effective in bringing about Kumbaya moments. Ken emphasizes commonalities among all humans, psycho-socially speaking, whereas I am wont to use a more negative method of pointing out logical absurdities in many "main-stream" cultural assumptions. Bad on me - good on Ken Wilbur. But I just refer all to #1 and #2 above. It is like Ken is my brother from another mother. LOL.

Ken's explanation of the higher understanding, something we could call the correct view of what "true" religion is - that is indeed a minority world-view as he says. But will it ever become a majority view? Is that even possible? Is it so greatly desirable that all of the minority, including moi, should work day and night to bring the majority into the light? How serious a matter is it that the unenlightened are such a large majority?

I think that such is not a serious matter at all. I think the best approach is to assume the universe is Lila, i.e., the play of Brahman - metaphorically-speaking, of course.

Thus we can have our cake and eat it too. I.e., no one will ever really lose, ultimately, but it is fun to pretend and to engage others "as if" it all were serious doings (to some degree, some of the time, of course allowing for a great deal of down-time).

JGL53,
re: "The OP is about myth."

Actually, it's not. It and its clarifying posts are about one thing and one thing only; i.e., is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language as some 6th day of the week crucifixion proponents assert.?

> 67

There seems there might be an on-going problem with idiots interpreting idiomatic language as historical, literal, objective and empirical fact.

lol.

Either Jesus died, was entombed, then came back to life after about three days - or not. Either Jonah was swallowed by a whale, remained alive in the whale's stomach for three days, and then was coughed up alive on shore - or not.

If not - then we are speaking of myth.

If so, then...... well, that's weird. What's next? Will pigs fly starting tomorrow? Is there really a zombie apocalypse coming? Cattle mutilations and crop circles - that's all extraterrestrial doings, right? 2001: A Space Odyssey - was that possibly a documentary?

My doorbell is ringing. Could that possibly be my father, who died in 1989, come back to life and come for a visit?

Question: Am I crazy, rstrats, or are YOU crazy? One of us might be, or possibly both of us. The odds of both of us being sane seem rather low at this point.

lol.

Since it's been awhile, someone new looking in may know of examples.

> 69

No. This topic is as dead as Jesus.

Apparently there are no 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates who visit this site.

> 71

Perhaps they are too busy having epilepsy-induced hallucinations and visions to come here to debate the imaginary with you.

>71 rstrats:

I have to confess that I had never even heard of 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates until you started this thread, so either I lead a very sheltered life or else they are a lot rarer than you imagine.

johnthefireman,
re: "I have to confess that I had never even heard of 6th day of the week crucifixion advocates until you started this thread, so either I lead a very sheltered life or else they are a lot rarer than you imagine."

I'd say "sheltered life" is an understatement. Otherwise I don't see how you could not have heard of those who thnk the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, i.e., the day before the 7th day of the week Sabbath.

>74 rstrats:

Maybe because there are very few of them and they are not mainstream within Christianity?

I believe that >71 rstrats: continues the irony that >1 rstrats: started of oddly characterizing what is the mainstream view.

The discussion itself is not entirely outside the mainstream. For instance,
An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels https://archive.org/stream/introductiontost00westrich#page/348/mode/2up
Notes on the Translation of the New Testament https://archive.org/stream/notesontranslati00fiel#page/12/mode/2up

johnthefireman,
re: "Maybe because there are very few of them and they are not mainstream within Christianity?"

Actually, it's just the opposite. The majority of mainstream Christianity believes that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.

Someone new looking in may know of examples.

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/colloquial 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.

I don't have access to secular ancient documents or "documentation that shows that a phrase stating a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?"

Perhaps this will answer some of the questions that have been posted since 2013.

The question of "three days and three nights," as signifying the time of our Lord's remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28, 30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining "three days and three nights." The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew's word that Christ should be raised "the third day" (Matt 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day. In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God's word take another view. Torrey said, "There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion." Torrey's argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15 th of Nisan) as a special "high" sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Ex 12:6; Lev 23:7; Num 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether "day before the sabbath" refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special "high" sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15 th of Nisan fell. (4) John's gospel plainly says it was "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14), and that it was "an high day" (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the "high day," or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15 th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the "day before" would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). "After three days" he would rise again (Mark 9:31; 10:34). "This is now the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey's argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view. Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord's passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey's position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations. The "heart of the earth" is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called "the lower parts of the earth" (Ps 63:9; Eph 4:9).

The Jews had no word corresponding to our day from midnight to midnight. Their word was expressed by a word meaning "night-day." They used the expression night and day for what is now meant a natural day. When they expressed the time of part of three consecutive days, they were obliged to say three night-day, or three days and three nights (See Esther 4:16; 5:1; I Samuel 30:12-13). If one understands their terminology there is no difficulty. Jesus arose on the third day (Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:21; 2:46; Acts 10:40; I Corinthians 15:4).

Hope this helps some.

Since it's been awhile, someone new looking in may know of examples.

>1 rstrats: Perhaps you should put your post on Pedants corner - see what they make of it.

>9 Arctic-Stranger: I agree with you - that's the way the Jews counted the days. Sundown Friday was the start of the Sabbath.

>83 justmum: Yup. I was raised Seventh-day Adventist and our Sabbath followed that of the Jews. Sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday, all harkening back to Genesis, that on the seventh day God rested from his labors.

>84 pmackey: I really can't see what they were all arguing about - it seems so simple really.

>85 justmum: Simple? I think humans do a very good job of muddying the waters. I just don't understand why it's an issue. I take it isn't a point of faith, like the Trinity, so while it's an interesting discussion it isn't necessary for salvation.

Another issue that can be discussed is whether the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ or a symbol. I read some well-intentioned, theological discussions and I respect people that can operate at that level. It's just too deep for me. Taking communion is one of those things Christians should do. Whether what I receive is the body and blood, or a symbol, is moot to me. I think I take the lazy man's way out: Jesus said, "This is my body... my blood..." Either way, it's theologically true and I gratefully take communion.

>86 pmackey: As long as you are aware and are comfortable in what you are doing then it's right for you. Jesus said what he said at the last supper and that's that.

This is the classic Anglican position, which is essentially one of pious agnosticism: "He was the Word that spake it; He took the bread and brake it; And what that Word did make it; I do believe and take it" (John Donne).

>87 justmum: Oh yeah, I'm very comfortable with it not being totally nailed down.

>88 MyopicBookworm: What a relief because I'm an Episcopalian. My opinion has changed from when I was in a more Protestant denomination in the 70's and 80's (which was it a symbol).

Just seems to me personally that the bread and wine are more than mere bread and wine, but not literally the body and blood of Christ. I've tasted my blood and that wine is not blood. The bread doesn't go from being a carbohydrate to protein. Nevertheless, at a mystical/metaphorical/too deep for me to fathom it level, the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood. So, yea verily, what John Donne hath said.

The Messiah said that 3 night times would be involved with His time in the "heart of the earth". However, there are those who believe that the Messiah died on the 6th day of the week and who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the time between the leaving of His spirit from His body and His resurrection on the 1st day of the week. But this belief allows for only 2 night times to be involved. To reconcile this discrepancy some say that the Messiah was using common Jewish idiomatic/figure of speech/colloquial language. I am simply asking for examples to support that assertion; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.

The tradition is, that Rabbi Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole. (Talmud)

>91 MyopicBookworm: Thanks for sharing that.

MyopicBookworm,
re: "The tradition is, that Rabbi Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole. (Talmud)"

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 sense. On the one hand he is saying that a day AND a night define an Onah and then he turns right around and implies 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 day can be counted as a whole day and any part of a night can be counted as a whole night. 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."

But to get back to the OP, perhaps someone new looking in may know of examples that show where a daytime or a night time was forecast to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

justmum,
re: "rstrats: Perhaps you should put your post on Pedants corner - see what they make of it."

OK, but I don't know what that is.

Perhaps a further wording of the OP may make it a bit more clear:

1. The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"

2. There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.

3. Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.

4. A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.

5. To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.

6. I'm simply asking anyone who thinks that it was common if they might provide examples to support that belief; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime and/or no part of the night time could have occurred.

Since it has been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in may know of examples.

Five years, and you still haven't found anyone here who claims to hold the specific opinion stated in your no. 5 above...

MyopicBookworm,
re: "Five years, and you still haven't found anyone here who claims to hold the specific opinion stated in your no. 5 above..."

Not so far but maybe someone new looking in may know of examples.

Or maybe not.

Here is something else to consider:
I think most of the time people get tripped up because Jesus' body had to be taken down before the Sabbath (which we assume is Friday night). I understand any holiday in Bible days was considered a Sabbath, so it could be:

Wednesday: had the Passover meal early with the disciples. Notice the part of Scripture where Jesus says He "greatly desired to eat it with them." Maybe they had it a day early because He knew he would be crucified the next day.
So, was crucified on a Thursday, buried before the "sabbath", which was Passover.
The next day, "Friday, was Passover
Saturday was the regular Sabbath.
He rose on Sunday.

Any thoughts on this?

That would be an issue for a different topic. Perhaps you could start one.

There is only one count needed to understand what Jesus tried to show us when he died on the cross and rose after 3 days with afterlife as the 4th step result. (1, 2, 3, result)

As Paul prayed to the Thessalonians (1) body (2) soul (3) spirit (4) complete--(1 Thess 5:23)

As Jesus explained the kingdom of heaven like leaven as measure 1, measure 2, measure 3, to be (4 result) all leavened.

As Jesus explained himself (1) I AM (2) the way (3) the truth (4) and the life (result) as the ONLY divine pathway to afterlife. No on comes to the Father but through me.

As Jesus explained to Nichodemus (1) born in the flesh (2) born in the water (3) born in the spirit to (4) enter the kingdom of God (result)

As God (1) so love the world (2) He gave His only Son (3) that whomsoever believeth in him would not taste death, but would have (4) eternal life

As Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize (1) all nations in the name of (2) the Son, (3) the Holy Spirit and the (4) Father

As Jesus said one must both SEE (3 steps on the cross before result) and hear to understand. Otherwise one gets nothing. Even righteous men and prophets would receive NOTHING!

I think that's why Genesis so specifically added "and there was evening and morning the first day" and "there was evening and morning the second day" etc.

To VinMike.
Why do you think biblical truth is spam?

>105 jwfarq: What is Biblical "truth"?

I also need to add: "and who thinks the calendar day begins at sunset".

In thinking about it, I realize that it doesn't make a difference to this topic with regard to sunset or sunrise.

Have you seen this YouTube video? Timeline Explaining 3 Days & Nights - Easter / Passover

Let me hasten to add that I did not go searching for this, it just popped up on my screen, and I have no idea how accurate it is. In any case, bible literalism is not my favourite sport.

johnthefireman,
re: "Have you seen this YouTube video?"

Yes, but it deals with issues for a different topic.

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

Point #5 in post #95 should be changed to read: To account for the lack of a 3rd night, there may be some of those mentioned above who say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.

And that "someone new" needs to be someone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with a 1st day of the week resurrection, and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period.

It appears that there is no one looking in on this topic who thinks the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week.

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in may know of examples.

This whole thread makes me bonkers. Inclusive date counting was standard. It's not a problem.

timspading,
re: "Inclusive date counting was standard. It's not a problem."

Then there should be examples to show that it was common to forecast or say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur.

And again, that "someone new" needs to be someone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with a 1st day of the week resurrection, and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period.

Someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.

timspalding,

Are you a believer in a 6th day of the week resurrection?

Since it's been awhile maybe someone new looking in may know of examples.

And that "someone new" needs to be someone who believes the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with a 1st day of the week resurrection, and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a 3rd night by saying that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period.

Being well into the new year perhaps there is someone new visiting this topic who knows of examples.

>That is a post for a different topic.

>102 jwfarq: Those are issues for a different topic.

>127 2wonderY: The link provides only one possible example and then only if "three days, night or day" means the same thing as "three days and three nights". But one example does not show that it was common usage which is the issue of this topic.

>128 rstrats:

The OP actually asks if the phrase "was ever used in the first century or before", not whether it was "common usage". So >127 2wonderY: does actually address the question you posed in >1 rstrats:.