Rabbi Azariah on "3 days"

[John Powell]

POWELL:
This post has to do with whether the "three days and three nights" spoken of for burial to resurrection of Jesus is satisfied by a Friday afternoon burial and Sunday morning resurrection. The source JP Holding uses is a quote from Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Thanks James for that information.

I have analyzed what I think Azariah meant and what his commentators meant. This task was made more difficult because the modern commmentator I got this from, Tzvee Zahavy, seems to have misunderstood several things. My source is in pdf format located at

http://zahavy.com/eleazar.pdf

I still need to consider Biblical passages and another Talmud reference that Glenn Miller and others have suggested support their interpretation of what "3 days and 3 nights" means.

First, I will just quote the source with Zahavy's comments.


Tzvee Zahavy:
The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . .114

62.
. . .A. "If one discharged thick drops from his member he is unclean." The words of R. Eleazar Hisma.
. . .B. If one suffered impure thoughts at night and got up and found his flesh heated, he is unclean.
. . .C. "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean."
. . .D. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
. . .E. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six."
. . .F. R. Aqiva says, "Always five." M. Miq. 8:3 (Mekh. Bahodes, 3, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 214; Mekh. De R. Simeon, p. 142)

Comment: C-D gives the ruling of Eleazar b. Azariah. If a woman discharges semen on the third day she is clean.



The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . .115

The implication is that if she does so on the first or second, she is unclean. M. Shab. 9:3 explains the source of Eleazar's ruling:

"From whence do we know that one who discharges semen on the third day is clean (so K, other MSS. give 'unclean')? For it is written, 'Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman (Ex. 19:15).' "

Potent semen is classified as one of the fathers of uncleanness (M. Kel. 1:1). After the second day the presumption is that it is no longer considered potent semen. Hence if it is discharge she (and it) is clean.

E is phrased as a gloss to C-D and F disputes E. It is likely that E-F referred originally to another protasis since the word "they" in the present context has no antecendent. A possible protasis might be: "A woman who discharges semen in the first three days after intercourse is unclean." Then Ishmael could introduce the question of how many "periods" are encompassed in the "three days."

Each day consists of two "periods"--the daytime and the night. Ishmael points out three days can be either four, five, or six periods, depending on whether intercourse last occurred
at night, during the day, or at the end of the day. If it was, for example, late Wednesday afternoon we can count two periods on Thursday and two on Friday so that on Saturday, the third day, if she discharged semen she would be clean. It is possible to add on two more periods on Wednesday giving either five or six altogether until Saturday. Aqiva, on the other hand, simply holds that no matter when you start, if you count five periods you
have spanned three days.

. . .A. "[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean."
. . .B. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
. . .C. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they [i.e., the three days] are four periods, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six."
. . .D. R. Aqiva says, "Always five,


The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

. . . E. "and if part of the first period elapsed we complete it with part of the sixth." T. Miq. 6:6

Comment: A-D simply repeats M. Miq. 8:3. E is then T.'s comment on M. It modifies Aqiva's ruling. In each case the time span is a full sixty hours (five periods). If intercourse occurred late on Wednesday, for example, any semen discharged until late on Saturday is unclean. Without T.'s comment we would have considered any discharge from the morning on (the beginning of the fifth period) as clean.


63.
. . .A. tny: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, "A day and a night constitute a period.
. . .B. "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one."
. . .C. wtny: Concerning the teaching of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, "Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean." y. Shab. 9:3

Comment: The pericope refers to M. Miq. 8:3: "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse she] is clean; the words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah." A-B is in direct
discourse. C is a comment on the ruling of A-B.

The issue is how we add up the time between intercourse and the time the woman becomes clean. According to A-B any fraction of a period, that is the day or the night, counts for the reckoning as a full period. Therefore as C points out, one day plus a small
amount of time the night before and the night after is enough of a lapse of time for the woman to be considered clean. There are then three days in all. On the other hand if two full days are elapsed from just after sunrise on one day to just before sunset on the second, she is still unclean, for only two days can be counted.


The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

It is strange, however, that Eleazar speaks of "periods" since in M. only Ishmael and Aqiva reckon on that basis. Eleazar's counting there is confined to days (cf. comment to M. Miq. 8:3).


POWELL:
Tzvee Zahavy seems to have several things confused. If someone really cares, I suppose I could explain exactly where I think Zahavy was right and where he was wrong, but I'd rather not if that's not necessary.

Let me rewrite Zahavy's sources to help explain what I think they really meant.


Azariah:
[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean.

[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean.

A day and a night constitute a period.

And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one.


POWELL:
What Azariah, the primary source of all this business seems to be saying in the repeated lines is that if a woman discharges the semen she received from her husband on the third day then she is clean (to have sex again?).

Evidently, this instruction derives from Moses telling the Israelite men not to have sex during the time they were preparing to meet Yahweh (Exo 19:15). This command from Moses for that specific event has been interpreted by Azariah, I guess, to be a general principle of sexual behavior for the Jews.

The last two lines are highly important, since Christian apologists depend upon them being interpreted a certain way to deal with the "3 days and 3 nights" problem. However, what Azariah is saying is unclear. Does Azariah mean that a day-light period + a night-time period = 1 "PERIOD" or that each constitutes a period? Given what the commentators say about his words, I think apologists have misinterpreted Azariah's words. I think Azariah is defining each a day and a night as a "period" just like Rabbis after him have done.

Let's look at this some more.


Azariah:
[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean.

R. Ishmael:
Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six.

R. Aqiva:
Always five.


POWELL:
This is repeated.


AZARIAH:
[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean.

R. Ishmael:
Sometimes they [i.e., the three days] are four periods, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six.

R. Aqiva:
Always five,

UNKNOWN speaker from T Miq.:
and if part of the first period elapsed we complete it with part of the sixth.


POWELL:
What is Rabbi Ishmael saying?

I think Ishmael is saying that the 3 days could be as few as 4 partial periods (day and night each separately called a period) or as many as 6 complete periods. If sex occurred just before sunset on Thursday afternoon, for example, then just after sunset on Saturday evening would be two complete periods plus parts of two other periods, which count as full periods, but would be "3 days" because it would consist of parts of 3 weekdays, namely Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The most that "3 days" could be is 6 periods, such as from right at sunset on Tuesday afternoon / Wednesday evening to right at sunset on Friday afternoon / Saturday evening, because that would include all of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but none of any other weekday. Any more than that would be parts of four weekdays. Ishmael seems to be more interested in identifying how long 3 days can theoretically be rather than instructing the reader what's the minimum they have to wait for her to be clean (which is what the reader really wants to know.)

What is Rabbi Aqiva saying?

I think Aqiva is trying to help the couples out, but he's slightly on the rigid side. He's telling them the minimum time they must wait before she is clean. He apparently believes that 3 days must be 2 complete 24-hour days or 4 complete 12-hour periods plus a bit more, or it would be cheating, so that's 5 periods, since the short period counts as an entire period.

The unknown speaker from T Miq. (Aqiva?) seems to want to prevent people misapplying Aqiva's ruling by counting short periods on both ends so that it's not more than 48 hours. With this correction, if sex occurred just before sunset on Wednesday afternoon then the woman is not clean until sunset on Friday afternoon / Saturday evening. Without this correction, the reader might think she'll be clean just after sunset on Friday morning, since that piece of Friday day counts as a full period.

Now for the critical part.


AZARIAH:
A day and a night constitute a period.
And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one.

Unknown speaker from y. Shab:
Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean.


POWELL:
As I said before, I don't think Azariah is claiming that a full 24-hour period is a "period" as Christian apologists have claimed, but he's saying that each 12-hour part is a "period" in the same way this is used by the Rabbis who have followed him. I suspected this the first time I read how his words were interpreted to contradict what the later Rabbis said.

Unknown speaker y. Shab seems to be a bit more liberal than Aqiva was. This speaker seems to be saying that you can get pieces of three weekdays and satisfy the letter of the law by having a complete weekday and slivers of each of the weekdays on each side. In other words, if sex was just before sunset on Thursday afternoon then by Saturday evening just after sunset that would be 24 hours plus a little bit, but it would include parts of three weekdays, namely Thursday, Friday, and Saturday which satisfies the letter of the law. On the other hand, if sex were just after sunset on Thursday night, then she would still not be clean until just after sunset on Saturday night. This would be almost two complete 24-hour periods to get parts of three weekdays, namely Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

The commentators of Azariah seem to be in agreement that the "period" Azariah is speaking of are 12-hour periods, not 24-hour periods.

And now, what relevance does this all have to the "3 days and 3 nights" issue? I think this issue of Jewish "periods" does nothing to solve the problem that Christian apologists have to explain how "3 days and 3 nights" can be only 2 nights and at most parts of 3 day-light hours (assuming Jesus resurrected after sunrise on Sunday). If Jesus resurrected before sunrise on Sunday, which appears to be the Biblical story, then this would only be parts of 2 day-light periods.

These Rabbis merely allow that part of a night can count as a full night or part of a 12-hr daylight period can count as an entire daylight period, but that's what skeptics have allowed for all along.

I still need to check Biblical verses and another Talmud reference that are claimed to support the Christian solution.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm fortunate no one pointed out my error in judgment. Something was still nagging me subconsciously as I posted this late last night and went to bed. Why did unknown speaker y. Tab say what he did at the point he did? I think I now understand.

Contrary to my original suspicion and contrary to my recent conclusion, Azariah DID mean for 1 day-light + 1 night-time period to equal one "period" IN THIS CONTEXT.

Remember the context, God told the Israelites to wait until the third "day." When Azariah says "A day and a night constitute a period." he's saying that God is speaking of the 24-hr days, not the 12-hr daylight periods. His commentators seem to agree. When Azariah says "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one." he's making the judgment that any part of the 24-hr day counts for fulfillment. That's why unknown speaker j. Tab allows any part of a weekday to count, so you could cheat by going from just at the end of one weekday to just after the beginning of the third weekday, a total time of just more than 24 hrs. However, Aqiva does not allow this kind of cheating. Unknown speak j. Tab is assuming that, when applying this principle to sexual practice among Jews, it is referring to 3 weekdays in which any part of the weekday counts. Aqiva thinks this must mean three 24-hr time periods regardless of when you start counting, but he allows for any part of the third 24-hr period to count as an entire period.

Here's where JP Holding gives his answer in the arena for the Spl_Cadet - Till debate.


HOLDING:
On 3 days and three nights, I took this from Miller's ThinkTank:

(Jewish idiom) understood "a day and a night" to include even the smallest part of a day and night. A Jewish source from after the time of the New Testament puts it this way: "A day and a night are an Onah ['a portion of time'] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a] Other examples of this kind of usage can be found throughout the Bible (Gen. 42:16, 1Kings 20:29, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 27:63). Jesus was in the tomb for only a small part of Friday and Sunday, but that counts according to Jewish idiom for the entire "day and night" for each of those days.


POWELL:
The argument goes something like this:

Skeptic: The Bible says Christ was buried for "3 days and 3 nights," but from late Friday afternoon to Sunday before sunrise is only 1 complete day and 1 complete night (Saturday) plus almost all of Sunday night and a bit of Friday afternoon. This is only parts of 2 days and 2 nights. Even if Jesus resurrected after sunrise on Sunday, which seems to contradict the Bible, that would still only be parts of 3 days and 2 nights. You can't get a third night this way.

Apologist. To the Jewish rabbis, such as the authoritative Azariah, 1 day + 1 night = 1 period and any part of that period counts as a full period so any part of three 24-hour periods counts as a full day.

Skeptic. Yes, that's true IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 3 DAYS, such as in Exodus 19:15. When you say "3 days" you mean either 3 weekdays or three 24-hr periods and parts of those count to the Jews as they often do to us too. So, to say that Jesus resurrected "on the third day" means that if Jesus died on Friday afternoon he could have resurrected as early as right after sunset on the beginning of Sunday or as late as Sunday afternoon if you mean 3 weekdays as some Rabbis think. However, other Rabbis, like Rabbi Aqiva, would probably say Jesus could not have resurrected any earlier than Monday morning around sunset for a late Friday afternoon death to satisfy this "3 days" requirement since that means, as a minimum, two complete 24-hr periods plus a little.

If you are talking about "3 days AND 3 NIGHTS," however, then you are dividing time differently and you need parts of 3 days and 3 nights to satisfy that. The Christian account does not do this. Azariah's words do not justify the Christian solution.

Apologist: You don't understand, the idiom is that "one day and one night" means any part of a weekday or 24-hour period.

Skeptic: What's your reference for that? It's not Azariah since Azariah is referring to what it means when you say "3 days," not what you mean when you say "3 days and 3 nights."

I haven't checked the Biblical references yet.

John Powell

[GrayPilgrim]

Just a quick note about a comment you made in the first post:


POWELL:
What Azariah, the primary source of all this business seems to be saying in the repeated lines is that if a woman discharges the semen she received from her husband on the third day then she is clean (to have sex again?).

I would like to comment on your question about what she is clean for. While it would include to have sex again it would also include a return to the normal activities of life. Remember what Rabbinic Judaism’s goal was. After the destruction of the Temple they asked the question "How do we worship without a Temple?" Thus they were taking the purity laws which originally only applied to the Priests while performing Temple services and the Children of Israel when they were going to enter the outer court to present their sacrifices. Thus we have a democratization of a hieratic system.

Thus the woman would be impure and anything she touched would become impure (unless it was made of stone (don't ask me why). If an unclean person touched a clay vessel they were supposed to destroy it because the Rabbis reasoned it could not be purified (remember no sacrifices means that once a vessel was defiled then it was impure).

So to answer your question when the woman became clean again then she would be able to return to normal daily activity which she had been excluded from by her impurity which would include sex, but not only sex.

Interestingly the Rabbis view of sex was very different than ours. In fact their students flirted heavily with a mild form asceticism as is evidenced by the need to mandate that a husband must relent to his wife's request for sex as long as she was not defiled by her period. So it was a different way of thinking. The woman called the shots, at least at the time the Mishna and Talmud were codified.

GP

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Now, let me consider the Bible versus JP Holding and others have suggested support the claim that the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" can mean essentially "parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of 2 nights."


Gen 42:16-18 (KJV):
16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.

17 And he put them all together into ward three days.

18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God:


POWELL:
This passage is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights" means in the Bible since it uses the term "3 days." That could mean parts of 3 weekdays or parts of three 24-hr periods.


1 Kings 20:29 (KJV):
29 And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day.


POWELL:
This is also irrelevant. We need scriptures that speak of "days AND NIGHTS."


Ester 4:15-17 (KJV):
15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,

16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.

Ester 5:1-8 (KJV):
1 NOW it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house, over against the king’s house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.


POWELL:
The wording isn't quite the same as "3 days and 3 nights," but I think this still works against the Christian solution. Evidently both Ester and her people were to fast for 3 nights and 3 days beginning at night. Let's say these words were given to Mordecai Friday afternoon or early Saturday night. The meaning would be that they should fast all, or at least the rest, of Saturday night then Saturday day then Sunday night then Sunday day then Monday night then at least part of Monday day. On this third 24-hr day or weekday OF THE FAST, namely Monday day, Ester invites the King to the feast that same day-light period, which Ester evidently shares in.

I don't see this justifying the Christian solution to the burial since the ordering of nights and days here gives at least parts of 3 nights and parts of 3 days.

If the fast ends on Sunday day so it's only 2 nights and parts of 2 days to try to match with the burial of Jesus solution then Sunday would not be the third day of the fast, but perhaps the third day of the order to begin the fast (if that order was given on Friday afternoon.)


MATT 27:63 (KJV):
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.


POWELL:
This is irrelevant again because of the lack of "nights" in the discussion.

Here's one that might help


1 Sam 30:11-13:
11 And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water;

12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights.

13 And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.


POWELL:
If the Egyptian slave was kicked out any time during the day of, let's say Friday, or finished his last meal no earlier than sunrise on Friday then he should have gone without food the rest of Friday day, Saturday night, Saturday day, Sunday night, Sunday day, and at least part of Monday night. This would have been 3 days and 3 nights beginning with day-light periods and ending on a night-time period. The Egyptian could have been fed as early as Monday evening.

What would it mean if on Monday evening he told David that he was kicked out or began his fast "3 days agone"? If he means "parts of three 24-hr periods" then it could mean he fell sick the night of Friday before he was abandoned. If he means "parts of three weekdays" then there could be problems with my interpretation unless he isn't counting the small sliver of Monday.

I think this scenario makes the most sense if the Egyptian were to have gotten sick during the night of, let's say, Friday. That Friday morning he eats breakfast, but is then abandoned by his master. He goes without food the rest of Friday day, Sat night, Sat day, Sun night, and Sun day. He is discovered by the Jewish reconnaissance forces Sunday afternoon or early Monday night and brought to David Monday night at which point he is fed.


Ex. 13: 21 (KJV):
21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:


POWELL:
Clearly this "day and night" does NOT mean that God only went in a pillar of cloud at day, but that counts for the night too, or only in a pillar of fire by night, but that counts for the day too.

Now, let's look at the one that's supposed to match the burial of Jesus.


MATT 12:40 (KJV):
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


POWELL:
So, let's see if Jonah was only in the whale for a little more than 36 hours, parts of 2 days and 2 nights.


Jonah 1: 5, 15-17 (KJV):
5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

. . .

15 So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

16 Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows.

17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Jonah 2:10 (KJV):
10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

Jonah 3:1-3 (KJV):
1 AND the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.


POWELL:
There's nothing here to indicate that "3 days and 3 nights" means anything other than parts of 3 days and parts of 3 nights.

Perhaps the storm came up during the early morning on, let's say, Friday while Jonah was still asleep. He gets up. They cast lots and throw Jonah into the sea that morning. Jonah is in the whale the rest of Friday day, Saturday night, Saturday day, Sunday night, Sunday day, and at least part of Monday night. Some time that Monday night, perhaps even shortly before sunrise Monday morning Jonah gets vomited onto the dry land. That would be parts of 3 days and 3 nights beginning with day-light periods.

Some time after that, probably that same morning either before sunrise or afterward, the LORD tells Jonah to go to Nineveh which he does, perhaps after getting something to eat.

Conclusion:
The Biblical verses I've checked do NOT support the Christian solution to the "3 days and 3 nights" of Jesus's burial. It appears that when the Bible says "3 days and 3 nights" everywhere else the writers mean at least parts of 3 days and parts of 3 nights, not parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of only 2 nights.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
To GrayPilgrim.

Thanks for that clarification. What you say seems to be supported by the few internet sites I read both having to do with her ability to do normal activities upon becoming clean and her rights to sex.

Since according to the Torah, the slave woman has the right to food, shelter, and sex, the Rabbis concluded that free women must have at least those same rights.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Another part of Miller's explanation at

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q3rdday.html

needs to be considered.


MILLER:
This understanding was used in the numerous correlations between Jonah 1.17 ('in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights') and the OT passages cited above [e.g. Mid.Rabbath on Genesis 56 (on 22.4); Genesis 91.7 (on 42.17-18)].


POWELL:
While looking for Internet references to these sources, I found someone else, Dave, at inerrancy has already dealt with this problem (that should not surprise me). Dave talks about some of the same things I do, but didn't go into a detailed analysis of Azariah's words. I'll only quote the part that deals with what I haven't done yet.

http://www.errantyears.com/1999/jun99/000345.html


ERRANCY:
Miller:
This understanding was used in the numerous correlations between Jonah 1.17 ('in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights') and the OT passages cited above [e.g. Mid.Rabbath on Genesis 56 (on 22.4); Genesis 91.7 (on 42.17-18)].

DAVE
Some rabbis taught that the events mentioned in the verses given above began during the nighttime portion of the day. So if Joseph jailed his brothers on Sunday night and released them Wednesday daytime it was not only the third day but also the third night had come before it. Likewise with Abrams trip with Issac, he arose before sunrise the first day (according to some rabbis) and when he arrived the third day (daytime) he had traveled three days and three nights (because the portion of the night was counted first).


POWELL;
It appears that this is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights mean" which is the crucial question I'm asking. Nevertheless, I would still like to look at the originals.

Does anyone know what "Mid. Rabbath" means? Is there an Internet link to the original passages? :help:

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm thinking "Mid. Rabbath" means "Midrash Rabbath" or something like that.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Hey John Powell! How come you held this party and didn't invite me? :smile:

From the looks of it you're equivocal on the rabbinic reference right now. Just as well, because after reading your arguments about the Biblical references, I am thinking it's more clear than before what's up.

Now, let me consider the Bible versus JP Holding and others have suggested support the claim that the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" can mean essentially "parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of 2 nights."

“Gen 42:16-18 (KJV): 16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies. 17 And he put them all together into ward three days. 18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God: ”

POWELL:
This passage is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights" means in the Bible since it uses the term "3 days." That could mean parts of 3 weekdays or parts of three 24-hr periods.

Hmm. Question: Did Joseph let them out of the ward somewhere along the line? Here's the problem I see with your anaysis: It MUST mean three 24-hour periods, and not weekdays, because otherwise you have to suggest that they were let out of the ward at night for at least part of one period (the middle one). In other words, if you are suggesting the equivalent to:

1) They were locked in at 11:59 PM Monday.
2) They were let out at 12:01 AM Wednesday.

You STILL have a point where "day" is inclusive of a full day and a full night, because you just don't let people out of jail like that. "Day" here is obviously carrying the same meaning as "day and night" just like we can speak of a 24-hour "day" which includes the physical phenomenon of day and night. Which suggests in turn that "day and night" is usable synonymously with just "day".

The same question applies to 1 Kings 20:29. Did the armies unpitch their tents and go home at some points during the 24-hour periods?

[Socrates]

Some people argue that the crucifixion occurred on a Wednesday or a Thursday. This is mainly based on Mt. 12:40, where Christ said that he would be ‘three days and three nights’ in the tomb.

They assume that this must be three full 24-hour periods.
But this is hard to fit in with the other evidence from Scripture. The Bible claims that Christ rose on the ‘first day of the week’ (Mark 16:9) which was ‘on the third day’ (1 Cor. 15:4), as Christ predicted (Luke 24:7). Many bibliosceptics even claim that the Bible contradicts itself here. But if we believe in the authority of Scripture, this is not an option. The solution lies in a correct understanding of Jewish idiom.

The critics overlook the fact that for Jews, all those phrases were synonymous. Jews distinguished the word ‘day’ in the sense of daylight hours from ‘day’ as 24 hour cycle, by referring to the latter as ‘night and a day’. Further, in Jewish counting, a part of a day was counted as a whole day (a figure of speech known as synecdoche), e.g. 1 Sam. 30:12, where ‘he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and nights’ is equated in v. 13 with hayyom shelosha (three days ago) which could only mean day before yesterday. Another example is 1 Ki. 20:29 (NIV):For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined.In English counting, if they started fighting on the 7th day, it means they were only camping for six whole days. But in Jewish reckoning, the partial days counted as wholes, so the text says they were camping for seven days. See also Gen. 42:17–18.
Another proof is Matthew 27:63–64:
63 Sir, they said, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’
64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first. (NIV)Note that even His enemies understood that ‘after three days’ meant that they only had to secure the tomb ‘until the third day’. If three full 24 hour periods were meant, then they would want to secure the tomb until the fourth day to make sure.

Note that the above analysis was based on the principle that Scripture is its own best interpreter. This principle tells us that the days in Genesis 1 must be ordinary days, because of the way the Hebrew word yom is used in Scripture. When modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. When modified by ‘evening and/or morning’, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it likewise always means a literal day. Ex. 20:11 only makes sense with literal days.

A comparison with other Scriptures shows that sometimes a part of a day could be counted as a whole day. But this is not denying that the days are ordinary days, whether parts or wholes. It is impossible to claim that ‘three days and three nights’ could mean that Christ was buried for 3,000 or three billion years!

My analysis is quite different from that used by old-earth compromisers. They do not interpret Scripture with Scripture, but try to twist Scripture to fit the alleged scientific proof of an old earth.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the best explanation is that Christ was buried at about 6pm Good Friday (Luke 23:54). Since the Jewish day started at sunset, the evening of Good Friday was the first day, all day Saturday was the 2nd day, and the 3rd day began on Saturday at sunset.

[ValiantForTruth]

Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

:deal:

According to these verses, The women BOUGHT spices "when the sabbath was over". Then after they PREPARED the spices they "rested the sabbath day". If Jesus was crucified on Friday, then these scriptures are wrong. :no:

The ONLY WAY that these two verses can BOTH be correct, is if there were TWO sabbath days that week (the weekly sabbath - Saturday - and an ANNUAL sabbath - Passover - which was always on the 15th of Nisan). See John 19:31.

1) The women saw Jesus buried prior to sundown (late Wednesday).
2) The next day (Thursday) began at sundown, which is when Passover (the annual sabbath day) began.
3) After this annual sabbath day had passed, they PURCHASED spices, and PREPARED them. BOTH could have been done ONLY on Friday, the day after Passover and the day before the weekly sabbath.
4) Then, AFTER purchasing and preparing the spices, the women RESTED the weekly sabbath day (Saturday), according to the scriptures.

If this is true (and I believe that it is), then "3 days and 3 nights" is not figurative but literal. Every version reads the same for Mark and Luke. One says they purchased spices AFTER a sabbath, the other says they prepared spices BEFORE a sabbath. I see no way to justify anything other than a Wednesday crucifixion with burial just prior to sundown, followed by a Sabbath day, a week day, and another sabbath day.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? :huh:

Agape,
Don

[jpholding]

Don,

Spices and such had already been brought by Joseph and Nicodemus and it is these which they would have prepared in Luke -- the men bought the stuff but the women usually did this kind of work. It would have been solid blocks of spices. What they bought later was used to "anoint" which would mean it was a liquid form, something added on -- maybe as a personal touch for sentimentality.

[ValiantForTruth]

Today @ 04:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94235#post94235)
jpholding:

Don,

Spices and such had already been brought by Joseph and Nicodemus and it is these which they would have prepared in Luke --

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

This does not say that the women prepared the spices and ointments that Nicodemus bought.

If Nicodemus "already" had bought spices and ointments (and he did), the women would not have needed to buy more. And, if Nicodemus "already" had spices and ointments (and he did) AND WAS USING THEM, then they would have already been "prepared".


...the men bought the stuff but the women usually did this kind of work.

But that is not what it says! It specifically says that the women bought "spices and ointments," and they bought them AFTER a sabbath day (Mark 16:1), and prepared them before resting on a sabbath day (Luke 23:56).


It would have been solid blocks of spices. What they bought later was used to "anoint" which would mean it was a liquid form, something added on -- maybe as a personal touch for sentimentality.

Mark 16:1 specifically says that the women bought SPICES too, not just ointments. And they bought them AFTER the sabbath day. If they bought them AFTER the weekly sabbath day, when could they have done so with enough time to prepare them? The Market would not have been open on the weekly sabbath day. And it would not have opened until AFTER the women had already visited the sepulchre the first day of the week!?! That doesn't leave ANY time for them to buy them, let alone prepare them (by my calculations).
:juggle:
Agape,
Don

[Roflsaurus]

Heya Don.

The Sabbath went from 6 AM to 6 PM. After 6 PM, the Sabbath was considered over, and it is during that time period that the women would have bought spices and ointments (not at 6 AM Sunday morning).

As a sidenote, I was wondering if "the sixth hour" in Roman time could refer to both 6 AM as well as 6 PM.

Thanks for your time!

[ValiantForTruth]

Today @ 07:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95027#post95027)
Roflsaurus:

Heya Don.

The Sabbath went from 6 AM to 6 PM. After 6 PM, the Sabbath was considered over, and it is during that time period that the women would have bought spices and ointments (not at 6 AM Sunday morning).

I agree that "sundown" was the end of the sabbath day (about 6pm), but the market would not have opened after sundown. It wasn't open at night. Even now, most markets are closed at night. (I don't believe WalMart was open then either :lol: ). It would have been morning (daylight) before the market would have opened.

BUT EVEN SO, if they did buy the spices after sundown (early the first day of the week, as you suggest), THEN they would have prepared them, and THEN "rested on the sabbath day." But Sunday (the first day of the week) was NOT a sabbath day.
BUT IF IT WAS (continuing down this road), this would mean that the women would not have gone to the tomb until after sundown the first day of the week, which would be MONDAY. It just doesn't work.


As a sidenote, I was wondering if "the sixth hour" in Roman time could refer to both 6 AM as well as 6 PM.

Thanks for your time!

Sure it could. But it is an assumption to think that somehow the 6th hour of the day (as recorded in the Bible) sometimes means Noon, and other times NOT. I see no reason to switch from one method to another to try and make it all fit. I believe it all fits nicely when the Hebrew method is used - ie. 3rd hour being 9am: 6th hour being Noon: 9th hour being 3pm. This is consistent with everything except the timing of the crucifixion. But even that fits when we don't assume too much (which we have - IMHO).

And thanks for YOUR time too. :cheers:

Agape,
Don

[jpholding]

Yo,

This does not say that the women prepared the spices and ointments that Nicodemus bought.

Why does it have to? The spices certainly would not just have come out of thin air. :smile: Someone had to buy them.

If Nicodemus "already" had bought spices and ointments (and he did), the women would not have needed to buy more.

That's like saying if someone already bought flowers for a funeral, no one "needed" to buy more. As noted, an anointing spice would be a different species -- for ritual or sentimental purposes. It would also be the sort of thing that your typical peasant would be able to afford. There's no way the average disciple of Jesus would have been able to afford the burial spices needed to treat the body. Therefore there HAD to be someone else to provide them, and Joe and Nic fit the bill.

And, if Nicodemus "already" had spices and ointments (and he did) AND WAS USING THEM, then they would have already been "prepared".

Depends of what you mean by "preparation". Arranging them around the body would have been prepartory women's work.

But that is not what it says!

*sigh* It doesn't NEED to say it. We have to fill in the gaps regardless of our ideas -- yours or mine. Now will you next tell me that they never used the bathroom, becuase the text does not say they ever did? :smile:

If they bought them AFTER the weekly sabbath day, when could they have done so with enough time to prepare them?

Que pasa? How much time do you think it would take? An hour or even a half hour early in the morning is more than sufficient.

[o2bwise]

The fullest application has to do with the most spiritual application and that would be seeing the temple as the MIND. For example, Paul says, "YOU are that holy temple" (whose builder is God).

According to Hebrews, Christ was perfected through suffering.

Some time prior to Calvary, the veil was being rent in the mind of Christ. He was seeing God's love unveiled and it was exposing to Him the full propensity to evil that man has by nature.

Christ then experience the full "wages of sin" (guilt, shame, embarrassment). This is when the "temple" was "destroyed." At some point, Christ's faith gained the final victory, "It is finished!" According to what Christ told the thief, THAT day, he would be with Him in paradise.

And there He was - in paradise. Behind the veil, sin a conquered enemy, and looking straight at infinite Love.

Every other three day experience is a time of conscious torment. Most picture a time of unveiling (such as Esther in the inner court of the King, the heavy rains in Ezra, Abraham up Mount Moriah).

To look to the physical, is to miss the whole point.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[ValiantForTruth]

Yesterday @ 06:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95368#post95368)
jpholding:

Yo,

This does not say that the women prepared the spices and ointments that Nicodemus bought.

Why does it have to?

Because the WOMEN also "bought" spices.


The spices certainly would not just have come out of thin air. :smile: Someone had to buy them.

That's right, the WOMEN bought them (Mark 16:1).


If Nicodemus already had bought spices and ointments (and he did), the women would not have needed to buy more.

That's like saying if someone already bought flowers for a funeral, no one needed to buy more.

No it's not. It's like saying that if someone has already been properly buried (with the proper grave clothes, and spices, and ointments), then no one would need to properly do it again. The women did not see Nicodemus "properly" bury Jesus. They only saw Joseph "wrap" Jesus in a sheet and lay him in the tomb - then they left before Nicodemus came and did it "properly".


If they bought them AFTER the weekly sabbath day, when could they have done so with enough time to prepare them?

Que pasa? How much time do you think it would take? An hour or even a half hour early in the morning is more than sufficient.

Then how could they have "rested on the sabbath day according to the scriptures" AFTER they prepared them? :argh:

Agape,
Don

[jpholding]

Hum,

Because the WOMEN also "bought" spices.

So did Nic and Joe. So again, why does it HAVE to say that? Joseph provided a tomb and it is absurd to suggest that he also didn't provide some spices and such, even if we didn't have John's record of Nic's purchase.

No it's not. It's like saying that if someone has already been properly buried (with the proper grave clothes, and spices, and ointments), then no one would need to properly do it again. The women did not see Nicodemus "properly" bury Jesus. They only saw Joseph "wrap" Jesus in a sheet and lay him in the tomb - then they left before Nicodemus came and did it "properly".

As noted, that's because it was women's work to do the spices and ointments. You're not really getting around what I'm trying to tell you: The spices and ointments THEY bought were on top of what Nic bought.

Then how could they have "rested on the sabbath day according to the scriptures" AFTER they prepared them?

Because as I said, it doesn't need to take a long time. How much time do you think is needed? And what do you think this "preparing" consisted of?

[ValiantForTruth]

You're not really getting around what I'm trying to tell you: The spices and ointments THEY bought were on top of what Nic bought.

Nic bought spices, AND the women also bought spices - on this we agree the scriptures say. :thumb:

Now read Mark 16:1 (NIV)
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

When did the women buy these spices and ointments? ...After the Sabbath day (Mark 16:1).

Then after they bought their spices, they prepared them. And after they prepared them, they rested on the sabbath day.

Luke 23:56 (NIV)
Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.


...it doesn't need to take a long time. How much time do you think is needed? And what do you think this preparing consisted of?

It doesn't matter HOW they prepared them, or How LONG it took to prepare them. It doesn't matter if it took 5 minutes or 5 hours - WHY? Because it says that after they finished preparing them "they rested on the sabbath day" (Luke 23:56).

Since they bought them AFTER the sabbath day, There is NO WAY that the women could then prepare them BEFORE that same day. They could not prepare them before they bought them! And they bought them AFTER a sabbath day.

Agape,
Don

[John Powell]

JP HOLDING:
Hey John Powell! How come you held this party and didn't invite me?


POWELL:
Fear? Nah.

I seem to have neglected this thread when others didn't seem interested.


JP HOLDING:
From the looks of it you're equivocal on the rabbinic reference right now.


POWELL:
That's certainly possible. If it's not the right reference then I wish I could see the right one. I don't want just Azariah's words, however, but what the Jewish commentators write about it since I think that helps to explain what Azariah probably meant.


JP HOLDING:
Just as well, because after reading your arguments about the Biblical references, I am thinking it's more clear than before what's up.

POWELL:
Now, let me consider the Bible versus JP Holding and others have suggested support the claim that the phrase "3 days and 3 nights" can mean essentially "parts of 2 or 3 days and parts of 2 nights."

Gen 42:16-18 (KJV):
16 Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.
17 And he put them all together into ward three days.
18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God:

POWELL:
This passage is irrelevant to the question of what "3 days and 3 nights" means in the Bible since it uses the term "3 days." That could mean parts of 3 weekdays or parts of three 24-hr periods.

JP HOLDING:
Hmm. Question: Did Joseph let them out of the ward somewhere along the line? Here's the problem I see with your anaysis: It MUST mean three 24-hour periods, and not weekdays, because otherwise you have to suggest that they were let out of the ward at night for at least part of one period (the middle one).


POWELL:
I don't think it has to be that way, but things could be different depending on which it was. To be in prison for 3 weekdays could be less time than for three 24-hr days.

Let's assume the writer meant 3 weekdays as Jews counted days and that any part of a day counts as a full day. If they appeared before Joseph during the day of Friday and were put in jail that same day then they could be conveniently let out Sunday morning (or as early as right after sunset the earlier evening, also Sunday) to go on their way. They would have been in jail for part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday (during the night). They would have to be let go before sunset on Sunday / Monday on this assumption or it would be parts of 4 weekdays.

Now let's assume it was three 24-hour periods with a minimum of 48 hours plus a little. In that case, if they were put in jail during the day on Friday then they could not be let out until just after the same time of the day on Sunday and must be let out before the same time on Monday day. In that scenario, they were probably let out Monday morning rather than Sunday morning.


JP HOLDING:
In other words, if you are suggesting the equivalent to:

1) They were locked in at 11:59 PM Monday.
2) They were let out at 12:01 AM Wednesday.


POWELL:
This would not be 48-hrs plus a bit. It would be parts of 3 weekdays as we count days, namely a minute of Monday, all of Tuesday, and a minute of Wednesday.


JP HOLDING:
You STILL have a point where "day" is inclusive of a full day and a full night, because you just don't let people out of jail like that.

POWELL:
I think it makes the most sense if they were put in jail during the day and let out in a morning, but not right at sunrise.


JP HOLDING:
"Day" here is obviously carrying the same meaning as "day and night" just like we can speak of a 24-hour "day" which includes the physical phenomenon of day and night. Which suggests in turn that "day and night" is usable synonymously with just "day".


POWELL:
Well yes, "day" here means either a weekday or it could mean a 24-hr day regardless of when you start counting. Also, it could be that any part of the weekday counts as a full day whether that partial time was during daylight or night. However, the crucial point is that I don't think those concessions justify claiming that "1 day and 1 night" could mean only part of 1 day or only part of 1 night. I think "1 day and 1 night" means, as a minimum, part of a daylight period and part of a night even if it's only a total of 2 minutes straddling sunset.


JP HOLDING:
The same question applies to 1 Kings 20:29. Did the armies unpitch their tents and go home at some points during the 24-hour periods?


POWELL:
I don't think this presents a problem either. They most likely pitched their tents during the afternoon before sunset and renewed the battle sometime in the morning after sunrise.

If 7 days meant 7 weekdays then if they pitched their tents late afternoon on weekday 1 then they could conveniently begin fighting again on weekday 7. That would be 7 weekdays. It would be parts of 8 weekdays if they waited to fight until after sunset on the beginning of day 8.

If, on the other hand, seven days meant "six 24-hr periods plus at least a little" then they could not renew the fighting until day 7 after the same time of day they had pitched their tents. So, probably they didn't renew fighting until the morning of day 8. They must renew fighting on day 8 before the time they had pitched their tents or it would be more than seven 24-hr periods.

Depending on whether "7 days" means weekdays or 24-hr periods can result in a one day difference in when the battle renews.

I don't think this significantly affects my argument that "3 days and 3 nights" is a very different statement than "3 days" and would require parts of 3 days and 3 nights to satisfy it.

John Powell

[John Powell]

SOCRATES:
Some people argue that the crucifixion occurred on a Wednesday or a Thursday. This is mainly based on Mt. 12:40, where Christ said that he would be ‘three days and three nights’ in the tomb.


POWELL:
They see a problem that you don't.


SOCRATES:
They assume that this must be three full 24-hour periods.


POWELL:
Not necessarily. They more likely assume that 3 days and 3 nights means parts of 3 days and 3 nights. If Jesus resurrected just before sunrise on Sunday then He could not have been buried later than Thursday afternoon before sunset to count as "3 days and 3 nights."


SOCRATES:
But this is hard to fit in with the other evidence from Scripture. The Bible claims that Christ rose on the ‘first day of the week’ (Mark 16:9) which was ‘on the third day’ (1 Cor. 15:4), as Christ predicted (Luke 24:7). Many bibliosceptics even claim that the Bible contradicts itself here. But if we believe in the authority of Scripture, this is not an option. The solution lies in a correct understanding of Jewish idiom.

The critics overlook the fact that for Jews, all those phrases were synonymous.


POWELL:
Given my readings of what Azariah and others said, you appear to be mistaken.

There is a problem in that if Jesus was buried late Thursday afternoon and left the tomb before sunrise on Sunday morning to make the "3 days and 3 nights" work as I think it should and to make a Sunday resurrection work then this would not be 3 weekdays. It would be 4 weekdays. However, it would work if it meant three 24-hr days regardless of when you start counting time, meaning at least two 24-hr days plus a little.

I'm not sure, but I see indications that JP Holding prefers the 24-hr meaning over the weekday meaning.


SOCRATES:
Jews distinguished the word ‘day’ in the sense of daylight hours from ‘day’ as 24 hour cycle, by referring to the latter as ‘night and a day’.


POWELL:
Interesting, but surely wrong. Are you saying that when 1 Kings 20:29 spoke of 7 days encampment that they meant only the daylight hours, not the included night time periods? Are you saying that Joseph's brothers were imprisoned only during daylight hours and let free to go home at night?


SOCRATES:
Further, in Jewish counting, a part of a day was counted as a whole day (a figure of speech known as synecdoche), . . .


POWELL:
Yes. That is a reasonable thing to concede to.


SOCRATES:
. . . e.g. 1 Sam. 30:12, where ‘he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and nights’ is equated in v. 13 with hayyom shelosha (three days ago) which could only mean day before yesterday.


POWELL:
Did you read my analysis of this? It doesn't seem to work with my interpretation if it means the weekday before yesterday. It does work, however, if it refers to 48 hours plus a little.


SOCRATES:
Another example is 1 Ki. 20:29 (NIV):

For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined.

In English counting, if they started fighting on the 7th day, it means they were only camping for six whole days.


POWELL:
Six whole 24-hr periods plus a little works. It also works if it means parts of 7 weekdays, but the total time encamped might differ by 24 hours between these two interpretations.


SOCRATES:
But in Jewish reckoning, the partial days counted as wholes, so the text says they were camping for seven days. See also Gen. 42:17-18.
Another proof is Matthew 27:63-64:

63 Sir, they said, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’
64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first. (NIV)

Note that even His enemies understood that ‘after three days’ meant that they only had to secure the tomb ‘until the third day’. If three full 24 hour periods were meant, then they would want to secure the tomb until the fourth day to make sure.


POWELL:
This one is a problem. The phrase "after 3 days" should mean 3 days plus a little which is equivalent to "on the 4th day."

It doesn't necessarily mean the enemies of Jesus understood "after three days" means "until the third day." It could mean that the Gospel writers were confused about how to count days.


SOCRATES:
Note that the above analysis was based on the principle that Scripture is its own best interpreter. This principle tells us that the days in Genesis 1 must be ordinary days, because of the way the Hebrew word yom is used in Scripture. When modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day.


POWELL:
A literal weekday or a literal 24-hr time period without regard to when you start counting time? Does it allow for parts of these to count as a whole?


SOCRATES:
When modified by ‘evening and/or morning’, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it likewise always means a literal day. Ex. 20:11 only makes sense with literal days.


POWELL:
What about the idea you conceded to that a part counts as a whole? Does "1 day and 1 night" necessarily mean no less than a complete daylight period plus a complete night or 24 hours or could it mean something much shorter like 2 minutes straddling sunset?


SOCRATES:
A comparison with other Scriptures shows that sometimes a part of a day could be counted as a whole day. But this is not denying that the days are ordinary days, whether parts or wholes. It is impossible to claim that ‘three days and three nights’ could mean that Christ was buried for 3,000 or three billion years!


POWELL:
I don't think anyone is arguing that here. I see you're trying to argue against the day-age theorists.


SOCRATES:
My analysis is quite different from that used by old-earth compromisers. They do not interpret Scripture with Scripture, but try to twist Scripture to fit the alleged scientific proof of an old earth.


POWELL:
They apparently trust science more than you do.


SOCRATES:
Conclusion

In my opinion, the best explanation is that Christ was buried at about 6pm Good Friday (Luke 23:54). Since the Jewish day started at sunset, the evening of Good Friday was the first day, all day Saturday was the 2nd day, and the 3rd day began on Saturday at sunset.


POWELL:
That doesn't make sense, Socrates. If Jesus was buried just before sunset on Friday afternoon then the first day couldn't be Friday night since that was the previous night time period (remember how the Jews counted weekdays). Don't you mean that the afternoon of Good Friday was the first day? Also, don't you mean the 3rd day began immediately after sunset on Sunday night prior to the resurrection?

John Powell

[John Powell]

ValiantForTruth:
Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

Luke 23:56
And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

VALIANTFORTRUTH:
According to these verses, The women BOUGHT spices "when the sabbath was over". Then after they PREPARED the spices they "rested the sabbath day". If Jesus was crucified on Friday, then these scriptures are wrong.


POWELL:
Another possibility is that the two stories contradict since one says they prepared the spices before the sabbath and the other says they didn't even buy the spices until after the sabbath.


VALIANTFORTRUTH:
The ONLY WAY that these two verses can BOTH be correct, is if there were TWO sabbath days that week (the weekly sabbath - Saturday - and an ANNUAL sabbath - Passover - which was always on the 15th of Nisan). See John 19:31.


POWELL:
Interesting. I wonder if what has been interpreted as "first day of the week" or Sunday, actually was "first of the sabbaths" or something like that.


VALIANTFORTRUTH:
1) The women saw Jesus buried prior to sundown (late Wednesday).
2) The next day (Thursday) began at sundown, which is when Passover (the annual sabbath day) began.
3) After this annual sabbath day had passed, they PURCHASED spices, and PREPARED them. BOTH could have been done ONLY on Friday, the day after Passover and the day before the weekly sabbath.
4) Then, AFTER purchasing and preparing the spices, the women RESTED the weekly sabbath day (Saturday), according to the scriptures.

If this is true (and I believe that it is), then "3 days and 3 nights" is not figurative but literal.


POWELL:
Your Wednesday afternoon burial doesn't seem to work. How do you count the 3 days and the 3 nights?


VALIANTFORTRUTH:
Every version reads the same for Mark and Luke. One says they purchased spices AFTER a sabbath, the other says they prepared spices BEFORE a sabbath. I see no way to justify anything other than a Wednesday crucifixion with burial just prior to sundown, followed by a Sabbath day, a week day, and another sabbath day.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Agape,
Don


POWELL:
Interesting. What would really be weird is if the Gospel writers meant to say that Jesus resurrected on Saturday, not Sunday.

John Powell.

[ValiantForTruth]

Today @ 11:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97179#post97179)
John Powell:

POWELL:
Your Wednesday afternoon burial doesn't seem to work. How do you count the 3 days and the 3 nights?

VFT:
Buried before sundown Wednesday.
Thursday night (night preceded the day)
Thursday
=(1 night and 1 day)
Friday night
Friday
=(2 nights and 2 days)
Saturday night
Saturday
=(3 nights and 3 days)

And he was raised the 3rd day = Saturday before sundown.


POWELL:
Interesting. What would really be weird is if the Gospel writers meant to say that Jesus resurrected on Saturday, not Sunday.

VFT:
NO PLACE does the Bible say WHEN Jesus got up, only that the first time he was seen was the first day of the week. If he was raised after being in the grave 3 days and 3 nights (like he said he would), and was raised the 3rd day (like he said he would), then he got up Saturday before sundown. But he was first SEEN after he was risen, "the first day of the week" early while it was yet dark by Mary Magdalene.

Agape,
Don

[o2bwise]

There is tension because the three day experience took place BEFORE physical death, just like the many others in the Bible.

The correct resolution of the tension is not to micro-dissect the physical realm, it is to begin looking to the spiritual realm.

Talking about whether or not Christ was crucified on Wed. or Friday is tantamount to tithing mustard seeds.

Begin to see the three day experience that is as Jesus exhorted. Which was when Jonah was in the belly of a whale and felt frightfully distant from God.

Jonah was CONSCIOUS. So was Paul (Damascus road experience), Abraham (when up Mt Moriah), Esther (in the inner court of the King), the men in Ezra 10 (heavy rains experience). Man, there must be FIFTY three day experiences littered throughout the Bible and all of them a time of conscious torment.

LOOK at the time Christ experienced THE SAME!

Looking to the physical is analogous to the Pharisees looking to the literal temple. But, in this case, the spiritual is Christ's mind, the physical, His body.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[jpholding]

Today @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96792#post96792)
ValiantForTruth:


Since they bought them AFTER the sabbath day, There is NO WAY that the women could then prepare them BEFORE that same day. They could not prepare them before they bought them! And they bought them AFTER a sabbath day.

Agape,
Don

They can, if the one's they prepared were Nic's rather than the ones they bought. See?

[jpholding]

Hey John Powell,

I don't think it has to be that way, but things could be different depending on which it was. To be in prison for 3 weekdays could be less time than for three 24-hr days.

I agree, but my point is that you have a middle day that obviously HAD to be the full 24 hours, which tells us that the word "day" here was inclusive of a day and a night. Most of your response misses this point and doesn't even address it. :smile: All you say is you don't think it is justified, without explaining why.

I don't think this presents a problem either. They most likely pitched their tents during the afternoon before sunset and renewed the battle sometime in the morning after sunrise.

Missed the point here too. Ancient armies made semi-permanent camps they stayed in day and night. You seem to be under the impression that they battled during those 7 days but all they did was encamp against one another. Battle was not even started until after that. There was no "fighting again".

BTW congrats in advance if you take the Member of the Month title. :thumb:

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Your Wednesday afternoon burial doesn't seem to work. How do you count the 3 days and the 3 nights?

VFT:
Buried before sundown Wednesday.
Thursday night (night preceded the day)
Thursday
=(1 night and 1 day)
Friday night
Friday
=(2 nights and 2 days)
Saturday night
Saturday
=(3 nights and 3 days)

And he was raised the 3rd day = Saturday before sundown.


POWELL:
You seem to be assuming that "3 days and 3 nights" is an idiom meaning "about 72 hours" regardless of when you start counting time. You're suggesting that Jesus was buried at about 5 p.m. on Wednesday and resurrected at about 5 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, but wasn't seen until the following morning.

Given your scenario and the way Jews counted "days and nights," perhaps the claim should have been "after 3 nights and 3 days."

Here is how I think the Jews would count your scenario:
Sliver of Wednesday afternoon (part of daylight 1)
Thursday night (night 1)
Thursday daylight (daylight 2)
Friday night (night 2)
Friday daylight (daylight 3)
Saturday night (night 3)
Saturday daylight (most of daylight 4)

They would say Jesus was in the tomb for 4 days and 3 nights.

Another problem is how you get "on the third day" to work. I don't know if the Jews meant "weekdays" or "24-hr days without regard to when you start counting time". Other Biblical passages suggest 24-hr days is the best match.

The Jewish writer who assumes day = weekday would claim that Jesus resurrected ON the 4th day in your scenario.

Sliver of Wednesday afternoon (part of weekday 1)
all of Thursday (weekday 2)
all of Friday (weekday 3)
most of Saturday (most of weekday 4)

On the other hand, the Jewish writer who assumes day = 24-hr period without regard to when you start counting, so "on the third day" means after a minimum of 48 hours and a little, but no more than 72 hours, would say "ON the third day" if He resurrected before 5 p.m. (or whenever he had been buried), but "ON the fourth day" if He resurrected after that time.

From late afternoon Wed to late afternoon Thur (24-hr day 1)
From late afternoon Thur to late afternoon Fri (24-hr day 2)
From late afternoon Fri to late afternoon Sat (24-hr day 3)
From late afternoon Sat to a little bit more of Sat (part of 24-hr day 4)

The other problem has to do with "after three days." That should mean "on the 4th day".


POWELL:
Interesting. What would really be weird is if the Gospel writers meant to say that Jesus resurrected on Saturday, not Sunday.

VFT:
NO PLACE does the Bible say WHEN Jesus got up, only that the first time he was seen was the first day of the week.


POWELL:
You seem to think Jesus resurrected on Saturday afternoon, but wasn't seen until the following morning.

Young's Literal Translation suggests there might be a problem with the orthodox Christian claim of a Sunday first appearance.

Mark 16: 2, 9 (YLT):
2 and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,

9 And he, having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, did appear first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons

POWELL:
Does the Greek say "first day of the week" or "first of the sabbaths"? Perhaps "first of the sabbaths" meant the first Saturday or weekly sabbath after the passover.

If Jesus was buried on Wednesday afternoon before the passover on Thursday and then resurrected on the morning of Saturday before sunrise then this would satisfy the "3 days and 3 nights" with parts counted as wholes, AND satisfy "on the third day" if this meant three 24-hr days AND even satisfy "after 3 days" if this other writer meant after 3 weekdays. Furthermore, the women could have bought the spices on Friday (after Thursday passover high sabbath) and prepared them later on Friday (before Saturday weekly sabbath).

At least that's the way it looks to me right now.


VFT:
If he was raised after being in the grave 3 days and 3 nights (like he said he would), and was raised the 3rd day (like he said he would), then he got up Saturday before sundown. But he was first SEEN after he was risen, "the first day of the week" early while it was yet dark by Mary Magdalene.

Agape,
Don


POWELL:
Let's see.

Matt 12:40 (KJV):
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

POWELL:
Surely "in the heart of the earth" means in the tomb. Your scenario suggests this actually means more than three days and three nights, right, that it means parts of 4 days and 3 nights?

What scenario would you suggest to explain Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the "fish"? For example, what time of the day was he probably swallowed and then released?

Would it have been part of one day, then 3 complete nights and 2 complete days and then most of a 4th day? If no, then it would appear that the two events are not as analogous as Matthew suggests.

John Powell

[John Powell]

O2BWISE:
Just Like The Scribes and Pharisees

There is tension because the three day experience took place BEFORE physical death, just like the many others in the Bible.


POWELL:
Please quote your Biblical reference for this.


O2BWISE:
The correct resolution of the tension is not to micro-dissect the physical realm, it is to begin looking to the spiritual realm.


POWELL:
In other words, to sweep any apparent inconsistencies under the rug? Is your God an "imprecise" kind of entity?

If those you do business with were to tell you to handle your complaints about them that way, what would you say? What if they said the following? "Don't worry that we overcharged your account. Don't micro-dissect the physical realm, but begin to look to the spiritual." What would be the wise thing to do?


O2BWISE:
Talking about whether or not Christ was crucified on Wed. or Friday is tantamount to tithing mustard seeds.


POWELL:
What if some people make an extraordinary claim like that their friend resurrected from the dead and is the God of the universe and you should change your life to follow them and pay them money, but they can't seem to tell a consistent story about the resurrection? Should we follow your admonition to "Don't micro-dissect the physical realm, but begin to look to the spiritual." and just believe? What would be the wise thing to do?


O2BWISE:
Begin to see the three day experience that is as Jesus exhorted. Which was when Jonah was in the belly of a whale and felt frightfully distant from God.

Jonah was CONSCIOUS. So was Paul (Damascus road experience), Abraham (when up Mt Moriah), Esther (in the inner court of the King), the men in Ezra 10 (heavy rains experience). Man, there must be FIFTY three day experiences littered throughout the Bible and all of them a time of conscious torment.

LOOK at the time Christ experienced THE SAME!


POWELL:
So what? So the spirit of Jesus was conscious in "paradise" or the spirit world while his body was in the tomb, what relevance does that have to whether or not his physical body was in the tomb "for 3 days and 3 nights" and until "the 3rd day" or until "after 3 days"?


O2BWISE:
Looking to the physical is analogous to the Pharisees looking to the literal temple. But, in this case, the spiritual is Christ's mind, the physical, His body.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)


POWELL:
You don't seem to be a very wise person if you too much elevate the spiritual over the physical.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I don't think it has to be that way, but things could be different depending on which it was. To be in prison for 3 weekdays could be less time than for three 24-hr days.

JP HOLDING:
I agree, but my point is that you have a middle day that obviously HAD to be the full 24 hours, which tells us that the word "day" here was inclusive of a day and a night. Most of your response misses this point and doesn't even address it. All you say is you don't think it is justified, without explaining why.


POWELL:
I don't see the relevance. I concede that the phrase "3 days" without the additional "nights" means at least one complete 24-hr period. However, I don't know if these days mean parts of weekdays or parts of 24-hr periods without regard to when you start counting.

If "3 days" = "3 weekdays" then this could be as little as 24 hrs plus a minute of two other days or as long as just under 72 hours. On the short end, from just before sunset on Friday afternoon to just after sunset on Sunday evening would be a little bit of Friday daylight + all of Saturday (daylight and night) + a little bit of Sunday night. Saturday would be that 24-hr period in the middle that you refer to and I concede to. On the long end, 3 weekdays could be as long as from just after sunset on Friday to just before sunset on Sunday afternoon. This would be nearly all of Friday and Sunday with all of Saturday.

On the other hand, if "3 days" = "three 24-hr periods without regard to when you start counting" then it probably would mean at least 48 hours plus a little. As in the weekday assumption, it could not be longer than 72 hours. For the short end, from the afternoon of Friday to the afternoon of Sunday would be two complete 24-hr days. You would need at least little more of Sunday afternoon to count as three 24-hr days, but not beyond Monday afternoon at the same time as when you started on Friday or it would be parts of four 24-hr days.

When they say "3 days" then you're right that there is at least one night included regardless of whether it means weekdays or 24-hr days.

However, the critical question again is what "3 days and 3 nights" mean.

Here's my reasoning:

The Biblical phrase "3 days" without "nights" means parts of 3 days regardless whether you mean "weekdays" or "24-hr time periods without regard to when you start counting," so, by analogy, the Biblical phrase "3 days and 3 nights" most likely means "parts of 3 daylight periods and parts of 3 nights." If the writer meant "parts of 2 daylight periods and parts of 2 nights" only, as in the Friday afternoon to Sunday pre-sunrise resurrection scenario, then most likely he would have said "2 days and 2 nights."

What I read by Azariah and his commentators supports this view. It's in my first two posts of this thread.


POWELL:
I don't think this presents a problem either. They most likely pitched their tents during the afternoon before sunset and renewed the battle sometime in the morning after sunrise.

Missed the point here too. Ancient armies made semi-permanent camps they stayed in day and night. You seem to be under the impression that they battled during those 7 days but all they did was encamp against one another. Battle was not even started until after that. There was no "fighting again".


POWELL:
I wasn't assuming they fought during those 7 days. I thought they had been fighting, stopped for 7 days, and then started up again. It was my mistake for not reading the full context. I was misled by the word "joined." Apparently, the armies approached each other without fighting, encamped for 7 days, and then began fighting.

What relevance does any of this have to do with what "3 days and 3 nights" means? These other cases have to do with what "days" mean when used alone. In that case they can mean daylight periods and nights or just daylight periods or just nights.

However, when the writer goes to the trouble to say "day and night" I don't think that means only daylight or only night. You evidently disagree.


JP HOLDING:
BTW congrats in advance if you take the Member of the Month title.


POWELL:
Thanks. I thought that had already been decided in favor of Socrates. If it's still going then you should win. I'm honored to have even been nominated, especially by Dee Dee.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Yo John Powell,

I don't see the relevance. I concede that the phrase "3 days" without the additional "nights" means at least one complete 24-hr period. However, I don't know if these days mean parts of weekdays or parts of 24-hr periods without regard to when you start counting.

In my argument it doesn't matter -- if it can mean a full 24 hour period, and also less however much of Friday or Saturday) then it clear has the ability to represent any amount from 0-24 hours. And if "day" = a real day and night, then clearly "day and night" must = a real day. Otherwise you have a really wacky linguistic inconsistency.

The Biblical phrase "3 days" without "nights" means parts of 3 days regardless whether you mean "weekdays" or "24-hr time periods without regard to when you start counting," so, by analogy, the Biblical phrase "3 days and 3 nights" most likely means "parts of 3 daylight periods and parts of 3 nights."

Based on the above, that would not be so, since "day" = a real day and a night. If the idioms are consistent, we will have the meaning I ascribe. It would be odd for a new idiom to crop up where "day and night" can mean, i.e., the end of a day and the beginning of a night for the next 24 hour "day", while "day" itself also means any part of a 24 hour period.

Thanks. I thought that had already been decided in favor of Socrates.

That was LAST month. You're up for THIS month. Though I'm guessing you may have been up for last month too. I don't know, I wasn't watching at the time. :smile:

[John Powell]

JP HOLDING:
Yo John Powell,

POWELL:
I don't see the relevance. I concede that the phrase "3 days" without the additional "nights" means at least one complete 24-hr period. However, I don't know if these days mean parts of weekdays or parts of 24-hr periods without regard to when you start counting.

JP HOLDING:
In my argument it doesn't matter -- if it can mean a full 24 hour period, and also less however much of Friday or Saturday) then it clear has the ability to represent any amount from 0-24 hours.


POWELL:
Yes. If you say "day" by itself then it COULD refer to only daylight or only night or both, any amount from 0-24 hours.

However, if the writer uses the phrase "day and night" then I don't think the "day" can include any part of the night. The "day" here can only be 0-12 hrs of daylight. Otherwise, James, what's the purpose of adding ". . . and night"?


JP HOLDING:
And if "day" = a real day and night, then clearly "day and night" must = a real day. Otherwise you have a really wacky linguistic inconsistency.


POWELL:
It seems wackier and more inconsistent to you than to me.

A "day" by itself CAN be daylight and night, but it could also be only daylight or only night. However, "day and night" should be some of both. I don't think "day and night" can mean ONLY daylight or ONLY night.


POWELL:
The Biblical phrase "3 days" without "nights" means parts of 3 days regardless whether you mean "weekdays" or "24-hr time periods without regard to when you start counting," so, by analogy, the Biblical phrase "3 days and 3 nights" most likely means "parts of 3 daylight periods and parts of 3 nights."

JP HOLDING:
Based on the above, that would not be so, since "day" = a real day and a night.


POWELL:
Wait a second, James. You allowed above that "day" by itself might mean as little as nearly 0 hrs. That would be less than a daylight + night, right? "Day" by itself could be daylight + night, but could also be only daylight or only night, right?

Now, the big question:

Can "day AND night" refer to ONLY daylight? Can it refer to ONLY night?

I don't think so to either. What do you think?


JP HOLDING:
If the idioms are consistent, we will have the meaning I ascribe.


POWELL:
I don't see the inconsistency you see, James.

To me "day" by itself is vague. It could mean weekday or 24-hr time period or, since parts count as wholes, it could mean part of daylight or part of night or continuous parts of both. On the other hand, "day and night" is not so vague. To me it must be, as a minimum, part of daylight and part of night. To have only daylight or only night would not suffice IMO.


JP HOLDING:
It would be odd for a new idiom to crop up where "day and night" can mean, i.e., the end of a day and the beginning of a night for the next 24 hour "day", while "day" itself also means any part of a 24 hour period.


POWELL:
Remember that parts count as wholes.

I don't think the idiom changed in meaning from the O.T. to the N.T. times. I don't think that "day" in "day and night" can also mean any part of a 24 hour period.

When one says "day" by itself they mean weekday or 24-hr days or parts thereof (such as only daylight or only night), but when one says "day and night" then the "day" here only refers to daylight IMO.


POWELL:
Thanks. I thought that had already been decided in favor of Socrates.

JP HOLDING:
That was LAST month. You're up for THIS month. Though I'm guessing you may have been up for last month too. I don't know, I wasn't watching at the time.


POWELL:
I see. Then I better call my election helpers back to work. :smile:

John Powell

[jpholding]

John Powell:

I realized something that shows that "x days" and "x days and x nights" are synonymous.

Compare Gen. 7:12, and 7:17, then Mark 1:13 and Matt. 4:2.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

It looks to me like the authors(s) considered the phrases interchangeable, and that "day and night" means the same as "day".

Otherwise, James, what's the purpose of adding ". . . and night"?

It may be for no other purpose than poetry. We can say, "I work day and night" and we don't mean that we are looking at the sun and moon; we mean we work a lot.

Can "day AND night" refer to ONLY daylight? Can it refer to ONLY night?

I think it can, yes, and the passages about would also suggest that.

[John Powell]

JP HOLDING:
John Powell:

I realized something that shows that "x days" and "x days and x nights" are synonymous.

Compare Gen. 7:12, and 7:17, then Mark 1:13 and Matt. 4:2.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

It looks to me like the authors(s) considered the phrases interchangeable, and that "day and night" means the same as "day".


POWELL:
In these long-time cases you might be right that the author didn't think the slight difference in time (24 hrs at most) mattered. However, I don't think that applies in the case of "3 days and 3 nights," however, since 24 hrs is a significant part of 3 days.


POWELL:
Otherwise, James, what's the purpose of adding ". . . and night"?

JP HOLDING:
It may be for no other purpose than poetry.


POWELL:
I don't think so. I think the purpose is to be more explicit, not more poetic. They probably knew that "days" by itself was more vague.


JP HOLDING:
We can say, "I work day and night" and we don't mean that we are looking at the sun and moon; we mean we work a lot.


POWELL:
Yes, in this context. However, it might even be an exaggeration if the person only works during daylight hours. To be precise, non poetic, the person must work at least part of the daylight and part of the night to justifiably claim they work "day and night."


POWELL:
Can "day AND night" refer to ONLY daylight? Can it refer to ONLY night?

JP HOLDING:
I think it can, yes, and the passages about would also suggest that.


POWELL:
Then it's very odd to use the phrase "X and Y" when you mean something more like "X or Y."

Consider a hypothetical situation, James. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus prophesied that He would be in the tomb for "1 day and 1 night." However, He was buried right after sunrise about 7 a.m. and left the tomb just before sunset at about 5 p.m. that same daylight period. If that were the case, James, would you think He was just poetically exaggerating by adding "and 1 night"?

Perhaps the following will help identify our disagreements. When you have the time please answer the following questions as you think an ancient Jew or Christian would answer them. For example, count parts of periods as full periods as they would have. The question is

How long will you be on the boat?

I'll give my answers and hope to see yours.

Give the answer "W days" assuming "days" = "Jewish weekdays" and "X days" assuming "days" = "24-hr periods beginning with the event" and "Y days and Z nights" in either order. Also, identify which day or daylight period or night is number 1, number 2, etc.

Case 1: You get on the boat just after sunset on Monday night and get off the boat just before sunset on Wednesday afternoon. This is nearly the complete 72 hours.

W = 3
Mon = d1
Tue = d2
Wed = d3

X = 3
Mon early evening to Tue early evening = d1
Tue early evening to Wed early evening = d2
Wed early evening to Wed late afternoon = d3

Y = 3, Z = 3
Mon night = n 1
Mon daylight = d 1
Tue night = n 2
Tue daylight = d2
Wed night = n3
Wed daylight = d3

Case 2: You get on the boat just before sunset on Monday afternoon and get off the boat right after sunset on Thursday evening. This is a little more than 48 hours. For me, this is the minimum time for "3 days and 3 nights."

W = 4
sliver of Mon = d1
Tue = d2
Wed = d3
sliver of Thur = d4

X = 3
Mon afternoon to Tue afternoon = d1
Tue afternoon to Wed afternoon = d2
Wed afternoon to Thur evening = d3

Y = 3, Z = 3
sliver of Mon afternoon = d1
Tue night = n1
Tue daylight = d2
Wed night = n2
Wed daylight = d3
sliver of Thur evening = n3

Case 3: You get on the boat just before sunset on Monday afternoon and get off the boat just after sunset on Wednesday evening. This is a little more than 24 hours. For me, this is the minimum time for "3 days" if days = weekdays.

W = 3
sliver of Mon = d1
Tue = d2
sliver of Wed = d3

X = 2
Mon afternoon to Tue afternoon = d1
Tue afternoon to Wed evening = d2

Y = 2 , Z = 2
sliver of Mon afternoon = d1
Tue night = n1
Tue daylight = d2
sliver of Wed evening = n2

Case 4: You get on the boat just before sunset on Monday afternoon and get right back off just after sunset on Tuesday evening. This is less than even an hour straddling sunset. For me, it's the minimum "2 days" if "days" = "weekdays."

W = 2
sliver of Mon afternoon = d1
sliver of Tue evening = d2

X = 1
Mon afternoon to Tue evening = d1

Y = 1, Z = 1
sliver of Mon afternoon = d1
sliver of Tue evening = n1

Case 5: You get on the boat just before sunset on Monday afternoon and get immediately back off that same Monday afternoon. This doesn't straddle any change such as sunrise or sunset.

W = 1
sliver of Mon afternoon = d1

X = 1
from Mon afternoon to the same afternoon = d1

Y = 1, Z = 0
sliver of Mon afternoon = d1

Case 6: You get on the boat just before sunset on Monday afternoon and get off the boat right at sunrise of Wednesday. This is the one under controversy.

W = 3
sliver of Mon = d1
Tue = d2
Wed evening = d3

X = 2
Mon afternoon to Tue afternoon = d1
Tue afternoon to Wed sunrise = d2

Y = 2, Z = 2
Sliver of Mon afternoon = d1
Tue night = n1
Tue daylight = d2
Wed evening = n2

John Powell

[jpholding]

Er, John Powell,

In these long-time cases you might be right that the author didn't think the slight difference in time (24 hrs at most) mattered

Can't buy that. You're trying to introduce an artificial distinction (it's OK for "long time cases" but not short ones!) with no basis in fact.

They probably knew that "days" by itself was more vague.

Sounds as good as my "poetic" on the surface, but if that was vague, then so are we today, since we do the same thing.


Then it's very odd to use the phrase "X and Y" when you mean something more like "X or Y."

To us, it may be, but I have long learned that what sounds odd to us does not sound odd at all to another culture or time. Therefore your appeal just doesn't make much for me. If I may plagiarize my article on ancient hyperbole:

Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values...[52]...note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity, imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time" and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness."

How long will you be on the boat?

I could say 3 days or three nights; I could say three days. Same with #2 and #6. For #3 I could say "two days" or "two days and two nights" -- the latter if I feel like making a parallelism. 1 day, or 1 day and 1 night for 5. Keep in mind, John, you're thinking like a modern with a mind for precision; that is not (per Pilch and Malina above, and others) a primary concern for these people. You might say this make inerrancy too flexible for your tastes, and you're right -- but it was never meant to be reckoned that way, either. The modern doctrine as formulated by some (like KJV Onlyists) is a product of a Western mind geared to precision.

[ValiantForTruth]

05-15-2003 @ 09:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97662#post97662)
John Powell:

POWELL:
You (VFT) seem to be assuming that "3 days and 3 nights" is an idiom meaning "about 72 hours" regardless of when you start counting time. You're suggesting that Jesus was buried at about 5 p.m. on Wednesday and resurrected at about 5 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, but wasn't seen until the following morning.

VFT:
Correct. However, regarding the usage of "day" as a Hebrew Idiom that can mean any part of a day or night, is not disputed by me. BUT, when "night" is added, "the expression" ceases to be an IDIOM (figure of speech) and becomes a "literal" statement of fact. In other words, I do not believe that "3 days and 3 nights" is an Idiom, but a literal statement of fact, a literal predifined length of time.


POWELL:
Given your scenario and the way Jews counted "days and nights" perhaps the claim should have been "after 3 nights and 3 days."

Here is how I think the Jews would count your scenario:
Sliver of Wednesday afternoon (part of daylight 1)
Thursday night (night 1)
Thursday daylight (daylight 2)
Friday night (night 2)
Friday daylight (daylight 3)
Saturday night (night 3)
Saturday daylight (most of daylight 4)

They would say Jesus was in the tomb for 4 days and 3 nights.

VFT:
I think you have not stated the question correctly. We are not "counting" time as in a time-line, but rather we are determining "how long Jesus was in the heart of the earth."

The fact that the phrase used to describe this amount of time begins with "days" instead "nights" (when in the sequence of the Hebrew day the night comes first) would indicate that Jesus is indeed NOT referring to a "sequence" of time, but rather a specific "period" or "length" of time.

Once this "length" of time has been determined, then we simply ADD it to the approximate moment of time when Jesus was placed into "the heart of the earth" (a figure of speech meaning the grave or tomb - buried) to arrive at the timing of his resurrection.


POWELL:
Another problem is how you get "on the third day" to work. I don't know if the Jews meant "weekdays" or "24-hr days without regard to when you start counting time." Other Biblical passages suggest 24-hr days is the best match.

A "weekday" is literally 24-hrs in length - from Sunset to Sunset, as is "every day". Figuratively a day can mean almost anything from a part of a day, to a thousand years, or more. Thus the context is most important in determining its meaning.


POWELL:
The Jewish writer who assumes day = weekday would claim that Jesus resurrected ON the 4th day in your scenario.

Sliver of Wednesday afternoon (part of weekday 1)
all of Thursday (weekday 2)
all of Friday (weekday 3)
most of Saturday (most of weekday 4)

On the other hand, the Jewish writer who assumes day = 24-hr period without regard to when you start counting, so "on the third day" means after a minimum of 48 hours and a little, but no more than 72 hours, would say "ON the third day" if He resurrected before 5 p.m. (or whenever he had been buried), but "ON the fourth day" if He resurrected after that time.

From late afternoon Wed to late afternoon Thur (24-hr day 1)
From late afternoon Thur to late afternoon Fri (24-hr day 2)
From late afternoon Fri to late afternoon Sat (24-hr day 3)
From late afternoon Sat to a little bit more of Sat (part of 24-hr day 4)

VFT:
If you take a "week-long" vacation over the NEW YEARS DAY holiday, would your vacation be "two years long"? ....of course not! Would it be "two weeks long"? ....of course not!

How long is your vacation? ....it is "one week long." When you start your vacation does not change how long your vacation is! But knowing when it begins, and how long it is, gives us enough information to determine When it is over.


POWELL:
The other problem has to do with "after three days." That should mean "on the 4th day".

VFT:
You are "twisting" words to skew their meaning.


POWELL:
You seem to think Jesus resurrected on Saturday afternoon, but wasn't seen until the following morning.

Young's Literal Translation suggests there might be a problem with the orthodox Christian claim of a Sunday first appearance.

Mark 16: 2, 9 (YLT):
2 and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,

9 And he, having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, did appear first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons

POWELL:
Does the Greek say "first day of the week" or "first of the sabbaths"? Perhaps "first of the sabbaths" meant the first Saturday or weekly sabbath after the passover.

VFT:
I have heard this argument - it has serious problems!


POWELL:
If Jesus was buried on Wednesday afternoon before the passover on Thursday and then resurrected on the morning of Saturday before sunrise then this would satisfy the "3 days and 3 nights" with parts counted as wholes, AND satisfy "on the third day" if this meant three 24-hr days AND even satisfy "after 3 days" if this other writer meant after 3 weekdays.

VFT:
I have underlined all the different meanings of our "timely expression." They all cannot be correct, yet you dance with all of them.


POWELL:
Furthermore, the women could have bought the spices on Friday (after Thursday passover high sabbath) and prepared them later on Friday (before Saturday weekly sabbath).

At least that's the way it looks to me right now.

VFT:
If this were true, then the women would have violated the weekly sabbath by going to a tomb. The scriptures state that they "rested on the sabbath day according to the commandment." If this were so, they would not have gone to the sepulchre with the intent of entering and handling a dead body on the sabbath day. Also, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (the same day) would also have been breaking the sabbath since Emmaus was farther away than "a sabbath day's journey".


POWELL:
Let's see.

Matt 12:40 (KJV):
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

POWELL:
Surely "in the heart of the earth" means in the tomb. Your scenario suggests this actually means more than three days and three nights, right, that it means parts of 4 days and 3 nights?

VFT:
No, it actually means what it says, 3 days and 3 nights, a 72-hour period of time.


POWELL
What scenario would you suggest to explain Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the "fish"? For example, what time of the day was he probably swallowed and then released?

VFT:
The Same time of day, 3 days apart. (I can see you are wrestling with the math, so I will pick one for you. In fact, I'll pick two).

EXAMPLE no.1:
Swallowed by Fish - Monday 9am
...1 day later = Tuesday 9am
...2 days later = Wednesday 9 am
...3 days later (the 3rd day) = Thursday 9am ...released from the fish.

EXAMPLE no.2:
Swallowed by Fish - Wednesday, just before sundown.
...1 day later = Thursday, just before sundown.
...2 days later = Friday, just before sundown.
...3 days later = Saturday (the 3rd day), just before sundown ....released from the fish.

Agape,
Don

[o2bwise]

I see you're continuing to strain gnats with your ultra-fine filters, all the while a camel is walking through.

The three day period took place prior to death.

Continue to not believe. Just like the scribes and Pharisees.

[ValiantForTruth]

Yesterday @ 02:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102090#post102090)
o2bwise:

I see you're continuing to strain gnats with your ultra-fine filters, all the while a camel is walking through.

The three day period took place prior to death.

Continue to not believe. Just like the scribes and Pharisees.

VFT:
The Bible says that Jesus died on the cross about 3pm, and was buried before sundown. Are you saying he was NOT DEAD when he was buried?

Are you saying that Jesus was in the grave BEFORE he was on the cross?

You have been pretty vague with your argument, and very lacking in pertinent scripture references. This makes it difficult to take you seriously.

I have been a Christian for a long time, and I've heard many things, but this I have NEVER heard. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to be a bit more convincing, complete with Bible references.

Agape,
Don

[John Powell]

JP HOLDING:
Er, John Powell,

POWELL:
In these long-time cases you might be right that the author didn't think the slight difference in time (24 hrs at most) mattered

JP HOLDING:
Can't buy that. You're trying to introduce an artificial distinction (it's OK for "long time cases" but not short ones!) with no basis in fact.


POWELL:
There is a basis in fact, James. It has to do with what missing part of a thing is significant. A useful way to do that in modern times is by calculating the percentage, but the ancients certainly had a feel for it.

If you are told that you will be on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights, you probably won't worry about whether that's off by 24 hours until you approach the end of the time period. Who cares about 1 day out of 40?

On the other hand, if you are told you will be on a boat for 3 days and 3 nights then you probably WILL care whether that's off by 24 hours. One day IS a significant part of three days.

Here's a joke about the former Soviet Union.
A woman seeking repairs on her apartment speaks to an electrician.

The electrician says, "I'm so backed up I won't be able to get to you until next year."

"Will that be in the morning or the afternoon?" the woman asked.

"What does it matter?" asked the electrician.

"Because the plumber is coming in the morning."


POWELL:
They probably knew that "days" by itself was more vague.

JP HOLDING:
Sounds as good as my "poetic" on the surface, but if that was vague, then so are we today, since we do the same thing.


POWELL:
Yes, that's part of my point. We do it somewhat the same today. However, we count hotel days differently.


POWELL:
Then it's very odd to use the phrase "X and Y" when you mean something more like "X or Y."

JP HOLDING:
To us, it may be, but I have long learned that what sounds odd to us does not sound odd at all to another culture or time. Therefore your appeal just doesn't make much for me. If I may plagiarize my article on ancient hyperbole:


POWELL:
Are you suggesting, James, that if the Bible were to say something like, "You must pay the money OR you must go to jail" what it could mean is "You must pay the money AND you must go to jail"?

Didn't the ancients understand the difference between "AND" and "OR"?


JP HOLDING:
Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values...[52]...note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity, imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time" and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness."


POWELL:
Good points. You're right that we are likely more precise than our ancestors. That's partly because we have the tools to be so. Whether the Christian God is a precise God or a poetic (i.e. imprecise) God is controversial.

This was part of the reason, I think, that Rabbi Aqiva said that "three days," in reference to women discharging semen, means "always five" meaning 5 half-day periods, meaning at least 48 hours plus a little. It appears that R. Aqiva did not think God could have meant 3 days as being only parts of 3 weekdays (like the unknown speaker from y. Shab apparently thought) which could have been as little as a bit more than 24 hours. That would probably violate R. Aqiva's view of God's precision or fairness or clarity or something like that. "Why would God say '3 days' but mean only a little more than 1 day?" was probably the kinds of questions R. Aqiva asked himself.


POWELL:
How long will you be on the boat?

JP HOLDING:
I could say 3 days or three nights; I could say three days.


POWELL:
Yes, Case #1 should not be controversial with anyone.


JP HOLDING:
Same with #2 . . .


POWELL:
You COULD say 3 days if you meant days as in 24-hr periods starting from when you got on the boat, but not if you meant them as weekdays since there were parts of 4 weekdays involved, right?


JP HOLDING:
. . . and #6.


POWELL:
Whoa, James. You can't justifiably say "3 days" for case 6 unless you adopt days as weekdays (or you allow for poetic exaggeration). You can't justifiably do that if you adopt "days" as "24-hr periods starting from when you got on the boat." You're switching the meaning of "days" from "weekdays" to "24-hr periods" without obvious justification. Perhaps poets are allowed to do that, but not scientists.


JP HOLDING:
For #3 I could say "two days" or "two days and two nights" -- the latter if I feel like making a parallelism.


POWELL:
Yes, if the "days" in "two days" without the nights is meant as 24-hr periods starting from when you get on the boat. If it means weekdays, however, then it should be 3 days, right?


JP HOLDING:
1 day, or 1 day and 1 night for 5.


POWELL:
That surprises me, James. If you're not even on the boat at night, but only for part of a daylight period, then it's ok to say "and 1 night"?

I take it then that your answer to my hypothetical case of Jesus promising to be in the grave for "1 day and 1 night" would be fulfilled if Jesus was only in the grave during most of a daylight period, not during any part of a night. Is that right?


JP HOLDING:
Keep in mind, John, you're thinking like a modern with a mind for precision; that is not (per Pilch and Malina above, and others) a primary concern for these people.


POWELL:
When you're trying to live the letter of the law, James, I would think precision was important. If God said you have to avoid sex for "3 days," and that could mean only 24 hours and a little, if you interpreted "day" = "weekday," I can see my less precise ancestors enthusiastically jumping on the opportunity. (Sorry, I guess I do have some poet in me).


JP HOLDING:
You might say this make inerrancy too flexible for your tastes, and you're right -- but it was never meant to be reckoned that way, either. The modern doctrine as formulated by some (like KJV Onlyists) is a product of a Western mind geared to precision.


POWELL:
I think that point is more appropriate with other Biblical problems, not this one about what "3 days and 3 nights" means. I believe I have already conceded to fair leeway by allowing this to mean only parts of 3 days and 3 nights. To allow this to be a phrase that can mean "2 days and 2 nights" should be too imprecise even for those ancient writers. Surely, they knew and cared about the difference between "3" and "2."

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
You (VFT) seem to be assuming that "3 days and 3 nights" is an idiom meaning "about 72 hours" regardless of when you start counting time. You're suggesting that Jesus was buried at about 5 p.m. on Wednesday and resurrected at about 5 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, but wasn't seen until the following morning.

VFT:
Correct. However, regarding the usage of "day" as a Hebrew Idiom that can mean any part of a day or night, is not disputed by me. BUT, when "night" is added, "the expression" ceases to be an IDIOM (figure of speech) and becomes a "literal" statement of fact. In other words, I do not believe that "3 days and 3 nights" is an Idiom, but a literal statement of fact, a literal predifined length of time.


POWELL:
Yes, but you don't think it means 3 daylight periods and 3 nights, where part counts as a whole, but you think it means 72 hours from the beginning of the event.

For example, if you were to step onto a boat at noon on Monday then "3 days and 3 nights" would end at noon on Thursday, even though it would be 3 nights, but parts of 4 different daylight periods.

noon Monday to sunset = d1
Tue night = n1
Tue daylight = d2
Wed night = n2
Wed daylight = d3
Thur night = n3
Thur morning to noon = d4

To you, "3 days and 3 nights" means total daylight of 36 hours and total night of 36 hours regardless of when you start.

I seriously doubt this was what the ancients meant by "3 days and 3 nights." Especially problematic is that it violates the principle that "part of a period counts as a whole."


POWELL:
Given your scenario and the way Jews counted "days and nights" perhaps the claim should have been "after 3 nights and 3 days."

Here is how I think the Jews would count your scenario:
Sliver of Wednesday afternoon (part of daylight 1)
Thursday night (night 1)
Thursday daylight (daylight 2)
Friday night (night 2)
Friday daylight (daylight 3)
Saturday night (night 3)
Saturday daylight (most of daylight 4)

They would say Jesus was in the tomb for 4 days and 3 nights.

VFT:
I think you have not stated the question correctly. We are not "counting" time as in a time-line, but rather we are determining "how long Jesus was in the heart of the earth."


POWELL:
I don't think you said that right. I think what you mean is that we aren't counting parts of 3 official days and parts of 3 official nights, but we're counting the time comprised by a full 3 daylight periods + 3 nights.


VFT:
The fact that the phrase used to describe this amount of time begins with "days" instead "nights" (when in the sequence of the Hebrew day the night comes first) would indicate that Jesus is indeed NOT referring to a "sequence" of time, but rather a specific "period" or "length" of time.


POWELL:
The more expected case, I think, is that Jesus knew that the Jews counted parts of periods as wholes (as we also do, provided it's a significant part), so that if He was going to be in the Earth for part of Wed day then that would be d1.


VFT:
Once this "length" of time has been determined, then we simply ADD it to the approximate moment of time when Jesus was placed into "the heart of the earth" (a figure of speech meaning the grave or tomb - buried) to arrive at the timing of his resurrection.


POWELL:
You're being consistent with yourself. You're saying that "3 days and 3 nights" means 72 hours regardless of what time of day or night you begin.

Now, the important question, ValiantForTruth:

Do you have good historical evidence supporting your interpretation that "3 days and 3 nights" meant a complete 72 hours regardless of what part of the day you start, during daylight or night?


POWELL:
Another problem is how you get "on the third day" to work. I don't know if the Jews meant "weekdays" or "24-hr days without regard to when you start counting time." Other Biblical passages suggest 24-hr days is the best match.

VFT:
A "weekday" is literally 24-hrs in length - from Sunset to Sunset, as is "every day". Figuratively a day can mean almost anything from a part of a day, to a thousand years, or more. Thus the context is most important in determining its meaning.


POWELL:
You're forgetting about "parts count as wholes," ValiantForTruth, so it's not necessarily 24 hours in length. If you get on the boat before sunset on Monday afternoon and get off less than an hour later after sunset on Tuesday evening then that's still parts of 2 weekdays. Thus, you could justifiably say you would get off the boat on the 2nd day (meaning the next weekday) if "day" = "weekday." This would be true, despite the fact that you would only be on the boat for less than 1 hour straddling sunset. On the other hand, if you define "day" = "24-hrs from the beginning of the event" then to get off the boat on the 2nd day, you would have to be on the boat at least for a little more than 24 hours.

So, when Mark says "after three days" (Mark 8:31), but elsewhere "the third day" (Mark 9:31, Mark 10:34), what did he mean?

Did Mark mean that AFTER three weekdays Jesus would rise again, which could be as little as 48 hours and a little? Or, did Mark mean that AFTER three full 24-hr periods of time from the event He would rise again, which must be more than 72 hrs?

Or, did Mark mean ON the third day, meaning the third weekday, which could be as little as 24 hours and a little bit? Or, did Mark mean ON the third 24-hr period from the time of the event, meaning more than 48 hrs, but less than 72 hrs after the event?


POWELL:
The Jewish writer who assumes day = weekday would claim that Jesus resurrected ON the 4th day in your scenario.

Sliver of Wednesday afternoon (part of weekday 1)
all of Thursday (weekday 2)
all of Friday (weekday 3)
most of Saturday (most of weekday 4)

On the other hand, the Jewish writer who assumes day = 24-hr period without regard to when you start counting, so "on the third day" means after a minimum of 48 hours and a little, but no more than 72 hours, would say "ON the third day" if He resurrected before 5 p.m. (or whenever he had been buried), but "ON the fourth day" if He resurrected after that time.

From late afternoon Wed to late afternoon Thur (24-hr day 1)
From late afternoon Thur to late afternoon Fri (24-hr day 2)
From late afternoon Fri to late afternoon Sat (24-hr day 3)
From late afternoon Sat to a little bit more of Sat (part of 24-hr day 4)

VFT:
If you take a "week-long" vacation over the NEW YEARS DAY holiday, would your vacation be "two years long"? ....of course not! Would it be "two weeks long"? ....of course not!


POWELL:
You're forgetting, VFT, that the Jews counted parts as wholes. If you began your New Year's holiday on Dec 31 and ended it shortly after midnight early on Jan 1, would you have ended your holiday on the same year as you began it, or on the next (i.e., 2nd) year?

If God says that a certain celebration must go on for two years, what would that mean? Would it mean that it must be for about 730 1/2 days from the beginning of the celebration, or would it mean it must be held for the rest of the present social year and go into at least part of the following social year?

To make this more analogous, we should ask what would be meant if God said that a celebration must go on for 3 "summer" half-years (i.e. astronomical spring + summer) and 3 "winter" half-years (i.e., astronomical fall + winter). If the beginning of the celebration was at the summer solstice (the middle of the "summer" half year) then when should the celebration end?

If you counted parts as wholes, as the Jews did, then the letter of the law would require that the celebration go on at least until just after the fall equinox of year 3, but should not go on past the spring equinox of Year 4 or it would go into a 4th "summer."

Year 1 summer solstice to fall equinox = S1
Year 1 fall equinox to Year 2 spring equinox = W1
Year 2 spring equinox to Year 2 fall equinox = S2
Year 2 fall equinox to Year 3 spring equinox = W2
Year 3 spring equinox to Year 3 fall equinox = S3
Year 3 fall equinox + a little = W3.


VFT:
How long is your vacation? ....it is "one week long." When you start your vacation does not change how long your vacation is! But knowing when it begins, and how long it is, gives us enough information to determine When it is over.


POWELL:
You're assuming that by "day" and "year" and "week" and "month" and such things, one means the full time involved without regard to when one official period ends and the next officially begins.

If you had worked from July 10 to Aug 20, ValiantForTruth, and you were supposed to put how many whole months you had worked for the company, would it be more correct to put "1" or "2"? Which would you put?

If you had worked from Apr 1, 2000 to Aug 31, 2001, ValiantforTruth, and you were supposed to put how many whole years you had worked for the company, would it be more correct to put "1" or "2"? Which would you put?


POWELL:
The other problem has to do with "after three days." That should mean "on the 4th day".

VFT:
You are "twisting" words to skew their meaning.


POWELL:
Are you saying that "after 3 days" can mean "before 3 days are completely up"?

Shouldn't "after 3 days" mean "after 72 hours" to your way of thinking? Shouldn't "On the 4th day" mean "on the fourth 24-hr period" or "after 72 hours"?


POWELL:
You seem to think Jesus resurrected on Saturday afternoon, but wasn't seen until the following morning.

Young's Literal Translation suggests there might be a problem with the orthodox Christian claim of a Sunday first appearance.

Mark 16: 2, 9 (YLT):
2 and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,

9 And he, having risen in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, did appear first to Mary the Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven demons

POWELL:
Does the Greek say "first day of the week" or "first of the sabbaths"? Perhaps "first of the sabbaths" meant the first Saturday or weekly sabbath after the passover.

VFT:
I have heard this argument - it has serious problems!


POWELL:
Perhaps like having the women planning to "work" on the weekly Sabbath by anointing the body, right? Did Jesus and His apostles violate the letter of the law concerning the weekly Sabbath?


POWELL:
If Jesus was buried on Wednesday afternoon before the passover on Thursday and then resurrected on the morning of Saturday before sunrise then this would satisfy the "3 days and 3 nights" with parts counted as wholes, AND satisfy "on the third day" if this meant three 24-hr days AND even satisfy "after 3 days" if this other writer meant after 3 weekdays.

VFT:
I have underlined all the different meanings of our "timely expression." They all cannot be correct, yet you dance with all of them.


POWELL:
I'm allowing for "days" to mean the various things it could mean to DIFFERENT authors. I forgot that Mark used both "after three days" and "the third day." So, to be consistent he should not do that dance, you're right.

The problem, then, is that Mark seems to be inconsistent with himself since "after three days" does not technically mean the same as ON "the third day."


POWELL:
Furthermore, the women could have bought the spices on Friday (after Thursday passover high sabbath) and prepared them later on Friday (before Saturday weekly sabbath).

At least that's the way it looks to me right now.

VFT:
If this were true, then the women would have violated the weekly sabbath by going to a tomb. The scriptures state that they "rested on the sabbath day according to the commandment." If this were so, they would not have gone to the sepulchre with the intent of entering and handling a dead body on the sabbath day.


POWELL:
According to this scenario they rested on the passover sabbath on Jewish Thursday, but planned to attend to the body early on the weekly sabbath. Does the N.T. clearly say they rested on the weekly sabbath of resurrection week?


VFT:
Also, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (the same day) would also have been breaking the sabbath since Emmaus was farther away than "a sabbath day's journey".


POWELL:
I heard somewhere that it was ok to walk further than a "Sabbath day's journey" if it saved a life (namely their own). Is that true? Could they have been in fear for their lives?


POWELL:
Let's see.

Matt 12:40 (KJV):
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

POWELL:
Surely "in the heart of the earth" means in the tomb. Your scenario suggests this actually means more than three days and three nights, right, that it means parts of 4 days and 3 nights?

VFT:
No, it actually means what it says, 3 days and 3 nights, a 72-hour period of time.


POWELL:
What "3 days and 3 nights" means is apparently more controversial than you think.


POWELL
What scenario would you suggest to explain Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the "fish"? For example, what time of the day was he probably swallowed and then released?

VFT:
The Same time of day, 3 days apart. (I can see you are wrestling with the math, so I will pick one for you. In fact, I'll pick two).

EXAMPLE no.1:
Swallowed by Fish - Monday 9am
...1 day later = Tuesday 9am
...2 days later = Wednesday 9 am
...3 days later (the 3rd day) = Thursday 9am ...released from the fish.

EXAMPLE no.2:
Swallowed by Fish - Wednesday, just before sundown.
...1 day later = Thursday, just before sundown.
...2 days later = Friday, just before sundown.
...3 days later = Saturday (the 3rd day), just before sundown ....released from the fish.

Agape,
Don


POWELL:
You're being consistent here.

When the Bible says that He would rise "the third day" does that mean "ON" the third 24-hr period from when he died or was buried, namely between 48 and 72 hours later, or "AFTER" three full 24-hr periods, namely after 72 hours or what?

Now, some questions I forgot to ask:

What year do you believe Jesus was resurrected, namely what year around 30 A.D. had the passover Sabbath on Thursday?

Does your scenario reasonably account for "Palm Sunday"?

John Powell

[John Powell]

O2BWISE:
Incredible!

I see you're continuing to strain gnats with your ultra-fine filters, all the while a camel is walking through.

The three day period took place prior to death.

Continue to not believe. Just like the scribes and Pharisees.


POWELL:
What year, days of the week, and approximate times of the day do you believe, O2BWISE, that Jesus was crucified (or buried) and resurrected (or left the tomb)?

What scriptures do you use to support your scenario?

John Powell

[o2bwise]

Hi John and ValiantforTruth,

There must be at least 40 three days experiences in the Bible. Every one, besides Christ's, is self-evidently occuring while the person is conscious. In every case, it is a time of torment. In most cases, at least in a metaphorical sense, there is an intense unveiling going on.

If you read the entire NT and reference every text that has to do with the death that is the death of the cross, you will find that almost every time, it is clear that the death is one that takes place while one is conscious.

A good example, is the heavy rains of Ezra 10. There is an outpouring of rain, it lasts three days, and it is hard to bear the rains.

As far as death is concerned, as an example:
Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. Nine verses later (same context, same subject), Paul says the commandment came, sin revived and HE DIED. Four verses later, Paul is more explicit. He says that the commandment made sin MORE APPARENT.

Jesus was sinless in character. But, He took our flesh within which contains propensities to sin. He grew in wisdom and stature. As He grew in beholding Divine Love, He grew in having the evil impulses, in the flesh He took, exposed to Him.

Thus, He "felt" like that sinner.

There was a point in time where the veil was being rent. He was permitted to see the full picture. He saw God, in a moral sense, unveiled. This exposed to Him the full evil latent in our flesh. He felt like He was that person, yet without sin.

He thus experienced the things man experiences when He sees his sin - guilt, shame, embarrassment, anxiety.

He felt it all.

That was the DEATH that is the WAGES OF SIN.

It was a horrifying battle. Much more horrifying than the nails in His wrists and feet. Much more horrifying than physical pain was this psychic pain. Yes, SIN, in its full fury, is more painful than a ravaged flesh.

Ultimately, Christ was victorious over the ordeal. He was tempted to despair, to disbelieve that God could accept Him. He was victorious by faith.

That was the RESURRECTION.

Do I deny a physical death and resurrection? Of course not! But, they are old covenant schoolmasters. They are "shadow" while we are bidden to partake of "very image."

Look to His HEART. Look at His MIND. See the struggle between the ears.

The three days experience Christ experienced preceded and lasted up until physical death.

I believe the tension we are seeing is a device placed there by God to indicate to us that we need to look elsewhere. We need to look at Gethsemane and Calvary (at least) for the three day time period of death and resurrection.

In the fullest sense, the temple that is destroyed and rebuilt, is the mind.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[jpholding]

John Powell:

There is a basis in fact, James. It has to do with what missing part of a thing is significant. A useful way to do that in modern times is by calculating the percentage, but the ancients certainly had a feel for it.

Well, then you need to show that there was some signifance to it. But here as well the social data tends to ground your explanation. Ancient Mediterrean peoples were very much "present-oriented" and less concerned with past or future. (Which makes sense, if the main worry is, "When will I eat again and what will I eat?") And thus:

If you are told that you will be on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights, you probably won't worry about whether that's off by 24 hours until you approach the end of the time period. Who cares about 1 day out of 40?

Prison inmates with long sentences. :smile: Actually they would be LESS concerned under your three day scenario. And either way, a present-orientation is going to make such a concern unlikely.

Are you suggesting, James, that if the Bible were to say something like, "You must pay the money OR you must go to jail" what it could mean is "You must pay the money AND you must go to jail"?

Que pasa? Not sure how that relates. Can you explain?

Whether the Christian God is a precise God or a poetic (i.e. imprecise) God is controversial.

If humans are incapable of using precise means, then would it not make sense that God would not communicate precise data for such things? Yes, I agree that is one reason the rabbis had their discussion. Leisure time gave them the ability to contemplate such things where before the time was occupied with survival.


You COULD say 3 days if you meant days as in 24-hr periods starting from when you got on the boat, but not if you meant them as weekdays since there were parts of 4 weekdays involved, right?

I may not be following you here, but if I am, the answer would be no if you meant them as weekdays (as in, Monday, Tuesday, etc) rather than just any day in mind. Same answer for other examples further on.

Perhaps poets are allowed to do that, but not scientists.

I don't think scientists were authors of any part of the text. No readers. :smile:

That surprises me, James. If you're not even on the boat at night, but only for part of a daylight period, then it's ok to say "and 1 night"?

If you have an idiom that allows it, yes -- which is our very point at issue, I think. :smile:

I take it then that your answer to my hypothetical case of Jesus promising to be in the grave for "1 day and 1 night" would be fulfilled if Jesus was only in the grave during most of a daylight period, not during any part of a night. Is that right?

Correct. He could say he was in for "1 day" or "1 day and 1 night" in a poetic parallel mood.

When you're trying to live the letter of the law, James, I would think precision was important.

Every person has their own idea of how to honor the law, do they not? That's why the rabbis had their discussion. Yes -- I can and do see people jumping on such ambiguities and opportunities all the time. They are called "lawyers". :smile:

Surely, they knew and cared about the difference between "3" and "2."

Some may well have, like the rabbis. The average peasant probably didn't.

[John Powell]

O2BWISE:
Hi John and ValiantforTruth,

There must be at least 40 three days experiences in the Bible. Every one, besides Christ's, is self-evidently occuring while the person is conscious. In every case, it is a time of torment. In most cases, at least in a metaphorical sense, there is an intense unveiling going on.

If you read the entire NT and reference every text that has to do with the death that is the death of the cross, you will find that almost every time, it is clear that the death is one that takes place while one is conscious.


POWELL:
Mormons think the spirit is where consciousness occurs, so Jesus was fully conscious even when His spirit body left His physical body (i.e., when He died).


O2BWISE:
A good example, is the heavy rains of Ezra 10. There is an outpouring of rain, it lasts three days, and it is hard to bear the rains.

As far as death is concerned, as an example:
Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death. Nine verses later (same context, same subject), Paul says the commandment came, sin revived and HE DIED. Four verses later, Paul is more explicit. He says that the commandment made sin MORE APPARENT.

Jesus was sinless in character. But, He took our flesh within which contains propensities to sin. He grew in wisdom and stature. As He grew in beholding Divine Love, He grew in having the evil impulses, in the flesh He took, exposed to Him.

Thus, He "felt" like that sinner.

There was a point in time where the veil was being rent. He was permitted to see the full picture. He saw God, in a moral sense, unveiled. This exposed to Him the full evil latent in our flesh. He felt like He was that person, yet without sin.

He thus experienced the things man experiences when He sees his sin - guilt, shame, embarrassment, anxiety.

He felt it all.

That was the DEATH that is the WAGES OF SIN.

It was a horrifying battle. Much more horrifying than the nails in His wrists and feet. Much more horrifying than physical pain was this psychic pain. Yes, SIN, in its full fury, is more painful than a ravaged flesh.

Ultimately, Christ was victorious over the ordeal. He was tempted to despair, to disbelieve that God could accept Him. He was victorious by faith.

That was the RESURRECTION.


POWELL:
The reader might conclude, Tony, that you think that the 3 days and 3 nights Jesus spoke of did not refer to physical death.


O2BWISE:
Do I deny a physical death and resurrection? Of course not! But, they are old covenant schoolmasters. They are "shadow" while we are bidden to partake of "very image."

Look to His HEART. Look at His MIND. See the struggle between the ears.

The three days experience Christ experienced preceded and lasted up until physical death.

I believe the tension we are seeing is a device placed there by God to indicate to us that we need to look elsewhere. We need to look at Gethsemane and Calvary (at least) for the three day time period of death and resurrection.

In the fullest sense, the temple that is destroyed and rebuilt, is the mind.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)


POWELL:
Ok, Tony, so you think the 3 days and 3 nights refers to his psychological / spiritual pain up to the point of his death.

Let's follow that scenario then.

Q1. In what year on what days of the week and approximately what times of the day did this "3 days and 3 nights" time period begin and end?

Q2. Did the pre-death spiritual ordeal end "the third day" or "after three days"?

Besides that, there's still the curiosity I have about your beliefs concerning His death and resurrection, so could you answer the same year / day / time question for the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
There is a basis in fact, James. It has to do with what missing part of a thing is significant. A useful way to do that in modern times is by calculating the percentage, but the ancients certainly had a feel for it.

JPHOLDING:
Well, then you need to show that there was some signifance to it. But here as well the social data tends to ground your explanation. Ancient Mediterrean peoples were very much "present-oriented" and less concerned with past or future. (Which makes sense, if the main worry is, "When will I eat again and what will I eat?") And thus:


POWELL:
I agree, but I don't think the differences between our historical epochs are as significant to the understanding of what "3 days and 3 nights" probably meant to them as you seem to think they are.


POWELL:
If you are told that you will be on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights, you probably won't worry about whether that's off by 24 hours until you approach the end of the time period. Who cares about 1 day out of 40?

JPHOLDING:
Prison inmates with long sentences. Actually they would be LESS concerned under your three day scenario.


POWELL:
You may have a point about prison inmates, but I'm not sure if this is sufficiently analogous to the present discussion. Perhaps what's happening there is that those who are going to be in for only a few days more often humbly accept whatever it is, grateful that it's not longer and are less willing to bother the government with their petitions. However, those who are going in for longer try to negotiate an early release or seek to know exactly when they'll get out. These others may be less worried about bothering the government with their queries.


JPHOLDING:
And either way, a present-orientation is going to make such a concern unlikely.


POWELL:
I would think successful traders throughout recorded time have consistently worried about such things.


POWELL:
Then it's very odd to use the phrase "X and Y" when you mean something more like "X or Y."

JP HOLDING (earlier):
To us, it may be, but I have long learned that what sounds odd to us does not sound odd at all to another culture or time. Therefore your appeal just doesn't make much for me. If I may plagiarize my article on ancient hyperbole: . . .

POWELL:
Are you suggesting, James, that if the Bible were to say something like, "You must pay the money OR you must go to jail" what it could mean is "You must pay the money AND you must go to jail"?

JPHOLDING:
Que pasa? Not sure how that relates. Can you explain?


POWELL:
I added in the earlier discussion. Your scenario seems to be that to say "1 day AND 1 night" can mean "1 daylight period, but no night" OR it could mean "1 night, but no daylight".

I concede that "1 day" by itself could mean "1 daylight period, but no night" or it could mean "1 night, but no daylight" or it could mean "1 daylight period and 1 night period." However, I think "1 day and 1 night" means a minimum of some daylight period and some night period.


POWELL:
Whether the Christian God is a precise God or a poetic (i.e. imprecise) God is controversial.

JPHOLDING:
If humans are incapable of using precise means, then would it not make sense that God would not communicate precise data for such things?


POWELL:
Yes, but I would expect God to be more precise than He appears to be in the Bible.


JPHOLDING:
Yes, I agree that is one reason the rabbis had their discussion. Leisure time gave them the ability to contemplate such things where before the time was occupied with survival.


POWELL:
Right.


POWELL:
How long will you be on the boat?

JP HOLDING:
I could say 3 days or three nights; I could say three days.

POWELL:
Yes, Case #1 should not be controversial with anyone.

JP HOLDING:
Same with #2 . . .

POWELL:
You COULD say 3 days if you meant days as in 24-hr periods starting from when you got on the boat, but not if you meant them as weekdays since there were parts of 4 weekdays involved, right?

JPHOLDING:
I may not be following you here, but if I am, the answer would be no if you meant them as weekdays (as in, Monday, Tuesday, etc) rather than just any day in mind. Same answer for other examples further on.


POWELL:
Let's consider that example, case 2, again.


POWELL:
Case 2: You get on the boat just before sunset on Monday afternoon and get off the boat right after sunset on Thursday evening. This is a little more than 48 hours. For me, this is the minimum time for "3 days and 3 nights."

W = 4
sliver of Mon = d1
Tue = d2
Wed = d3
sliver of Thur = d4


POWELL:
If you count "days" as Jewish weekdays then this case consists of parts of 4 "days": a sliver of Monday, all of Tuesday and Wednesday, and a sliver of Thursday. Does my claim make more sense now?


POWELL:
Perhaps poets are allowed to do that, but not scientists.

JPHOLDING:
I don't think scientists were authors of any part of the text. No readers.

POWELL:
That surprises me, James. If you're not even on the boat at night, but only for part of a daylight period, then it's ok to say "and 1 night"?

JPHOLDING:
If you have an idiom that allows it, yes -- which is our very point at issue, I think.


POWELL:
That would be an especially and unnecessarily erroneous idiom then. My reading of the rabbis discussing the discharging semen issue suggests to me that they did not think of things this way. Although they were discussing what "3 days" means by itself, their comments make sense to me if they thought of "day and night" as at least parts of both a daylight and a night period.


POWELL:
I take it then that your answer to my hypothetical case of Jesus promising to be in the grave for "1 day and 1 night" would be fulfilled if Jesus was only in the grave during most of a daylight period, not during any part of a night. Is that right?

JPHOLDING:
Correct. He could say he was in for "1 day" or "1 day and 1 night" in a poetic parallel mood.


POWELL:
Amazing, to be poetic, He could say "1 day and 1 night" but mean only part of 1 daylight period with absolutely no night included.


POWELL:
When you're trying to live the letter of the law, James, I would think precision was important.

JPHOLDING:
Every person has their own idea of how to honor the law, do they not? That's why the rabbis had their discussion. Yes -- I can and do see people jumping on such ambiguities and opportunities all the time. They are called "lawyers".


POWELL:
Exactly. I think every rabbi there was trying to show what the letter of the law allowed for / demanded in that case.


POWELL:
Surely, they knew and cared about the difference between "3" and "2."

JPHOLDING:
Some may well have, like the rabbis. The average peasant probably didn't.


POWELL:
That's hard to believe. Perhaps I should read those books on ANE culture you recommended earlier than planned.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Heya John Powell,

I agree, but I don't think the differences between our historical epochs are as significant to the understanding of what "3 days and 3 nights" probably meant to them as you seem to think they are.

Hmm, well, when ya get as immersed in the culture as I have been, we'll see. :smile:


Perhaps what's happening there is that those who are going to be in for only a few days more often humbly accept whatever it is, grateful that it's not longer and are less willing to bother the government with their petitions.

Some are that way. Others file lawsuits to pass the time and waste taxpayer funds. :smile:


I would think successful traders throughout recorded time have consistently worried about such things.

Not really, because they realized in the ancient world that there wasn't a lot they could do about it. Punctuality and concern about precision in time is an American affectation. Other cultures (including many today) aren't so concerned (which bugs a lot of American businessmen!).

Yes, but I would expect God to be more precise than He appears to be in the Bible.

Why, though? Because of your own expectations or because there is some universal value in precision with respect to this sort of thing?

If you count "days" as Jewish weekdays then this case consists of parts of 4 "days": a sliver of Monday, all of Tuesday and Wednesday, and a sliver of Thursday. Does my claim make more sense now?

Perhaps, yes.

That would be an especially and unnecessarily erroneous idiom then.

But again, because of your values or universal values?

their comments make sense to me if they thought of "day and night" as at least parts of both a daylight and a night period.

They make sense to me the way I read it, too. :smile: Which leaves us where?

That's hard to believe. Perhaps I should read those books on ANE culture you recommended earlier than planned.

Go for it. Look particularly for comments about "present orientation".

Take care.

[John Powell]

JPHOLDING:
Heya John Powell,

POWELL:
I agree, but I don't think the differences between our historical epochs are as significant to the understanding of what "3 days and 3 nights" probably meant to them as you seem to think they are.

JPHOLDING:
Hmm, well, when ya get as immersed in the culture as I have been, we'll see.

POWELL:
Perhaps what's happening there is that those who are going to be in for only a few days more often humbly accept whatever it is, grateful that it's not longer and are less willing to bother the government with their petitions.

JPHOLDING:
Some are that way. Others file lawsuits to pass the time and waste taxpayer funds.


POWELL:
Of course, you would have more knowledge of that than I would given that you worked with those people.


POWELL:
I would think successful traders throughout recorded time have consistently worried about such things.

JPHOLDING:
Not really, because they realized in the ancient world that there wasn't a lot they could do about it. Punctuality and concern about precision in time is an American affectation. Other cultures (including many today) aren't so concerned (which bugs a lot of American businessmen!).

POWELL:
Yes, but I would expect God to be more precise than He appears to be in the Bible.

JPHOLDING:
Why, though? Because of your own expectations or because there is some universal value in precision with respect to this sort of thing?


POWELL:
What I would do if I were God.


POWELL:
If you count "days" as Jewish weekdays then this case consists of parts of 4 "days": a sliver of Monday, all of Tuesday and Wednesday, and a sliver of Thursday. Does my claim make more sense now?

JPHOLDING:
Perhaps, yes.

POWELL:
That would be an especially and unnecessarily erroneous idiom then.

JPHOLDING:
But again, because of your values or universal values?


POWELL:
I would think these are more universal than you seem to think.

It's hard for me to imagine that ancient Jews would use in the Bible such an erroneous idiom in which "1 day and 1 night" can mean only part of daylight without any night whatsoever.

When Ester asked her people to fast day and night, did they understand that this might mean they could eat at night?


POWELL:
their comments make sense to me if they thought of "day and night" as at least parts of both a daylight and a night period.

JPHOLDING:
They make sense to me the way I read it, too. Which leaves us where?


POWELL:
Perhaps at an impasse. However, I would very much like to see you explain their comments. Here they are

Here's the first set:


Tzvee Zahavy:
. . .C. "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean."
. . .D. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
. . .E. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six."
. . .F. R. Aqiva says, "Always five." M. Miq. 8:3 (Mekh. Bahodes, 3, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 214; Mekh. De R. Simeon, p. 142)


POWELL:
The second set is essentially just a repeat.


Tzvee Zahavy:
. . .A. "[If a woman] discharges semen on the third day [after intercourse, she] is clean."
. . .B. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
. . .C. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they [i.e., the three days] are four periods, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six."
. . .D. R. Aqiva says, "Always five,


POWELL:
Now, the third set.


Tzvee Zahavy:
. . .A. tny: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, "A day and a night constitute a period.
. . .B. "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one."
. . .C. wtny: Concerning the teaching of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, "Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean." y. Shab. 9:3


POWELL:
In other words I would like you to explain if you would what was meant by Rabbi Azariah, Rabbi Ishmael, and Rabbi Aqiva, and the unknown writer quoted in y. Shab. I feel like my explanation made consistent sense.


POWELL:
That's hard to believe. Perhaps I should read those books on ANE culture you recommended earlier than planned.

JPHOLDING:
Go for it. Look particularly for comments about "present orientation".

Take care.


POWELL:
Ok. Thanks.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Heya John Powell,

What I would do if I were God.

So then it is subjectively-oriented? You can agree that i.e., a Hebrew or an Icelander might do differently?

When Ester asked her people to fast day and night, did they understand that this might mean they could eat at night?

Since it is not said when they stopped, no way to tell from that, but I think it would tell them that they could resume eating anytime on the third day -- night or day.

“Tzvee Zahavy: . . .C. "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean." . . .D. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. . . .E. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six." . . .F. R. Aqiva says, "Always five." M. Miq. 8:3 (Mekh. Bahodes, 3, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 214; Mekh. De R. Simeon, p. 142) ”

As it stands what you left here is too vague to interpret in terms of what a "period" constitutes. But if we ake "period" from set three as "a day and a night" then they are saying, "four days and nights, sometimes five..."

“Tzvee Zahavy: . . .A. tny: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, "A day and a night constitute a period. . . .B. "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one." . . .C. wtny: Concerning the teaching of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, "Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean." y. Shab. 9:3 ”

You know what I think of Zahavy and Azariah and what they say. The latter portion is an expansion on Azariah's teaching, and seems to clarify that the "period" is looked at it terms of ritual purity as a whole, this in spite of the fact that the actual event could occur at any given time during a day and night. In short they recognize the practical outworking of trying to reconcile measurement of days with an event that can happen at any given time during that measured day. ("Day" I also take to be, in patr C, equivalent to the more precise "day and night" in A.)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Sorry for being so late in responding.



What I would do if I were God.

JPHOLDING:
So then it is subjectively-oriented? You can agree that i.e., a Hebrew or an Icelander might do differently?


POWELL:
Sure.



When Ester asked her people to fast day and night, did they understand that this might mean they could eat at night?

JPHOLDING:
Since it is not said when they stopped, no way to tell from that, but I think it would tell them that they could resume eating anytime on the third day -- night or day.


POWELL:
I see. If they began fasting at night and stopped early daytime on the third day then I would not count that as satisfying her request to "neither eat nor drink three days, night or day" It would have been fasting for parts of 3 days and 2 nights.

Evidently, like the Jesus hypothetical situation, if Esther had asked for them to fast for "one night and one day" starting at night then you think they could have eaten shortly before sunrise and still satisfied her request, right?



“Tzvee Zahavy: . . .C. "[If a woman] discharged semen on the third day [after intercourse] [she] is clean." . . .D. The words of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. . . .E. R. Ishmael says, "Sometimes they are four periods, sometimes they are five and sometimes they are six." . . .F. R. Aqiva says, "Always five." M. Miq. 8:3 (Mekh. Bahodes, 3, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 214; Mekh. De R. Simeon, p. 142) ”

JPHOLDING:
As it stands what you left here is too vague to interpret in terms of what a "period" constitutes. But if we ake "period" from set three as "a day and a night" then they are saying, "four days and nights, sometimes five..."


POWELL:
So, James, are you suggesting that the Rabbis thought that "on the third day" can actually mean "four days and four nights, sometimes five days and five nights, sometimes six days and six nights"?

My interpretation that "period" means "night" or "daytime" makes a lot more sense.

According to my interpretation of Rabbi Ishmael, "on the third day" could mean as little as four 12-hr periods if the time began just before sunset of day 1 (part of daylight, period 1) included all of the night (period 2) and all of the following daylight (period 3) of the second legal day, and part of the evening of the third day (part of night, period 4).

However, "on the third day" could mean as long as six 12-hour periods if the time began in the evening. Then this evening and the following daylight period would be periods 1 and 2. The night and daylight of the second day would be periods 3 and 4. Periods 5 and 6 would be the third night and daylight period.

In my view, Rabbi Ishmael was more of a mathematician indicating the range of possibilities, whereas Rabbi Aqiva was trying to help the couples out by telling them the minimum time they had to wait for her to be clean. R. Aqiva did not think that slightly more than 24 hours from just before sunset of day 1 to just after sunset on day 3 (parts of four 12-hour periods) would satisfy God's command. He thought it must mean a minimum of 48 hours and a little (two 24-hr days and a little of a third day)



“Tzvee Zahavy: . . .A. tny: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, "A day and a night constitute a period. . . .B. "And part of a period is [treated] like an entire one." . . .C. wtny: Concerning the teaching of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, "Sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean." y. Shab. 9:3 ”

JPHOLDING:
You know what I think of Zahavy and Azariah and what they say. The latter portion is an expansion on Azariah's teaching, and seems to clarify that the "period" is looked at it terms of ritual purity as a whole, this in spite of the fact that the actual event could occur at any given time during a day and night. In short they recognize the practical outworking of trying to reconcile measurement of days with an event that can happen at any given time during that measured day.


POWELL:
I agree that the Rabbis were dealing with this practical problem. However, we disagree about their solution. This second part here seems to support my interpretation. If "periods" mean what I think they mean (daylight and nightime each as a period) then the minimum of 4 periods corresponds to a 24-hr day and a little occurring if the counting starts just before sunset. However, if you started counting just after sunset then just short of two 24-hr days later she would still be unclean. Almost all of night 1 and all of daylight 1 would be the first day. Night 2 and daylight 2 would be the second day. Until you get into the next night you would not get into the third day.


JPHOLDING:
("Day" I also take to be, in patr C, equivalent to the more precise "day and night" in A.)


POWELL:
I believe that "day" in "sometimes there is one day and a bit and she is clean; [sometimes there are] two days minus a bit and she is unclean." means a 24-hr time period from sunset to sunset. In other words, that it means an official 24-hr day rather than just the 12-hr daylight period.

John Powell

[jpholding]

Heya John Powell,

Evidently, like the Jesus hypothetical situation, if Esther had asked for them to fast for "one night and one day" starting at night then you think they could have eaten shortly before sunrise and still satisfied her request, right?

Sho nuff.

So, James, are you suggesting that the Rabbis thought that "on the third day" can actually mean "four days and four nights, sometimes five days and five nights, sometimes six days and six nights"?

Er, no, not sure how you get me saying that...I am saying that "period" means "a day and a night".

[OldShepherd]

Jewish Encyclopedia – DAY

In the Bible, the season of light (Gen. i. 5), lasting "from dawn [lit. "the rising of the morning"] to the coming forth of the stars" (Neh. iv. 15, 17). The term "day" is used also to denote a period of twenty-four hours (Ex. xxi. 21). In Jewish communal life part of a day is at times reckoned as one day; e.g., the day of the funeral, even when the latter takes place late in the afternoon, is counted as the first of the seven days of mourning; a short time in the morning of the seventh day is counted as the seventh day; circumcision takes place on the eighth day, even though of the first day only a few minutes remained after the birth of the child, these being counted as one day. Again, a man who hears of a vow made by his wife or his daughter, and desires to cancel the vow, must do so on the same day on which he hears of it, as otherwise the protest has no effect; even if the hearing takes place a little time before night, the annulment must be done within that little time. The day is reckoned from evening to evening—i.e., night and day—except in reference to sacrifices, where daytime and the night following constitute one day (Lev. vii. 15; see Calendar). "The day" denotes: (a) Day of the Lord; (b) the Day of Atonement; (c) the treatise of the Mishnah that contains the laws concerning the Day of Atonement (See Yoma and Sabbath).E. G. H.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=167&letter=D