Matthew 12:40 an idiom?

[Adrift]

I can ask to have it closed, but can't guarantee that it will be.

It will be if you ask.

Other than this one, it won't be necessary as this will be my last post because you are going to submit actual examples of writing that has daytimes or night times being said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred.

Humor me.

[rstrats]

Adrift,
re: "Humor me."


You first. Where are the examples?

[Adrift]

Okay, well this might be a little underwhelming, but I guarantee you it answers your question, Is there anyone "who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" means the tomb and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language - will know of some writing which shows a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights being used in the first century or before when it absolutely couldn't have included at least parts of each one of the specific number of days and at least parts of each one of the specific number of nights."

It's a little underwhelming because the writings in question have actually already been given in this thread. The primary two are 1 Samuel 30:12 and Esther 4:16; 5:1.

Now hold on, I know you're thinking "But I already rejected these!" Yes, I realize that. Perhaps the reason why you rejected them was legit, perhaps not. BUT those ARE the primary passages that have always been in mind when apologists have referred to the "common idiom". Here's the proof. The apologists are getting this information from a number of renown NT scholars. So for instance, check out what imminent NT scholar N.T. France said here,

Source: Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission by N.T. France, Regent College Publishing, Feb 1, 2000

For the use of 'three days and three nights' as a Jewish idiom to denote a period covering only two nights, see SB I, p. 649. The same words occur in 1 Sa. 30:12, to describe a period which began שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה יָמִ֖ים, 'today three (days)' (v. 13), i.e. 'the day before yesterday' (cf. LXX σήμερον τριταῖος, Vg. nudius tertius, both of which bear this meaning); the period is thus exactly parallel to that of Jesus' lying in the tomb. Cf. also Esther 4:16 with 5:1.

© Copyright Original Source

In case you were wonder, SB 1 stands for Strack and Billerbeck Volume 1, or more specifically H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 1. Here's that volume for you online at the exact page. It's in German of course.

Okay, R.T. France isn't an apologist, he was a scholar and a cleric, but his view is the same as apologists, and is likely where most apologists got the idea (and if not him specifically, then someone as esteemed). So to back France I'll cite the fine NT scholar and apologist Mike Licona. This comes from his apologetics book, "Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection". Basically a book that, as the title implies, imagines a hypothetical debate between Paul and Muhammed. The foreward is by Lee Strobel, so you know that this is definitely an apologetic work.

Source: Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection by Michael R. Licona, Baker Books, Feb 1, 2006

Muhammad: . . . He [Jesus] says "just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The great fish is not analogous. But the three days and three nights are. And that is where the problem arises. If the Gospels are accurate, Jesus was only in the tomb for one day and two nights.

Paul: That's right. But you have failed to recognize that the phrase "three days and three nights" is a Jewish idiom meaning a short period of time and does not necessarily have to include three days and three nights. . . . In the book of Esther, Esther tells her fellow Jews the following:

Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.

Now, notice what happens two verses later:

Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace in front of the king's rooms, and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the throne room, opposite the entrance to the palace.

Esther did not wait a full three days and three nights. She went to the king on the third day. So that would be two days plus a number of hours.

© Copyright Original Source

Licona goes on to mention Matthew 27:63-64 where the Pharisees approach Pilate,

Scripture Verse: Matthew 27:63

and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ 64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection by Michael R. Licona, Baker Books, Feb 1, 2006

Matthew, the same author who reported the "three days and three nights" in the sign of Jonah, is later reporting the request of the Jewish leaders. Notice that they say that Jesus predicted he would rise after three days. So what do they do? They request that the grave be secured by guards until the third day. If the term "after three days" is a Jewish idiom that does not mean a full seventy-two hours, this passage has no conflict. But if by it Jesus meant he would be dead at least seventy-two hours before rising, then the Jewish leaders are foolish to request that the grave be secured "until the third day." In other words, they intend to pull the guard just before Jesus said he would rise, which would leave nearly twenty-four hours for the disciples to steal his body. You see? Understanding "three days" in a literal sense does not make sense. Therefore, when we consider two Jewish writings, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, the terms "after three days" and "three days and three nights" seem to be a Jewish idiom that is not in conflict with the earliest Christian claims that Jesus was raised "on the third day."

© Copyright Original Source

Okay, one more example from the fine scholars Andreas J. Köstenberger, Leonard Scott Kellum, amd Charles L. Quarles,

Source: The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Leonard Scott Kellum, Charles L. Quarles, B&H Publishing Group, 2009

Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose on a Sunday. The Gospels explicitly state that Jesus was executed on Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14,31,42). Because Jesus clearly rose from the dead on Sunday and because Matt 12:40 stated that the Son of Man would be in the heart of the earth "three days and three nights," some interpreters have argued that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday or Thursday. However, several OT texts suggest that "three days and three nights" (which occurs only in Matt 12:30) might function as an idiom for any portion of a day plus an entire day plus any portion of a day (Gen 42:17-18; 1 Sam 30:12-13; 2 Chr 10:5,12; Esth 4:16-5:1). This method of reckoning time was also affirmed in rabbinic literature.154 Jesus apparently used the expression "three days and three nights" in a similar fashion. This is confirmed by the frequent references to his resurrection occurring "on the third day" (see Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64).

154 See TDNT 2:949-50

© Copyright Original Source

So, yeah, there you have it. Now I know you probably think you have a reply lined up for each of these passages for why they don't fit your litmus test perfectly. I'm sad to say that that is all there is. These are pretty much the only passages that have ever been in mind from the beginning by scholars and apologists. There are no other books or writings, canonical or otherwise, that were ever in mind. So your search is...over. It probably wasn't the answer you wanted, but it is the ONLY answer available.

To be perfectly honest, I personally think they're great answers, but I suppose that is neither here nor there. Alright, well, mods, you can go ahead and close the thread now.

[rstrats]

Adrift,
re: "I know you probably think you have a reply lined up for each of these passages for why they don't fit your litmus test perfectly."


And it's the same one I've given in the past: "none of your comments provide examples that show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".

[Adrift]

Adrift,
re: "I know you probably think you have a reply lined up for each of these passages for why they don't fit your litmus test perfectly."


And it's the same one I've given in the past: "none of your comments provide examples that show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".

I think there's room for disagreement there. At any rate, it simply does not matter as I've already thoroughly laid out. I've given you all there is. You can stop your quest now. Per our agreement I will go ahead and ask the mods to close this thread. Also, next time you reply to me, please use the quote button as we also agreed upon.

[rstrats]

Adrift,
re: "I think there's room for disagreement there."

I see no room at all. You still haven't provided any examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".



re: "At any rate, it simply does not matter as I've already thoroughly laid out. I've given you all there is. You can stop your quest now. Per our agreement I will go ahead and ask the mods to close this thread."

You haven't lived up to your part of the agreement. The closing of the "thread" was contingent on you providing examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred". So far you haven't done that.




re: "Also, next time you reply to me, please use the quote button as we also agreed upon."

I never agreed to do that.

[Adrift]

Adrift,

I see no room at all.

That's fine. Either way, I've answered your OP.

You still haven't provided any examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred".

Again, that's okay if you believe that. As I've gone to great lengths to prove, the answer I provided in post #123 is all there is. There simply is nothing else. You've reached the end of the road. Sadly, you went looking for your own personal Holy Grail, and found that all roads led nowhere. You can put up your sword, and close all of the threads on all of the forums where you copy and pasted your exact OP.

You haven't lived up to your part of the agreement. The closing of the "thread" was contingent on you providing examples which show that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred". So far you haven't done that.

I have lived up to my end of the bargain. I have answered the question in your OP. The answer is that there is nothing else. In all of the world of Christian scholarship and apologetics, the verses I provided is all that there is. It's all that they ever intended. There is no other answer. You made a promise, and now you have to live up to it. On your behalf, I already went ahead and asked the mods to review the thread and close it.

I never agreed to do that.

Yes, you agreed in post #120. I fulfilled my end of the bargain. I gave you all that there is. There is nothing more.

[rstrats]

Since this topic is still open, perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language will know of examples to support that contention; i.e., examples which show that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.

[Adrift]

Since this topic is still open, perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using common Jewish idiomatic language will know of examples to support that contention; i.e., examples which show that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of the daytime or no part of the night time could have occurred.

There are no more than I've offered. When scholars came up with this concept they were using the methodology and examples I already laid out. As I said your search is over. There is absolutely nothing more to dig up.

[rstrats]

The question is to anybody who tries to explain the missing night time of a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection by saying that the verse is using common idiomatic/figure of speech/ colloquial/etc. language.

[Adrift]

The question is to anybody who tries to explain the missing night time of a 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection by saying that the verse is using common idiomatic/figure of speech/ colloquial/etc. language.

I've already explained this to you. There isn't anything else. Everything I posted above is all there is.

[rstrats]

Your argument is with them then, not with me.

[Adrift]

Your argument is with them then, not with me.

I'm not offering an argument. All I've done is show you the source for the "common idiomatic/figure of speech/ colloquial/etc. language" for the verse you're asking about. You can't get a better answer. You've reached the end of the line. There is nothing else.

[rstrats]

There are only 3 possible answers:

1. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur but I don't have any examples to support my assertion."

2. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur, and here are the examples to support my assertion"

3. "I was wrong about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur."

[Adrift]

There are only 3 possible answers:

1. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur but I don't have any examples to support my assertion."

2. "I am right about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur, and here are the examples to support my assertion"

3. "I was wrong about saying that it was common to forecast that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could occur."

Any way you look at it, I've offered the sources for the so-called "common idiomatic" language. Whether one accepts or rejects the opinion of those sources doesn't matter to me, but that's all there is. There isn't any more data on the subject. It goes no further back, there are no other sources, and the verses that those sources highlighted are all that is on the table. There isn't anything else.