darstec

First, bringing Corinthians or any of the epistles attrituted to Paul sheds no light on anything about the words of Jesus. Paul mentions no words of Jesus, nothing eartlly about him, no actions, no places, nothing. He doesn't even mention Jesus OF NAZARETH. In fact almost nothing of the gospels appear in Paul's writtings, so we can write him off as far as quotes. Paul got his information about the Christ from inspiration, revelation and the Old Testament. But he does mention Jesus' descent into hell in Ephesians. The scriptures to which Cor. 15:3-5 refers is considered by scholars to be Hosea 6:2 but it is a poor fit for a prophesy on the Christ because those who arise will be Ephraim Judah or more aptly their priests after release from the Assyrian wars. But look deeper into Hosea at 13:14 and we see referrences to being rescued from the nether world, and from death as in Ephesians and Jonah.

So let's move on, dismissing Paul because even though he doesn't mention the Jonah quote by Jesus, he mentions absolutely no quotes by Jesus.

Looking at Mark, the first of the gospel writers, sometime after Jesus walks on water when the seas were tossing the disciples to and fro, Jesus explicitly states there will be NO SIGN GIVEN. In Matthew, Jesus contradicts Mark and not only gives a sign, the sign of Jonah, but also parallels that with Jesus claiming to be in the earth for the same time Jonah was in the belly of the great fish. In this instance Jesus is talking shortly after picking all of his disciples. Then later in chapter 16, Matthew relates many of the same stories as found in Mark chapters 6 through 8, and again has Jesus mention the abbreviated version sans the three days and three nights, sans the belly of the big fish story, and sans the three days and three nights Jesus said he would be in the bowels of the earth. But even having Jesus mention the sign of Jonah without anything explicit, Matthew is in direct contradiction to what Mark writes.

At this point there is no clarification of an earlier writing by Mark, it is a direct contradiction. Do you honestly think if the story were historical, Matthew or Mark would play so loose with the facts, especially Matthew who has Jesus elaborate on the story just after calling all the apostles but then later tells a similar story in the same setting as Mark but contradicts Mark?

And to answer a question about Matthew -- I doubt seriously whether he "believed" Jesus was raised three whole nights AFTER (and remember according to the link I provided by mentioning three days and three nights the "AFTER" is redundant) he died any more than Margaret Mitchell "believed" that Rhett Butler said "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." GWTW was a historical novel, for entertainment as the gospels were historical novels to lend authority to a newly developing religious philosophy.

Back to Matthew's mention of Jonah for the second time (as I wrote before, the 12:40 instance could be a later interpolation), it could be pure coicidence that both stories mention a tempest at sea which was calmed by a sacrificial offering (or in the case of Jesus a soon to be sacrificial victim) but the ties to Cor 15:3-5 and Ephesians and their ties to the Jonah story are just too coincidental.

Now Luke in chapter 9 places this remark of Jesus after the storm and after the Transfiguration using the exact words of Matthew: which is rather strange considering he says the sign of Jonah would be the only sign yet just got finished giving a sign, i.e. the Transfiguration. Mark and Matthew have this abbreviated version after the walking on water but before the Transfiguration. Note that the expanded version of this incident occurs in Matthew before either the walking on water and the Transfiguration. Still Matthew and Luke contradict Mark.

And of course John leaves out the whole sign story including the Transfiguration but he does include the walking on water and the multiplying of loaves and fishes.

Going back to Mark in 8:31 we have that pesky: which as we saw in my earlier link is the same as saying he will after being in the earth for three nights and three days. Matthew repeats this episode telling us that Jesus says he will be raised ON the third day forgetting that just a few chapters earlier he wrote that Jesus said he would be in the bowels of the earth for three days and three nights. Only this time he uncoupled the saying from the signs saying and it appears similar to Mark's passage. Luke of course reports the rising to happen ON the third day like Matthew, perhaps contradicting Mark, perhaps not.

Keep in mind that three seems to be a magical number even for early Christians. Most notably of course is the Trinity. Then the Jonah story and Jesus parallel. The three figures of the Transformation. The three Predictions of the Passion. The three gifts of the Magi. The synoptic gospels' three years of ministry of Jesus. The three prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. The denial of Peter three times AFTER the cock crowed three times. Mark's rendition of Jesus' death at three in the afternoon. The three crucifixions on Golgatha. AFTER three days of being lost Mary and Joseph found Jesus at age 12 (3 X 4 all three magic numbers) teaching in the Temple. Pilate's asking the crowd three times what should be done of Jesus. The three inscriptions on the sign above the cross. And we haven't even begun to explore the magic number three in Acts, Revelation or the epistles. But then sometimes three just means three.

TedM

Thanks, darstec, for taking the time to look into this further for me. You have made some very interesting observations.


Paul clearly was immersed in early Christian tradition, and 1 Cor 15 is likely the passing along of a tradition believed by early Christians, so I consider the issue of whether he quotes Jesus or not to be irrelevant to my question. Mark, considered the earliest, doesn't attest to inspiration from the Jonah story. This is why I conclude that while we can certainly find parallels, the Jonah story probably wasn't the inspiration for the 3 day time period.

Matthew may have been influenced by Paul, but I dont' see how it is relevant to my question either. Sorry if I'm missing something here. I suspect that the references to the underworld are simply responses to the natural question early Christians would have had about a Savior's role in saving those who had died before him--ie, he descended into 'prison' to preach to them, as we also find in 1 Peter.


I didn't read this part in great depth. I read the passages about the request for signs as referring to the Pharisee's desire to see some kind of miraculous proof right then and there. If Matthew added in a comment that pertained to a later events, so be it.

That's what I found perplexing. And more reason to conclude that this wasn't the source for the 3 day tradition. If it were, we would have accounts of Jesus being in the earth during 3 nights also.


Very true, just as it was in the Judaism which preceded it. That may alone account for a 3 day tradition.


thanks again,

ted

andrewcriddle

Could you give a source for that please ?

Andrew Criddle

Chili

Three days is important for the conversion of those in the netherword where Jesus set the captives free. It is a matter of 'sinking in' so that knowledge can liberate the crucified from his own sin nature that exists in the soul. = get rid of the sinner complex.

Jonah is not the same a crucifixion. Jonah is our entrance to the promised land and crucifixion is our exit and thus where the light of common day is finally put to rest.

Berthold

This was the way the Romans counted days. "Ante tres dies(three days ago)" meant "The day before yesterday".

Chili

To arrive at a Stoic conscience (which is also well known to the Brahman) a deep soul cleansing is needed because that is where the laws are written (as if in stone) by our ancestors so they could convict the outer man of his sinfulness. To remove these laws from the human heart a three day burial seems to be required to remove this double hook from man that Jesus was torn between in the Gospels. So maybe the purpose of burial is that since we did not write these laws there by our self it takes more than just our rational will to remove these from our soul.

It can also be said that if the Kundalini must be raised from the heart to the mind the soul must now be annihilated if it does not exist for the Buddha. This would be much the same as we do not have a [celestial] sea in the new heaven and earth or why the Green Wall is blown up in WE.