GakuseiDon

From this Miller's Christian Think Tank article, I see the relevence of Esther 4:16 now. There it also says "3 days and nights", but the action takes place on the 3rd day. Either the Bible is muddled (e.g. copyist error, or the Bible is plain wrong), or it is some kind of idiom. As this occurs in a few places, it would appear to be used as some kind of idiom.

Definitely there was no 3rd night. But then there could have been no 3rd night in Esther, either.

I've seen this problem raised a few times, and would love to get to the bottom of it. Was "3 days and nights" used by the ancient Hebrews in such a way that it is consistent with its usage in the NT? There do appear to be similar examples in the OT. But how about in Jesus's time?

Gawen

Nearly spewed me tea when I read that...

Steven Carr

Do you mean the period in Esther was more than 48 hours, unlike Jesus's 36 or so?

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq079.html

36 hours cannot be equated to 72.

In his article Miller claims '
2. jesus death on Friday afternoon would have been part of the Thursday nite/Friday daylight "day".

3. thus, we have THREE 'day/night' days involved: "thur nite/friday daylight", "friday nite/sat daylight", "sat night/sunday daylight" (remembering again that a part of a period counted for the WHOLE)'

Of course, John 20 says 'On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.'

It was still dark, and Jesus was already gone.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_86.html has the Talmudic ruling that Miller uses.

Clearly it states that a part of a day or a night could be used as a whole day or night, but it was not the case, that a bit of a day counted as a day and a night.

''Onah, pl, 'onoth, is the technical term of a day or a night when these are equal.'

Sheshbazzar

For those who care to figure it out, and to "get their ducks in a row."

On the day of the Crucifixion specific reference is made to "the third hour", "the sixth hour", and to "the ninth hour", of that day;

What hour in the month was this "third hour"?
What hour in the year was this "sixth hour"?
What hour in that day was this "ninth hour"?

How many hours are in forty nine days? in fifty?
How many hours are in one hundred five days?
How many hours are in seven and a half weeks?

Respectfully, Sheshbazzar

GakuseiDon

That's the claim that I'm interested in. A day was measured from sundown to sundown, so theoretically Friday includes the Thursday night. Did the day that Jesus was crucified start at sundown the night before? I think, according to the ancient Hebrews, we'd have to say yes. But is that enough to fulfill the 3 days-3 nights statement? The "jewsforjudaism" article says not.

The key statement in Miller's article is: Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as the whole. The reference given is J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a.

Did Azariah really say that? Can anyone help with this?

The link you give above is interesting. The comment attributed to Azariah is:

Our Rabbis taught: if one [a woman] discharges semen on the third day, she is clean; this is the view of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah.13 (Thus, if she cohabits on Thursday and discharges on the Sabbath, she is clean, no matter at which part of the two days intimacy and discharge took place.)

So, if it doesn't matter which part of the days they are, then the period from Thursday evening to Saturday morning would count as "3 days", with Saturday being the 3rd day. Whether that fits into "3 days and nights" though would depend on whether the expression was used as an idiom or not. But it sounds consistent with what has been attributed to Azariah... if indeed he said that!

Steven Carr

Seems pretty desperate to include Thursday night as one of the 3 nights Jesus spent underground.


There are rabbis who refuse to shake hands with a woman, just in case she is menstruating.

That ruling (about an Onah being a day and a night) seemed to apply only to menstruation, and seemed to be prudish rabbis wanting to avoid any contact with a menstruating women. So some rabbis made the time period longer just for that.

I cannot find the Talmudic reference on the web, and Miller certainly is not going to give the full context in his article.


Lightfoot's commentary says 'Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Schabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things, these words occur; "R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanon saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole."

Note that Azariah is only one opinion - clearly Jesus was of the Rabbi Azariah school and not the Rabbi Akiba school.

Or perhaps apologists will take one disputed opinion from the Talmud (in the context of menstruation), and apply it as the definitive Jewish view, applicable to all times and contexts (sorry, all times and contexts that suit apologists) Context? What context? One Jew said it once, so if it suits them, then this can be stretched to be what Jesus meant.....

Normally, an Onah is either daylight or nighttime
http://modzitz.org/torah/kisetzei.htm '." The Gemara [Bava Metzia, 110b] explains that the verse in Vayikra refers to a day worker, who may collect his wage throughout the night [he has to be paid by daybreak], while our verse refers to a night worker, who has to be paid by sunset of the following day. Rashi in Vayikra explains that "the Torah gives the employer one onah [an onah is a 'time-period' of either daytime or nighttime] to come up with the money [to pay the wages]."

Amaleq13

An article discussing this same topic can be found here

I think the reference ultimately derives from the ancient notion that you weren't really, truly dead until you had been dead for three days. By that time, a dead body apparently shows clear signs of deterioration.

Paul is our earliest Christian reference to the concept and he claims to be relying on Scripture:

“And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:� (1Cor 15:4)

The specific passage is generally understood to be Ps 16:10 given the background knowledge that "corruption" of the body started after three days:

“For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.�

Carrier addresses this subject here :

"Most interesting of all is an ancient Jewish document called the Tractate of Mourning (Semahot ), which describes the very reasons for the tradition of going to the tomb on the third day (counting inclusively--thus, the second day after burial, by our reckoning): "One should go to the cemetery to check the dead within three days, and not fear that such smacks of pagan practices. There was actually one buried man who was visited after three days and lived for twenty-five more years and had sons, and died afterward" (8.1, translation by Shmuel Safrai, "Home and Family," The Jewish People in the First Century (1976), vol. 2, pp. 784-5). In other words, misdiagnosis was actually common enough that an entire tradition was developed to make sure people were not buried by mistake--the very tradition which probably motivated Mary's visit to the tomb of Jesus in the first place! The Romans also delayed funerals for the very same reason (reported by Ps.-Quintilian, as discussed by D.R. Shackleton Bailey in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 88 (1984), pp. 113-37). Moreover, Celsus, a medical encyclopedist of the 1st century, estimated that even the best doctors erred in misdiagnosing death roughly 1 in 1000 times ( De Medicina 1.109-17), a sentiment corroborated by Pliny ( NH 2.619-31).�

He also addresses the connection between three days and various Savior myths here

GakuseiDon

If Azariah, who was writing around 100 CE, actually said "A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole", then that would add a lot of weight to the idea. GMatt itself would become an example of that.

Yes, I agree, that is suspicious in itself. I've tried to check the references he provides, but I can't find an online version listing those passages. Perhaps Azariah never actually said that?

I think that GMatt was of Azariah's school would have to be the conclusion. As GMatt was written around the time that Azariah lived, that's a rather strong association.

Yes, that definitely happens. But I've also seen it go the other way, as well. Wouldn't GMatt actually be an example of the application of Azariah's view? If we were asking "how was onah understood at that time?" GMatt would certainly be used as evidence.

Yes, no doubt about that. But the concern is the use of the expression "3 days and nights". Was this an idiom? Was GMatt a valid use of that idiom?

RRK

I thought the ancient peoples reckoned time inclusively. Thus, if today is Friday, Sunday is three days from now.

Steven Carr

If today is Friday, Sunday is three days from now, and the elusive third night is Thursday.

There you are. No contradiction.