Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 07-16-2004, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRK

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

That's true. Most of the references in the Bible are to Jesus rising on the third day. As you say, that isn't a problem. However, in GMatt, the expression "3 days and 3 nights" is used. Even used inclusively, there is no way that there are 3 days and nights between the time Jesus was crucified to the time He was resurrected. The problem is, why did GMatt use that?

I'm not interested in the literalist paradigm that contradictionalists and apologists engage in. But this is something that's been floating around for a while, so it would be good to find some resolution. Did Azariah, writing around 100 CE, actually said "A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole", and was "3 days and nights" an idiom that was compatible to "3 days"?

Steven Carr · 07-16-2004, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Did Azariah, writing around 100 CE, actually said "A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole", and was "3 days and nights" an idiom that was compatible to "3 days"?

All I've ever seen was Lightfoot's commentary, where he claims that was in the Talmud.

For example, here http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ay/011873.html

Yuri Kuchinsky · 07-16-2004, 11:38 AM

Greetings, all,

In various gospel accounts, Jesus spent various amounts of time in the tomb -- either 3, or 2, or even less than 2 days. But all these accounts seem like later additions/corrections.

In fact, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the earliest Christian tradition was that Jesus was assumed into the heavens right at the moment of his death on the cross. And so, all these rather confused accounts of the "3 days in the Tomb" can be considered as the later additions to the faith (as part of the shift towards the observance of the Sunday Easter -- rather than the quartodeciman Easter).

Alfred Loisy has dealt with this matter in some detail. His books can be found for free on the Net.

All the best,

Yuri

Amaleq13 · 07-16-2004, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

In fact, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the earliest Christian tradition was that Jesus was assumed into the heavens right at the moment of his death on the cross.

So is 1 Cor 15:4 understood to be a later interpolation?

“And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:�?

Toto · 07-16-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

. . .
In fact, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the earliest Christian tradition was that Jesus was assumed into the heavens right at the moment of his death on the cross. And so, all these rather confused accounts of the "3 days in the Tomb" can be considered as the later additions to the faith (as part of the shift towards the observance of the Sunday Easter -- rather than the quartodeciman Easter).

Alfred Loisy has dealt with this matter in some detail. His books can be found for free on the Net.

All the best,

Yuri

Is this what you are thinking of? I can't find a reference to earliest traditions holding that Jesus' resurrection followed directly his death on the cross.

Kirby has Birth of the Christian Religion and Birth of the New Testament

From The Origins of the New Testament - Chapter 7 on John:

Quote:

The death of the Johannine Christ provides no scene of agony, ignominy and darkness, for it is nothing else than the resurrection of Jesus to his glorious and blessed eternity; his death and his resurrection are coincident. We must bear that in mind if we are to understand the meaning attached to Easter by the quartodeciman Christians of Asia.

Their Easter, coinciding with the Jewish Passover, might fall on any one of the seven days of the week, but it is a fact to be noted that up to this point our Gospel had not told us on which day the Christ's death took place. We are now going to be told, and to see how the Johannine Easter was made to fit in, by one means or another, to the synoptic framework in which Easter is celebrated on Sunday. The very first incident to follow the death of Jesus in the Johannine account informs us that Jesus died on the evening of a Friday and that he had to be buried before the Sabbath of next day. In its basic form the passage (xix, 31-37) informing us of the finishing blow administered to the victims and the prompt removal of the three bodies for common burial (31) is quite independent of the Synoptics and may well represent an important tradition, inasmuch as this tradition would contradict not only the stories of the Christ's burial in the Synoptics but those which, under synoptic influence, are now to follow in the Gospel before us. But, in the traditional form in which it comes down to us, there are features in the paragraph which class it among the latest additions to be found in our Gospel; these are, first, the symbolism of the water and the blood betokening the Christian sacraments, and, second, the calling up of a text from Exodus (xii, 46), "not a bone of his body shall be broken," which symbolically identifies the Christ with the paschal lamb, and another from Zechariah (xii, 10), surcharged upon the former, and made to predict the lance-thrust of the Roman soldier. The passage referring to the incident in the first Johannine Epistle (i John v, 6-7) is also an interpolation in that Epistle, but stands there as the authorized interpretation of the Gospel passage now before us, the two possibly coming from the same writer. According to this interpretation we are to understand
[233] the Spirit which John the Baptist saw descending on Jesus and which Jesus, with his last breath, poured out upon his own, as connected with water and blood, the water of baptism and the blood of Calvary figured in the Eucharist, the two together bearing one inseparable witness to the immortal Christ.

. . .
The story of the burial by Joseph of Arimathea is borrowed from the synoptic tradition. To him has been added Nicodemus who brings with him a great weight of spices to furnish the Christ with a princely embalmment. (The compiler forgets that the utmost haste was necessary to get the body buried before the Sabbath began, and that an embalmment on this scale would be a very lengthy operation.) Needless to say the "garden" in which the sepulchre is situated has a mystic meaning: it is the new garden of God where the Church, the new Eve, will be drawn from the side of the new Adam; the new sepulchre and the spices belong to the same current. But it may well be doubted whether the author of the Gospel in its original form, who understood everything in a spiritual sense, and the resurrection most emphatically so, was concerned to this extent with the dead body of Jesus, or that he is responsible for the stories in our present fourth Gospel which turn the resurrection into a miracle of the physical order, attested by material proofs.

Amlodhi · 07-17-2004, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's the claim that I'm interested in.

Hello GakuseiDon,

Aggadah (component of the Talmud that deals with non-legal subjects) Pesachim (4a)

Concerning: Don't be a bearer of bad tidings:

Pesachim (4a) "[The Gemara relates how Rav avoided reporting the death of his parents.] Rav was the son of R. Chiya's brother and the son of [R. Chiya's] sister. [Aivu, Rav's father and R. Chiya were born of the same father, and Rav's mother and R. Chiya were born of the same mother.] when Rav went [from Babylonia] to Eretz Yisrael, R. Chiya asked him, "Is your father alive?" He replied, "[Ask me instead whether] my mother is alive." "Is your mother alive?" he asked. "Are you then sure that my father is alive?" he replied. [Then R. Chiya gathered that both had died.] Thereupon R. Chiya said to his servant, "Take off my shoes [in mourning for my brother and my sister], and carry my bathing clothes after me to the baths."

From this three laws can be derived:

(1) A mourner is forbidden to wear shoes;
(2) when the report of a death is received after thirty days, mourning is observed for one day only [instead of seven]; and
(3) a part of the day counts as a full day, [for he planned to go to the baths after an hour, without waiting a full day]."

From: [Ein Yaakov, the Ethical and Inspirational Teachings of the Talmud; compliled in the 16th cent. by Rabbi Yaakov Ibn Chaviv, pgs. 156-157, Jason Aronson inc. pub., Jerusalem]

As to Shabbat 9.3, I have also read that, in other places, the Talmud states that part of a span is not equivalent to the whole and that this opinion regards only ritual cleanness. [However, that is strictly from memory and I can provide no reference.]

Hoping this might be at least a little help,

Amlodhi

GakuseiDon · 07-17-2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amlodhi

Hello GakuseiDon,

Aggadah (component of the Talmud that deals with non-legal subjects) Pesachim (4a)

Concerning: Don't be a bearer of bad tidings:

Pesachim (4a) "[The Gemara relates how Rav avoided reporting the death of his parents.] Rav was the son of R. Chiya's brother and the son of [R. Chiya's] sister. [Aivu, Rav's father and R. Chiya were born of the same father, and Rav's mother and R. Chiya were born of the same mother.] when Rav went [from Babylonia] to Eretz Yisrael, R. Chiya asked him, "Is your father alive?" He replied, "[Ask me instead whether] my mother is alive." "Is your mother alive?" he asked. "Are you then sure that my father is alive?" he replied. [Then R. Chiya gathered that both had died.] Thereupon R. Chiya said to his servant, "Take off my shoes [in mourning for my brother and my sister], and carry my bathing clothes after me to the baths."

From this three laws can be derived:

(1) A mourner is forbidden to wear shoes;
(2) when the report of a death is received after thirty days, mourning is observed for one day only [instead of seven]; and
(3) a part of the day counts as a full day, [for he planned to go to the baths after an hour, without waiting a full day]."

From: [Ein Yaakov, the Ethical and Inspirational Teachings of the Talmud; compliled in the 16th cent. by Rabbi Yaakov Ibn Chaviv, pgs. 156-157, Jason Aronson inc. pub., Jerusalem]

As to Shabbat 9.3, I have also read that, in other places, the Talmud states that part of a span is not equivalent to the whole and that this opinion regards only ritual cleanness. [However, that is strictly from memory and I can provide no reference.]

Hoping this might be at least a little help,

Amlodhi

Thanks, Amlodhi. From the part you quoted from the B. Talmud, there doesn't seem to be a mention of R. Azariah. Is it safe to say that this wasn't said by him?

Amlodhi · 07-17-2004, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

. . .there doesn't seem to be a mention of R. Azariah. Is it safe to say that this wasn't said by him?

I'm not an expert in the substantial history of the Jewish Sages, but as far as the reference to the Pesachim is concerned, I think that is safe to say. To the best of my current understanding, the person referred to in the quoted passage as "Rav" would be Abba Arikha who founded an academy at Sura c. 220 c.e.

This of course does not mean that the other citation (Shabbat 9.3) is not attributed to R. Eliezer b. Azariah. But note, it's R. Eliezer rather than R. Azariah.

Again, hope this helps a bit,

Amlodhi

Sensei Meela · 07-17-2004, 09:57 AM

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ488.HTM
This site states that "three days and three nights" is a Hebrew idiom that means simply "three days"...it's not very academic, however, and appears to be asserted without (strong) support.

http://www.mayimhayim.org/Hebrew%20P...Idioms.RX5.htm
This site lists a number of Hebrew idioms found in the Tanahk...sadly, "[three] days and nights" isn't among them.

http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/3days.htm
This site also declares the term is a Hebrew idiom, and goes on to provide some citiations. From their page:

Quote:

"Three days and three nights" is a Hebrew idiom that the Greek of Matthew 12:40 follows. Concerning this idiom, a near contemporary of Jesus, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (circa A.D. 100), said, "A day and a night make an 'onah [a twenty-four hour period], and the portion of an 'onah is reckoned as a complete 'onah."7 In Hebrew, then, a portion of a day could be counted as a complete day. As R. T. France writes, "Three days and three nights was a Jewish idiom appropriate to a period covering only two nights."8 Numerous commentators support this position. Although written in Greek, Matthew 12:40 expresses the Hebrew idiom—"three days and three nights"—that was understood by the Jews listening to Jesus to mean one full day and portions of two others with the intervening nights.

Flying in the face of this evidence, Armstrong appeals to some anonymous "higher critics" who supposedly "admit that in the Hebrew language, in which the book of Jonah was written, the expression 'three days and three nights' means a period of 72 hours—three 12-hour days and three 12-hour nights."9 The scripture in question in Jonah is, "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."

I also did a quick google search for a book to detail such idioms and found: Maskilon III: Hebrew-English Learner's Dictionary: With a List of Hebrew Abbreviations & a List of Hebrew Idioms
...though, I can make no comments about it. [mods wanna double-check the url?]

Hope that'll help!

John Powell · 07-17-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote:

STEVEN CARR:
The Christian Cadre article refers to a ruling in the Talmud about menstruation.

Can you find these rulings in the Talmud, where only menstruation is referred to? They seem to be modern rulings.

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.

POWELL:
It *IS* an idiom. However, the idiom "for 3 days and 3 nights" does NOT mean "for 3 days and 2 nights." It's similar to the idiom we still use today. "For 3 days and 3 nights" does not necessarily mean a complete 72 hours beginning with daylight, but it might mean that long or as little as parts of 3 days and 3 nights (48 hours and a little bit).

Quote:

STEVEN CARR:
I shall quote '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.'

We have the same rules about rounding parts of days. 4 days after a football game on Sunday is Thursday, even if the game took place late on Sunday. But not even Americans count Friday evening to Sunday morning as 3 days and 3 nights, although I'm sure some video rental shops might charge for 3 nights rental.

Anyway which was the third night Jesus spent in the ground - was it the Friday night or the Saturday night?

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

POWELL:
Steven's question is the one that needs to be answered by apologists, but they dance around it and imply the ridiculous notion that to the Jews or to God "3 nights" = "2 nights."

There would be a third night for Esther if the fast began during the night rather than during the day, which seems indicated by Esther mentioning "night" before "day".

Quote:

GAKUSEIDON:
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?

POWELL:
There are other examples in the Bible and as far as I can tell, the Jews used "for 3 days and 3 nights" to mean "for at least parts of 3 days and parts of 3 nights up to a maximum of 3 days and 3 nights" sort of how we do.

Esther 4:16 (KJV):
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.

Esther 4:16 (YLT):
16. `Go, gather all the Jews who are found in Shushan, and fast for me, and do not eat nor drink three days, by night and by day; also I and my young women do fast likewise, and so I go in unto the king, that [is] not according to law, and when I have perished -- I have perished.'

POWELL:
This scripture in Esther is irrelevant to what "for 3 days and 3 nights" means since all Esther said is to fast "[for] 3 days." The qualifier "night or day" apparently meant that they should not merely fast during, say, the daylight periods and then eat at night, but that they should fast continuously until the 3rd day when she was going to risk death for seeking the king's attention without being called.

Besides, even if Esther had meant "for 3 nights and 3 days," if the fast began after sunset on the first day (which would be implied by her listing "night" before listing "day" in this hypothetical) then on the third daylight period after the fast began then it would have included parts of 3 nights and parts of 3 days.

Let's assume that Esther spoke to Mordecai late on Thursday afternoon and that she wanted the fast to begin that night (Friday night) and she planned to see the King on Sunday, the third day of the fast.

The fast begins Friday night (night 1). The fast continues on Friday day (day 1), Saturday night (night 2), Saturday day (day 2), Sunday night (night 3), and ends on Sunday day (day 3). Esther approaches the king on Sunday day. That would include at least parts of 3 nights and 3 days.

The apologists are still in a pickle.

John Powell

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2004, 11:38 AM	#23
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Greetings, all, In various gospel accounts, Jesus spent various amounts of time in the tomb -- either 3, or 2, or even less than 2 days. But all these accounts seem like later additions/corrections. In fact, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the earliest Christian tradition was that Jesus was assumed into the heavens right at the moment of his death on the cross. And so, all these rather confused accounts of the "3 days in the Tomb" can be considered as the later additions to the faith (as part of the shift towards the observance of the Sunday Easter -- rather than the quartodeciman Easter). Alfred Loisy has dealt with this matter in some detail. His books can be found for free on the Net. All the best, Yuri

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.