Ah, memories ... there's nothing quite like walking barefoot in the dark to the loo in the middle of the night and discovering the cat's been sick on the landing.Don't know, but I bet at least one disciple stepped in a poodle!
Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?
- Thread starter rstrats
- Start date
We simply are unaware of what the 'river turned red", or any other saying may have meant at the time to the author or his audience....for instance we know inns typically never had rooms for families, they had one room.for men and one for women...family travelers stayed with friends or camped out...no room.at the inn, born in a manger, not uncommon...
My bad: post 130.
I think the concluding remark says it:
"So, again (of samples), we can see that the three consecutive days were Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
In short, while the expression "three days and three nights" is a little unfamiliar as an idiom to our English-listening ears, with all the Biblical data, it becomes clear what was meant, and that what was meant was fully consistent with the rest of Scripture."
So whether one accepts the tradition of the crucifixion on a Friday, or the probably more accurate testimony of a Thursday, then the expression should be no cause for concern, once one gets one's head round the Hebrew idiomatic style.
I think the concluding remark says it:
"So, again (of samples), we can see that the three consecutive days were Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
In short, while the expression "three days and three nights" is a little unfamiliar as an idiom to our English-listening ears, with all the Biblical data, it becomes clear what was meant, and that what was meant was fully consistent with the rest of Scripture."
So whether one accepts the tradition of the crucifixion on a Friday, or the probably more accurate testimony of a Thursday, then the expression should be no cause for concern, once one gets one's head round the Hebrew idiomatic style.
Last edited:
Well yes and no? From the layman's POV, yes.
But if you're a scholar of the language, its narrative styles, and most of all its over-arching context, then we have a broader understanding.
A Greek scholar on my course spoke about spending hours figuring out the translation of a particular term or phrase in the Greek patristic texts. You have to look at other uses of the same term/phrase, and context, etc., etc. If you look up a word in Strong's Concordance, for example, it provides examples of the word in the broader Greek literary field.
This is a good example. We read with a kind of unthought assumption that Joseph arrives at a Travelodge or equivalent. How many readers know architectural styles or cultural practices of the day? My question is: why didn't he stay with family?
So what is the narrative saying? The point that Christ was not born the son of a king or even the well-to-do, but a son of the people. Likewise the last to visit were the 'three wise men', the first were shepherds. It's not the forensic detail that's in question, it's the context, the meaning, the message.
Thomas,
re: "So whether one accepts the tradition of the crucifixion on a Friday, or the probably more accurate testimony of a Thursday, then the expression should be no cause for concern, once one gets one's head round the Hebrew idiomatic style."
But the only issue for this particular topic deals with the commonality of "style". If someone thinks it was common to forecast or say 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 be involved, I am simply asking their support for that thinking, i.e., actual examples where that had to be the case.
re: "So whether one accepts the tradition of the crucifixion on a Friday, or the probably more accurate testimony of a Thursday, then the expression should be no cause for concern, once one gets one's head round the Hebrew idiomatic style."
But the only issue for this particular topic deals with the commonality of "style". If someone thinks it was common to forecast or say 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 be involved, I am simply asking their support for that thinking, i.e., actual examples where that had to be the case.
Thomas,
re: "My bad: post 130."
As I said in post 131, I don't see where the link shows examples where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred. What do you have in mind?
Also, you referenced Esther 4:16/Esther 5:1 in post 130; - And I replied that nothing in the Esther account precludes at least a portion of each one of 3 daytimes and at least a portion of each one of 3 night times. Why do you think that it does?
re: "My bad: post 130."
As I said in post 131, I don't see where the link shows examples where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of a night time could have occurred. What do you have in mind?
Also, you referenced Esther 4:16/Esther 5:1 in post 130; - And I replied that nothing in the Esther account precludes at least a portion of each one of 3 daytimes and at least a portion of each one of 3 night times. Why do you think that it does?
LOL. There's loads of support and examples. Google it.
But basically, your continuing this fruitless line of questioning shows a lack of understanding of Hebrew idiom and of Scripture:
The Babylonian Talmud: "The portion of a day is as the whole of it." (Mishnah, Third Tractate, "B. Pesachim," p. 4a). The Jerusalem Talmud: "We have a teaching: 'A day and a night are an onah and the portion of an onah is as the whole of it.'"(Mishnah, Tractate "J. Shabbath," Chapter IX, Par. 3. 'Onah' (Hebrew): "a period of time").
For the Jewish scribe, any part of a period was considered a full period. Any part of a day was reckoned as a complete day. Your looking for actual examples is irrelevant.
OK. Last effort.
Let's go back to the original question:
Then we have part day Friday. The whole of Saturday and part day Sunday, and of Sunday just a few hours, as we assume Mary went to the tomb at dawn, or shortly thereafter, and found it empty.
So you have, at best, two part days and one complete day, and just two nights. Maybe just thirty six hours, maybe forty eight, but that would be the longest, I think.
But from a Hebrew perspective, 'three days and three nights' because of the teachings contained in the Talmud.
Let's go back to the original question:
Yes, that is correct.
Yes. The crucifixion. Supposing it happened as the common tradition holds, that Christ was crucified on the afternoon on Friday, and rose on the Sunday.
Then we have part day Friday. The whole of Saturday and part day Sunday, and of Sunday just a few hours, as we assume Mary went to the tomb at dawn, or shortly thereafter, and found it empty.
So you have, at best, two part days and one complete day, and just two nights. Maybe just thirty six hours, maybe forty eight, but that would be the longest, I think.
But from a Hebrew perspective, 'three days and three nights' because of the teachings contained in the Talmud.
It's clearly meant as a figure of speech. These are just a couple of references quickly googled:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-20-2.html
... "hired for a day"; concerning whom is the following rule F17:
``he that is hired for a day, may demand it all the night; and he that is hired for a night may demand it all the day: he that is hired for hours, may demand it all the night, and all the day; he that is hired for a week, he that is hired for a month, he that is hired for a year, he that is hired for seven, if he goes out in the day, may demand all the day; and if he goes out in the night, he may demand it all the night, and all the day.''
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/81/t/three-days-and-three-nights
"...It would be a ... mistake to seize upon any one of the expressions used and force its strict compliance with our interpretation without reference to the other sixteen texts on the subject.
"(Jesus) used all of the expressions at different times in speaking of His death and resurrection. In Matthew 12:40 He said, "three days and three nights,” but in Mark 8:31 He said, "after three days.” He referred to the same event in John 2:19 as "in three days,” and on five occasions He said, "the third day.” Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 13:32; 24:46." ...
There are many Biblical passages with which one may dispute a literal reading of every word and phrase.
Does three days and three nights mean exactly 72 hours? Does 5000 mean exactly 5000? Not 4999?
Those who insist on an absolutely literal reading of the Bible seem to do so anyway, regardless ...
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-20-2.html
... "hired for a day"; concerning whom is the following rule F17:
``he that is hired for a day, may demand it all the night; and he that is hired for a night may demand it all the day: he that is hired for hours, may demand it all the night, and all the day; he that is hired for a week, he that is hired for a month, he that is hired for a year, he that is hired for seven, if he goes out in the day, may demand all the day; and if he goes out in the night, he may demand it all the night, and all the day.''
https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/81/t/three-days-and-three-nights
"...It would be a ... mistake to seize upon any one of the expressions used and force its strict compliance with our interpretation without reference to the other sixteen texts on the subject.
"(Jesus) used all of the expressions at different times in speaking of His death and resurrection. In Matthew 12:40 He said, "three days and three nights,” but in Mark 8:31 He said, "after three days.” He referred to the same event in John 2:19 as "in three days,” and on five occasions He said, "the third day.” Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 13:32; 24:46." ...
There are many Biblical passages with which one may dispute a literal reading of every word and phrase.
Does three days and three nights mean exactly 72 hours? Does 5000 mean exactly 5000? Not 4999?
Those who insist on an absolutely literal reading of the Bible seem to do so anyway, regardless ...
Last edited:
He woke up earlier than he thought/predicted
In Mark 8:31 Jesus says "after three days”.
Mark was the first gospel written.
In Matthew 12:40 it's written as "three days and three nights".
In John 2.19 it's "three days".
In Luke13:32 and 24:46 it's "on the third day", as it is in Matthew 16:21; 17:23 and 20:19.
So in only one of several passages is the "three nights" added, and it is not written that way in the first gospel, that of Mark, from which it was originally taken.
It's supposed that Matthew had the gospel of Mark available when he wrote his gospel, and that Luke had both that of Mark and Matthew to refer to when he wrote his.
The gospel of John was written separately and independent of the other three 'synoptic' gospels and makes no mention of 'nights'.
So, as @Thomas observes, the written reference you seek is Matthew 12.40 itself. It's a perfect example really of "three days" being colloquially written as "three days and three nights".
ie: a period of time longer than one or two 24 hour days but less than a seven day week. "Three days and three nights ... ish"?
(post edited)
Last edited:
Matthew's Gospel was written to the Jewish people of his day, to be contrasted with Mark's Gospel written to the people in Rome, Luke's written to Theophilus (an actual person or “lover of God” as his name is translated is debated), and John's written to Gentile Christians with his own unique purpose (John 20:31).Jan 26, 2012
Matthew 2 - Why did Matthew write his account of the Gospel of Jesus ...
Matthew 2 - Why did Matthew write his account of the Gospel of Jesus ...