Common Figure of Speech/Colloquial Language?

[rstrats]

Thomas,
re: "I've lost track of what the current issue is ..."

OK, let me repeat my post to you in post #150:

The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"

There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.

Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb or at the earliest to the time between the leaving of His spirit from His body and His resurrection on the 1st day of the week.

A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.

To account for the lack of a 3rd night, there may be some of those mentioned above who say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.

I wonder if anyone who falls in that particular group of believers might provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime and/or no part of a night time could have occurred?


Note: I have added the phrase "or at the earliest to the time between the leaving of His spirit from His body and His resurrection on the 1st day of the week" which was included in post #118 but has inadvertently been left out of subsequent posts. Sorry.

 

[rstrats]

RJM Corbet,
re: "He is asking them to provide written evidence for assuming the 'three days and three nights' of Matthew 12:40 was a common usage at the time."

More specifically examples which show that it was common practice of the period to forecast or say that a daytime or a night would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of night time could occur.



re: " He is often a bit cantankerous with what he perceives as off-topic replies and seems not at all interested in any side discussions about anything else."

Actually, I might be interested in some of them, just not for the purpose of this topic. If it's an issue that someone wishes to address, they could do so in a new topic.



re: "His query is also directed specifically at those who think that the 'heart of the earth' is referring to the tomb, rather than perhaps Christ's descent into hell -- the harrowing of hell -- between His death and resurrection, which latter is my own interpretation of the term."

See my last reply to Thomas.

 

[RJM]

RJM Corbet,
re: "He is asking them to provide written evidence for assuming the 'three days and three nights' of Matthew 12:40 was a common usage at the time."

More specifically examples which show that it was common practice of the period to forecast or say that a daytime or a night would be involved with an event when no part of a daytime or no part of night time could occur.



re: " He is often a bit cantankerous with what he perceives as off-topic replies and seems not at all interested in any side discussions about anything else."

Actually, I might be interested in some of them, just not for the purpose of this topic. If it's an issue that someone wishes to address, they could do so in a new topic.



re: "His query is also directed specifically at those who think that the 'heart of the earth' is referring to the tomb, rather than perhaps Christ's descent into hell -- the harrowing of hell -- between His death and resurrection, which latter is my own interpretation of the term."

See my last reply to Thomas.

All good. Hang in there. Threads on this site do tend to wander off and provoke discussion on other elements emerging from the OP.

 

[Thomas]

To account for the lack of a 3rd night, there may be some of those mentioned above who say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.
I wonder if anyone who falls in that particular group of believers might provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime and/or no part of a night time could have occurred?

Oh, got it.

No, I don't think there's anyone here who falls into that particular group. It's a bit niche, you have to admit.

I've seen arguments for the colloquial idiom, it makes sense to me, all cultures have them. Three days appears again and again in Scripture and scholars tend to agree it suggests a flexible period of time, we moderns being much more clock-focussed and time-conscious than the ancients. Three days and three nights then becomes an emphatic expression of the idiom, but that's just my idle speculation.

What's your interest?

 

[rstrats]

Thomas,
re: "No, I don't think there's anyone here who falls into that particular group."

But you never know about someone new visiting the topic in the future.




re: "What's your interest?"

From post #209 - What is of interest is what examples are being used by anyone who believes the crucifixion took place on the sixth day of the week with a first day of the week resurrection, and who believes the "heart of the earth" refers to the tomb, and who tries to explain the lack of a third night by saying that the Messiah was using common figure of speech/colloquial language of the period to say that is was common.

 

[Thomas]

And if I may ask ... why?

 

[rstrats]

Thomas,
re: "And if I may ask ... why?"

As I said previously, simple curiosity.

 

[Miken]

Concerning the OP, I have previously looked into the question and have not been able to find any example or documentation from the era in question that could support the contention that ‘three days and three nights’ could be applied to the period from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

BTW the three nights and days of Esther 4 really are three full nights and days before Esther breaks the fast if one does the arithmetic. She goes to the king on the third day but is still fasting until the feast that evening.

However the subject I am addressing is the Gospels or at least the Synoptic ones.

Matthew said “the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”. But he also said…

Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew 17:22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed.

Matthew 20:17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”


In the corresponding passages in Mark, “after three days” is used instead of “on the third day” (Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:32). While Luke generally follows Mark when that Gospel differs in details from Matthew,

Luke uses “on the third day” (Lk 9:22) like Matthew does. Paul also uses the phrase “on the third day” (1 Cor 15:4). We know that Luke read 1 Corinthians, since his Last Supper account quotes a passage exactly from 1 Corinthians 11.

I am not going to discuss John here or below as he tells a substantially different story about the crucifixion and resurrection. John has the crucifixion on a different day than the other Gospels and is ambiguous about the meaning of the day of Preparation.


Concerning the sixth day resurrection issue:

Mark and Luke have Jesus put in the tomb without benefit of the necessary burial anointing ritual. The Sabbath is about to begin at sundown and there is no time for it. This is the reason that the women go to the tomb early on Sunday morning, the earliest allowable opportunity for performing the anointing. This requires a sixth day crucifixion scenario. Friday afternoon death, burial by sundown, no rituals allowed from sundown Friday to after dark Saturday. First light on Sunday visit to tomb. Any other intervening days would negate the reason for visiting the tomb.

Matthew makes no mention of sundown approaching and gives no reason for going to the tomb. Only an oddly worded phrase “The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation” (Mt 27:62) gives any indication that it is now the Sabbath. Both Mark and Luke mention that the crucifixion happened on the day of Preparation for the Sabbath. Yet despite the oddities of Matthew, the presence of that phrase aligns Matthew with Mark and Luke and requires a sixth day crucifixion.

The several scriptures use differing descriptions, on the third day, after three days, three days and three nights, yet the three Synoptic Gospels still point unmistakably to a sixth day crucifixion.

 

[Miken]

Concerning the claim that the book of Esther is an example of ‘three days and three nights’ being the same as ‘on the third day’, it is not the case.

Esther 4
15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,
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.
17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.

The bolded and so in 4:16 is the actual translation of the Hebrew word וּבְכֵ֞ן
Most translations render it as ‘then’ with the inference that Esther will go to the king after the three nights and days. The KJV generally translates literally as in the above.
See the Hebrew here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/esther/4.htm

Esther 5
1 Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king's house, over against the king's house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over against the gate of the house.
2 And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight: and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre.
3 Then said the king unto her, What wilt thou, queen Esther? and what is thy request? it shall be even given thee to the half of the kingdom.
4 And Esther answered, If it seem good unto the king, let the king and Haman come this day unto the banquet that I have prepared for him.


Scenario:

Mordecai was to tell the Jews to fast for three nights and three days and Esther would also fast.

Monday, Esther tells Mordecai
Monday evening through Tuesday afternoon, first night and day of fast
Tuesday evening through Wednesday afternoon, second night and day of fast
Wednesday evening through Thursday afternoon, third night and day of fast
Thursday afternoon, Esther sees the king ‘on the third day’
Thursday evening, banquet, the fast being over

Saying that ‘three days and nights’ of fasting would allow breaking the fast ‘on the third day’ is obviously wrong. But it allows Esther to see the king on the third day but without yet breaking the fast, since the typical translation gives the wrong impression.

But saying that ‘three days and nights in the heart of the earth’ would allow a resurrection ‘on the third day’ is obviously wrong.

 

[RJM]

Concerning the OP, I have previously looked into the question and have not been able to find any example or documentation from the era in question that could support the contention that ‘three days and three nights’ could be applied to the period from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

BTW the three nights and days of Esther 4 really are three full nights and days before Esther breaks the fast if one does the arithmetic. She goes to the king on the third day but is still fasting until the feast that evening.

However the subject I am addressing is the Gospels or at least the Synoptic ones.

Matthew said “the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”. But he also said…

Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew 17:22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, 23 and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed.

Matthew 20:17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18 “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19 and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”


In the corresponding passages in Mark, “after three days” is used instead of “on the third day” (Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:32). While Luke generally follows Mark when that Gospel differs in details from Matthew,

Luke uses “on the third day” (Lk 9:22) like Matthew does. Paul also uses the phrase “on the third day” (1 Cor 15:4). We know that Luke read 1 Corinthians, since his Last Supper account quotes a passage exactly from 1 Corinthians 11.

I am not going to discuss John here or below as he tells a substantially different story about the crucifixion and resurrection. John has the crucifixion on a different day than the other Gospels and is ambiguous about the meaning of the day of Preparation.


Concerning the sixth day resurrection issue:

Mark and Luke have Jesus put in the tomb without benefit of the necessary burial anointing ritual. The Sabbath is about to begin at sundown and there is no time for it. This is the reason that the women go to the tomb early on Sunday morning, the earliest allowable opportunity for performing the anointing. This requires a sixth day crucifixion scenario. Friday afternoon death, burial by sundown, no rituals allowed from sundown Friday to after dark Saturday. First light on Sunday visit to tomb. Any other intervening days would negate the reason for visiting the tomb.

Matthew makes no mention of sundown approaching and gives no reason for going to the tomb. Only an oddly worded phrase “The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation” (Mt 27:62) gives any indication that it is now the Sabbath. Both Mark and Luke mention that the crucifixion happened on the day of Preparation for the Sabbath. Yet despite the oddities of Matthew, the presence of that phrase aligns Matthew with Mark and Luke and requires a sixth day crucifixion.

The several scriptures use differing descriptions, on the third day, after three days, three days and three nights, yet the three Synoptic Gospels still point unmistakably to a sixth day crucifixion.

The person who posted this thread in 2013 is very specific. He revisits every year or so to bump it along -- and he has the same question posted on numerous other sites too.

But he is not interested in discussing anything else except looking for a written piece of historical evidence (not necessarily Biblical) to support the explanation of 'colloquial language' from those who believe in a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection. As in:

To account for the lack of a 3rd night, there may be some of those mentioned above who say that the Messiah was employing common figure of speech/colloquial language.

I wonder if anyone who falls in that particular group of believers might provide examples to support the belief of commonality; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of a daytime and/or no part of a night time could have occurred?


Note: I have added the phrase "or at the earliest to the time between the leaving of His spirit from His body and His resurrection on the 1st day of the week" which was included in post #118 but has inadvertently been left out of subsequent posts. Sorry.

But other readers may be interested in what you have to say.

Welcome to the site

 

[rstrats]

RJM Corbet,
re: "But other readers may be interested in what you have to say."

And those off topic interests should be discussed in a new topic.

 

[Miken]

RJM Corbet,
re: "But other readers may be interested in what you have to say."

And those off topic interests should be discussed in a new topic.

The thread is already loaded with off topic interests many of which have essentially nothing at all to do with the time frame. It should be clear after all this time that there is no support for the three days and nights being a figure of speech. If you object to anyone straying at all from the OP, then the thread might as well be abandoned and a broader one started as you mention.

 

[Thomas]

The several scriptures use differing descriptions, on the third day, after three days, three days and three nights, yet the three Synoptic Gospels still point unmistakably to a sixth day crucifixion.

As scholarship now generally agrees, the most accurate timeline is John, and the resulting confusion overlooks the fact there were two sabbaths in the week in question. Factor in two sabbaths, the three-day-three-night problem evaporates.

 

[Miken]

As scholarship now generally agrees, the most accurate timeline is John, and the resulting confusion overlooks the fact there were two sabbaths in the week in question. Factor in two sabbaths, the three-day-three-night problem evaporates.

John's timeline is ambiguous.

John has the Last Supper take place in the evening of 14 Nisan, i.e. after sundown on the day before Passover begins. It is therefore not a Passover Seder as it is in the Synoptic Gospels. This eliminates the major problem of the priests and the elders and the scribes having planned to have a trial, complete with witnesses, overnight on the first night of Passover. So far so good. (However, it also eliminates the Eucharist institution.)

The Synoptic Gospels present a variety of timeframe expectations about the resurrection – on the third day, after three days, three days and nights. John is not clear. The only reference is in John 3:18-22. Jesus says, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”, referring to his body and the resurrection. Is that on the third day, after three days or after three days and nights?

The Synoptic Gospels have the crucifixion happen in the afternoon on the first day of Passover. Mark and Luke state clearly that this is the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath. This can only be the weekly Sabbath. (Matthew’s reference is a little odd but let that be for now.) All three Synoptic Gospels have the visit to the tomb on Sunday morning, Mark and Luke have it in order to perform the anointing that could not be done once the weekly Sabbath had begun. Matthew omits any reason for going.

John’s language is ambiguous and that would seem to be intentional.

The crucifixion took place on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. (Jn 19:4)

The bodies could not remain on the cross because it was the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath, that being a ‘great’ Sabbath. (Jn 19:31) What does John mean by ‘Sabbath’? Is this the weekly Sabbath on which the first day of Passover happens to fall? Or is it just the first day of Passover and John is calling it a great Sabbath because Sabbath rules will be in effect, such as no bodies hanging on crosses? The day of the week is ambiguous. The crucifixion might have been on a Friday or it might have been some other day.

As with the other Gospels, John has the visit to the tomb on Sunday morning but gives no reason. In fact, he has eliminated the reason given by Mark and Luke by having the anointing already done before burial. To make sure you do not miss it, the anointing consists of a huge amount of myrrh and aloes. Also, unlike the other Gospels, John has only Mary Magdalene go to the tomb for unstated reasons.

Does John have Jesus crucified on a Friday afternoon and a visit to the tomb for unknown reasons on Sunday morning? That is, Passover fell on the weekly Sabbath.

Or does John have Jesus crucified on some other unspecified day and a visit to the tomb for unknown reasons on Sunday morning? That is, Passover did not fall on the weekly Sabbath.

The ’on the third day, after three days, three days and three nights’ problem does not evaporate. It just gets swept under the rug, allowing the reader to apply their favorite interpretation.

 

[Miken]

As per rstats request I have started a new thread for this topic.

 

[rstrats]

Miken,
re: "The thread is already loaded with off topic interests many of which have essentially nothing at all to do with the time frame."

Actually, the issue of this topic is not about a time frame. It's about the commonality of forecasting or saying 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.

 

[Miken]

Miken,
re: "The thread is already loaded with off topic interests many of which have essentially nothing at all to do with the time frame."

Actually, the issue of this topic is not about a time frame. It's about the commonality of forecasting or saying 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.

Which is why we took the other stuff to another thread. Nothing more to say on this thread. See my post #235 one up from here. Post #234 was duplicated om the other thread.
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19475/

 

[rstrats]

re: "Which is why we took the other stuff to another thread."

I was merely commenting on your statement that this topic has to do with the time frame. I thought you were saying that that was the issue with this topic.

 

[RJM]

Which is why we took the other stuff to another thread. Nothing more to say on this thread. See my post #235 one up from here. Post #234 was duplicated om the other thread.
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19475/

re: "Which is why we took the other stuff to another thread."

I was merely commenting on your statement that this topic has to do with the time frame. I thought you were saying that that was the issue with this topic.

@Miken comment above was actually written on August 28th, but just 'released' today, through an undue delay because of stuff going on behind the scenes during the past week. All sorted now.

There's a probationary period for new members with links posted by them needing to be checked, to protect everyone from spammers, etc. But the delay is normally no more than a day or two.

Apologies to both of you for the confusion.

 

[rstrats]

RJM Corbet,
re: "Apologies to both of you for the confusion."

I'm afraid I don't see to what confusion you are referring with regard to any delays. What am I missing?